« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »

July 31, 2006

Being a Good Republican Doesn't Always Mean Cutting Taxes

I am deeply distressed by the report that Oregon Republicans as a party have decided to back TABOR. I am also deeply concerned that Ron Saxton continues to kiss up to the right wing by implying support for the measure while keeping his finger sharply tuned to the direction of the wind.

Some Republicans support limiting State spending because they believe the State has been irresponsible in its allocation of funds, particularly to schools; therefore, they believe, funding must be cut ever-further in order to eventually force the "liberals" to spend the money as the conservatives believe it should be spent. As Russ Walker of Freedomworks said in support of TABOR:

"The average guy knows that government is not spending his tax dollars wisely."

For these people, it's an all-or-nothing fight. If they do not like how any part of the money is spent, they will take the money away. Screw compromise. Those pinko-commie liberals don't have any right to a voice in my country anyway! This type of conservative does not know or care to find out that Oregon doing better than expected with its already limited revenues and school funding isn't excessive the way right-wing organizations have portrayed it.

Other Republicans – those "average guys" why rely on "common sense" (i.e. the lies of people like Paul Jacob) - vote for every tax cut placed before them because that is the Republican thing to do and they are good Republicans (down with RINOS!).

Both of these reasons are a display of mindless idiocy. If there is one thing I know, it is that tax policy deeply affects every American. It is not something to approach cavalierly. It is not something to approach from a pre-determined, closed-minded position. Most people don't know diddly about economics or government finance. To take the attitude that most outspoken Republicans take is arrogant and irresponsible.

Similarly, to always mindlessly vote for more money for schools, parks, libraries, etc. without understanding how it will be spent, whether it is needed, or what it will cost Grandma, who is living on Social Security, just because good Democrats always vote for schools, parks and libraries, is also arrogant and irresponsible.

We have many political parties in this country for a reason. We are a country made up of a lot of very different people. Every one of us has an equal place at the table where we have a right and responsibility to work together. Government is the means by which we do that. And it is disrespectful to the extreme of our democracy to sit down at that table determined to force your views on everyone else without listening to or understanding the facts.

TABOR is a particularly serious step to take. The fact that the Republican party of Oregon was so willing to back it demonstrates a sobering lack of critical thinking or leadership within the party. I can only hope Ron Saxton will have the balls to admit publicly what he seems to believe privately: that TABOR would be very bad for Oregon. Absent that public confession, we can be certain he is not ready for the leadership position he is seeking.

Posted by Becky at 01:16 PM |

They probably staged the bombing of the UN outpost, too

The rightosphere is all abuzz with internets rumors that the building collapse in Qana, Lebanon was staged for the benefit of cameras:

On the morning of July 30, according to the IDF, the air force came in three waves. In the first, between midnight and one in the morning, there was a strike at or near the building that eventually collapsed. There was a second strike at other targets far from the collapse building several hours later, and a third strike at around 7:30 in the morning. There too the nearest hit was some 460 meters away, according to the IDF. But first reports of a building collapse came only around 8 am.

Thus there was an unexplained 7 to 8 hour gap between the time of the helicopter strike and the building collapse. Brigadier General Amir Eshel, Head of the Air Force Headquarters, in a press briefing, told journalists that "the attack on the structure in the Qana village took place between midnight and one in the morning. The gap between the timing of the collapse of the building and the time of the strike on it is unclear."

The Israeli army dude goes on to say that the only explanation for the collapse is due to unexploded Hezbollah ordinance that was left in the building--which must have gone off.

These are the same guys who call lefties conspiracy theorists for questioning Bush's response to 9/11 and his connection to the bin Laden family. Sheesh.

It just couldn't be that Israel bombed the crap out of the building and it was so unstable that it collapsed..could it?

The accusation by Israel that Hezbollah is using human shields to make it look like Israel is slaughtering civilians isn't working. Especially given the fact that Israel bombed the hell out of a UN outpost despite being repeatedly told hours in advance that they were shelling too close.

Its apparent that Israel is screwing up their targetting and/or intelligence.

Bombing cities isn't exactly the way to win the Art of War:

Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy;

Next best is to disrupt his alliances;

The next best is to attack his army.

The worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative.

Its apparent that the Israelis are closer to taking their logistical advice from the American strategists for Iraq/Afghanistan rather than Sun Tzu.

Posted by Carla at 11:35 AM |

Give Mel Gibson a Break

Mel Gibson's arrest for drunk driving was bad enough to make me cringe, but what he said while being arrested was truly horrible. I won't quote any excerpts here, but probably most readers have already heard about his anti-semitic remarks and his arrogance ("I own this town") already.

Call me a bleeding-heart if you want to, but after I read his apology I decided the poor man should be forgiven.

Here is his apology in full. I'll explain my thinking in a minute:

After drinking alcohol on Thursday night, I did a number of things that were very wrong and for which I am ashamed. I drove a car when I should not have, and was stopped by the LA County Sheriffs. The arresting officer was just doing his job and I feel fortunate that I was apprehended before I caused injury to any other person. I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said. Also, I take this opportunity to apologize to the deputies involved for my belligerent behavior. They have always been there for me in my community and indeed probably saved me from myself. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse. I apologize for any behavior unbecoming of me in my inebriated state and have already taken necessary steps to ensure my return to health.

Why forgive the man? Well, first, I don't believe Gibson is a closet anti-Semite. As Dr. James R. Milam and Katherine Ketcham write in UNDER THE INFLUENCE: A Guide to the Myths and Realities of Alcoholism, "Alcohol’s effect on the brain causes severe psychological and emotional distortions of the normal personality. Sobriety reveals the alcoholic’s true personality." Add to that the fact that Gibson's father has some issues with Jews. So it isn't as if Gibson was raised in a particularly politically-correct environment.

In fact, if you think about what most people involved in the arts say about the truly creative, that energy nearly always flows from a tortured soul. Comedians, artists, musicians, dancers, actors – the most outrageously talented almost always are a little messed up. Maybe they suffered a terrible loss as a child, or maybe they were abused as a child, or maybe they were indoctrinated with hate as a child and have struggled as an adult to overcome it. And that has left them tortured. And really, if you've seen any of Gibson's movies you can readily see the man is a tortured, creatively brilliant soul. It's as plain as day.

Why would Gibson be particularly tortured at this time? Here's my theory. Conspiracy nuts know a lot of things that are not true, but they also tend to know some true things that other people do not know. If I'm Mel Gibson and the Middle East situation is about to blow up and take the whole world with it, and I know a thing or two about the real history of Israel and the so-called "Jewish conspiracy," but struggle to discern which is true and which is not while trying to maintain a relationship with my father and deal with the cognitive dissonance that entails, I think I might take up drinking about now. Things are not looking good.

But in today's environment, only conspiracy nuts, crazy people, or tortured souls who have had too much to drink tend to have the nerve to point out that something is amiss (for the record, I do not agree with what Gibson said; I merely think some unspeakable manipulation of the Jewish people is going on here). Rather than booting Gibson out of Hollywood on his behind, maybe we ought to dig a little deeper into what pushed his father off the deep end and nearly pushed Mel along with him. Maybe, if we set aside political correctness for a minute and try to see what is really going on behind the curtain, we might be able to save the Jewish people – and ourselves – from a nuclear holocaust.

Posted by Becky at 11:18 AM |

"Our Vice President of Our Iraq"

On the way into work this morning I flipped through a couple radio stations during commercials and landed on Paul Harvey's morning news commentary just in time to hear him express outrage that "our vice president of our Iraq" had dared to criticize Israel for committing massacres.

I grew up listening to Paul Harvey and have all my life believed him to be the voice of reason – until recently. This comment today was stunning. It reminded me of how the entire story of our actions in Iraq have changed since we first invaded.

Initially, we were liberating the Iraqis from the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, remember? They were our friends. They would greet us with candy and flowers. We were their liberating heroes. We loved our friends, the Iraqi people, and wished to bring them democracy.

Over time, things slowly changed. Because the war on terror was used as an excuse to secure America's oil interests by taking out Saddam Hussein (remember Cheney's comments about the "very significant" oil reserves in Iraq?), people have confused the entire situation. Bit by bit we began to view the Iraqi people as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. The war "in" Iraq became the war "on" Iraq (even Rush Limbaugh calls it that on his show now).

And Iraq's democratically elected vice president is now "our vice president of our Iraq."

Posted by Becky at 08:57 AM |

July 29, 2006

Understanding Global Warming Is Beyond Me

The other night my husband and I were watching a Dennis Miller standup routine and, as usual, he was talking politics. And I couldn't help laughing when he got to global warming and poked fun at our reliance on 100-year-old technology for measuring temperatures, etc. to determine whether the planet is truly warming today.

A couple days later, and now I am reading a news article that says virtually the same thing. Outdated technology from decades ago may not have accurately measured hurricane strength, and the rash of nasty hurricanes we've seen of late may actually be no worse than those of the past.

"The methodology is fine. There's no problem with the way they analyzed the data …The problem is with the data itself."

I don't know about you, but all this conflicting science is very upsetting to me, and with all that is at stake the politicians are interfering with it to the point that it is nearly impossible for the average person to distinguish between truth and fiction. I see awful weather seeming to increase all over the globe, so the concept of global warming feels correct.

We have floods, famines, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. like I've never seen in all my 42 years. Okay, I know that's not terribly long. But it does seem to me that something is wrong. On the other hand, whenever I hear reports about record-breaking weather, they almost always include a caveat: it's the hottest, wettest, dryest, etc. "since 1915" or some such date from many years ago. In other words, we had this sort of weather before, but it's been a really long time.

What does it all mean? In a nutshell, it means ordinary people like you and me have to either become scientists in order to justify our positions on global warming, find a watchdog group we trust and go with whatever they tell us, or forget about it and go on about our lives. Or, I suppose, become conspiracy theorists.

Posted by Becky at 10:52 AM |

What Happens in Estonia May Not Stay in Estonia

I always enjoy seeing politicians set their political views aside to develop personal connections with those across the aisle. Friendships can greatly relieve the nastiness that often overwhelms politics. Unlike my former friends on the far right, I was pleased to read about the vodka drinking contest between Hillary Clinton and John McCain during a Congressional trip to Estonia two summers ago.

The after-dinner drinks went so well — memories are a bit hazy on who drank how much — that Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, later told people how unexpectedly engaging he found Mrs. Clinton to be. “One of the guys” was the way he described Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, to some Republican colleagues.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain went on to develop an amiable if professionally calculated relationship. They took more official trips together, including to Iraq. They worked together on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on the issue of global warming. They made a joint appearance last year on “Meet the Press,” interacting so congenially that the moderator, Tim Russert, joked about their forming a “fusion ticket.”

If either of the two went on to win the race, I would hope that what began in Estonia would not stay in Estonia. A continuation of their friendship would be refreshing, if only for the fact that it may help to end some of the personal partisan negativity that is getting so tiresome in Washington - and across the country.

Harking to the days when a Republican president and a Democratic speaker of the House were friends, [Senator Lindsey] Graham said, “Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, at the end of the day, would go down to the White House and knock one back, and the country was no worse off for that.”

Don't misunderstand. A McCain-Clinton race would alarm me, as I have deep concerns about them both. But as bad as the personal hatred has become for those who see politics from a different point of view these days, it would be wonderful to see a President who would set a more positive, bi-partisan tone for the rest of the country. I fear, however, that "we the the people" have become so divided that it would take more than that to stop the hate that currently prevents the right and the left from even seeking common ground from which to solve the many problems facing our nation. And so long as we are busy fighting with each other, the wealthy interests of the world can, behind the scenes, continue to do whatever they want.

Posted by Becky at 10:33 AM |

July 28, 2006

The Armageddon Script

Armageddon – it seems it's on everyone's minds these days. But what exactly are evangelical Christians expecting, and why should you care? Norio Hayakawa takes a look today at the "Strange End-Times Beliefs Of Some 'Evangelical' Christians." He says this group of Christians has a "huge" influence on the Bush Administration, and that these "Christian Zionists" "not only support Israel in its totality, but also even seem to welcome an all-out War in the Middle East to 'hasten' (or 'accelerate') the climate for the realization of 'end-time' events long prophesied."

Fundamentalist Christians (such as Baptists, especially the Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, such as the Assemblies of God, Foursquare Churches, Full Gospel Churches, and all other denominations of the so-called "born-again", "Evangelical" beliefs), believed that the generation that would witness the re-establishment of Israel would also be the generation that would witness the Second Coming of Jesus and the consequent establishment of His Millenial Reign on earth from Israel.

The re-establishment of the State of Israel occurred in 1948. But it was not until 1957 that Israel actually occupied Jerusalem for the first time in more than 2000 years. Thus, these Christians believe the return of Christ will happen very soon. In fact, with a biblical generation equaling 40 years, many expect Jesus will return next year. Of course, if you consider that some also believe the present calendar system is off by five years, then we are actually looking for his return by 2012. (Interestingly, that is the year the Mayan calendar ends.)

Randi Rhodes has this week been voicing an interesting theory that the Neocons are following the biblical prophecies on purpose. That would mean that the prophecies are, at least to some degree, self-fulfilling – certainly something that is worth considering. If biblical prophecy is the script behind current events, it would be wise for us to know what evangelical "Christian Zionists" expect will happen next.

First will be a huge war between Israel and the Islamic world, led by Russia. Israel will win, but it will take seven years to bury all the dead.

Next will come the antichrist who will manage to orchestrate a peace treaty. Some believe this person will be viewed by Islam as the "Hidden Imam" returned. Soon after, just prior, or at the same time as the appearance of the antichrist, all the Christians will be suddenly raptured (instantly transformed into heavenly bodies and taken out of this world), leaving the rest of us sinners behind. The antichrist will, they say, come up with a reasonable explanation for their sudden disappearance.

At first the antichrist, based in Europe, will bring peace to the world, but that peace will not last long (some say after about 3 1/2 years things will begin to go wrong). Some think UFOs, either real or man-made, will appear and cause such chaos that the world will finally agree that a unified, one-world government is necessary. Some fundamentalist Christians do not believe in the rapture. Instead, they believe Christians, who will refuse to take the "mark of the beast" and submit to the antichrist, will be systematically hunted down and exterminated for their faith during the last half of the rule of the antichrist.

After the antichrist has ruled for a 7-year "tribulation period" the great "Battle of Armageddon" will occur. This will be because China will decide to challenge the antichrist, will cross the Euphrates with an enormous army, and move to the valley of Meggido for a great battle. During the final phases of this war, Jesus will return and destroy the earthly forces (in some accounts he will destroy all non-Christians) and rule the world for 1000 years.

After 1000 years, a rebel force will pose one final challenge to the kingdom of Jesus and at that point all evil will be forever destroyed, the earth will be restored to its original beauty, and we will all live happily ever after.

Posted by Becky at 10:58 AM |

We're Afraid! Please Spy On Us More!

Fox News is continuing its scaremongering in its effort to help the Bush Administration further clamp down on Americans' civil rights. This week's terrorizing of Americans was the report that it's only a matter of time before a major U.S. city will be nuked by Hezbollah. Moreover, the only way to stop this impending doom is to increase surveillance of Americans.

Cham Dallas, director for the Center for Mass Destruction Defense, told Hannity and Colmes, "There's no doubt in my mind that at some point in the future we will have a radiological device probably soon and a nuclear device at some point five or ten years after." Dallas said the device would likely be supplied by Pakistan and North Korea.

The next day on "Big Story" host John Gibson and his guest Robert Strang, CEO of Investigative Management Group, discussed the Hezbollah-Al Qaeda connection and the imminent activation of their terror cells within the U.S. Strang then called for increased survellance of phone calls and emails.

Because, as we all know, Quakers, vegans, environmentalists, and peace activists are best pals with Islamic terrorists and just can't wait to get even with the Zionists by using nukes to blow up American civilians, most of whom, as we all know, also do not support the war in the Middle East.

Posted by Becky at 10:31 AM |

July 27, 2006

That's What Breasts Are For

Some very odd, Puritanical women are having a tizzy because the latest issue of a magazine for new moms, Babytalk, has a photograph on the cover of a baby nursing on a breast. No nipple is showing. It's as clean as can be.

One breast-feeding mother said, "I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see." Now come on. What straight male doesn't want to see a breast? Even when it's being used as nature intended?

Posted by Becky at 08:52 PM |

Is Israel Using New Chemical Weapon?

A number of people are beginning to ask about what sort of strange, new weapons Israel is using in its attack on Lebanon. They say the bombs are causing wounds of a type that no one has ever seen before.

Blackened bodies have been showing up at hospitals in southern Lebanon two weeks into the war between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas that has seen at least 418 people, mostly civilians, killed in Lebanon and at least 42 Israelis. Killed by Israeli air raids, the Lebanese dead are charred in a way local doctors, who have lived through years of civil war and Israeli occupation, say they have not seen before.

Doctors who are examining the strange bodies believe Israel is using some sort of chemical weapon.

"We are seeing abnormal burns, different from wars we've seen in the past. The corpses of these victims are shrinking to half their normal size. You think it is the corpse of a child at first but it turns out to be a grown man," said Raed Salman Zeinedine, director of Tyre Government Hospital. "We've never seen anything like it but what the causes are I don't want to speculate. We have no scientific answer."

You can see pictures of what the Israeli weapons are doing to people here (the site has a painful journal – scroll to the bottom for photos). Not for those with a weak stomach. I wonder how many every-day Republicans could still support war if they saw with their own eyes what it actually does to people - including young children. Or perhaps they have become so adept at separating their hearts from their minds that they can justify this evil even when looking it square in the eye.

Posted by Becky at 08:58 AM |

The Libertarian Land Use Goal Behind TABOR

Is I wrote earlier, three ballot measures are headed our way this November that are part of a massive Libertarian effort to circumvent the legislative process and shrink government across the country via the initiative process. The three measures in Oregon include TABOR (which backers erroneously call "The Rainy Day Amendment"), term limits, and an eminent domain measure.

Two of these, TABOR (which I oppose) and eminent domain (which I support) are directly related to property rights goals stated in the National Platform of the Libertarian Party:

All public lands and resources, as well as claims thereto, except as explicitly allowed by the Constitution, shall be returned to private ownership, with the proceeds of sale going to retire public liabilities. Resource rights shall be defined as property rights, including riparian rights. All publicly owned infrastructures including dams and parks shall be returned to private ownership and all taxing authority for such public improvements shall sunset. Property related services shall be supplied by private markets and paid for by user fees, and regulation of property shall be limited to that which secures the rights of individuals. There will be no legal barriers to peaceful, private, voluntary attempts to explore, industrialize and colonize any extra-terrestrial resources. The federal government shall be held as liable as any individual for pollution or other transgression against property or resources.

Transitional Action: Rescind all taxation of real property. Property, resources and rights taken from their legitimate owners by government or by government supported private action, shall be restored to the rightful owners. Reverse the Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain - Kelo v City of New London. Repeal all legislation that transfers property rights to the state, including those enacted in the name of aesthetic values, risk, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, the promotion or restriction of economic growth, health or national security claims. Sunset all federal agencies that own, regulate or administer property, as well as agencies at the local level which exercise control over private property and resources. Rescind and oppose all international treaties that exercise government control over unowned resources.

How the eminent domain measure fits into this picture is easy to see, but less obvious – and more crucial to understand - is the way the TABOR measure fits into this puzzle. And up front, let me say I offer the information not to reveal any conspiracy or illegal activity, but to give you an opportunity to really understand what will happen if the TABOR measure becomes law.

The TABOR measure strictly limits the growth of government spending to increases in population and inflation. Back when I worked for Bill Sizemore he was considering putting a TABOR measure on the ballot, so I did a study of Oregon's state budget, what it was, and what it would have been had TABOR passed ten years earlier. And truly, over just a ten-year period, the budget would have been cut nearly in half. So when opponents tell you that a simplistic TABOR formula that only allows increases for population and inflation will decimate state funding, believe them.

Oregon's TABOR language allows for some exceptions to the spending limits – monies that will not be limited. These exceptions offer very important clues to the underlying goals of the Libertarians behind these ballot measures. From Oregon's TABOR measure:

"Total spending" means all disbursements pursuant to all acts by the Legislative Assembly authorizing the expenditure of public funds, except disbursements of: 1) money to fund emergency or "rainy day" funds; 2) federal funds; 3) money pursuant to Article IX, section 14 of this Constitution, commonly referred to as "The Kicker"; 4) money to fund tax and other refunds; 5) money voluntarily donated to a state agency; 6) proceeds from the sale of bonds specifically approved by voters; and 7) proceeds from the sale of real property at real market value to non-governmental entities.

TABOR backers are making the claim that the measure creates a rainy day fund. The measure does not require that, but it allows it and that certainly is a likely outcome. But note that the measure equally allows the sale of public lands (item 7), which fits perfectly within the Libertarian platform that all lands should be privately owned. As the budget tightens and state government, including schools, police, prisons, etc. are slowly strangled, lawmakers will literally have no choice but to sell off public assets in order to fund government services. That is the real goal behind TABOR. And those brainy Libertarians, who are not the dopey potheads people assume they are, have figured out a fairly brilliant way to take advantage of Republican greed to obtain their own goals. Oregonians really ought to consider carefully whether this is the road they want to take.

Posted by Becky at 08:30 AM |

July 26, 2006

Welcome to my world.

While I've been watching the news, posting has been interrupted, and here's why:

43 days old today. He's at 2 lbs. 2 oz. Dr. Woodall says he's cruising along. Not too much weight gain too fast, he says, to keep fluid out of his lungs.

And he smiled at Dana today. More pictures and the rest of the story here.

Posted by Jeff at 12:57 PM |

The Problem with Howard Rich

In recent posts I've pointed out how Howard Rich and Grover Norquist and a very small group of their friends have created a massive network of astroturf organizations through which millions of dollars are being moved to several states in support of TABOR, term limits, and eminent domain initiatives. The response from the right has been typical: what is wrong with people working together to fund political efforts? It is done all the time.

Yes, people do work together to fund political efforts all the time. And nothing is wrong with that. The question is, when a very small number of people use heavy-handed methods to push their own extreme agenda on local communities, preventing local activists from addressing legitimate local issues, and they do it through a smokescreen of fake groups intended to hide their identity and create the appearance that the effort is local, they have crossed the line. Let's take a closer look.

Heavy Handed Tactics

Howard Rich's heavy-handedness has been getting him into trouble since his Libertarian days back in 1982. He left the party, but not his ideology. And now some conservatives are complaining that Rich's heavy-handed tactics, particularly with regards to term limits, are hurting their efforts. Things really came to a head in 1997 and 1998. Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican who disagreed with US Term Limits only on the number of terms, was told, "If you get in our way, we'll mow you down." Don Hodel, president of the Christian Coalition and long-time supporter of term limits, told Rich the Christian Coalition would "openly reject" Rich's irresponsible, ineffective, and irrational approach to term limits.

In one case, a California Republican term limits supporter was actively opposed by US Term Limits and Americans for Limited Terms (both Howard Rich groups), who spent $250,000 in support of the Democrat in the race who was also a term limits opponent. The reason? Tom Bordonaro, who had promised to vote for any term limits bill that crossed his desk, refused to sign a pledge to self-limit his terms to no more than three two-year terms in the House and two six-year terms in the Senate. His aging Democrat opponent, who opposed term limits, could readily sign the pledge because she knew she wouldn't live long enough to break it. A similar attack on a conservative in Illinois also resulted in that candidate's loss.

According to one conservative in Washington, Rich and his group "treat those who disagree with them on tactical matters as apostates." Another says, "They're absolutely inflexible. No good deed goes unpunished." Arne Owens of the Christian Coalition said, "We no longer consider U.S. Term Limits a part of the conservative movement. Nor do most conservative organizations." In fact, it was a disgruntled conservative activist, expressing the same view as Owens, who first brought the Howard Rich story to my attention.

Since 1998, Rich seems to have realized that his tactics will not work with elected representatives, so he is taking his all-or-nothing approach directly to the voters instead.

Creating the Appearance of Grassroots

When you hear "Oregonians in Action" you automatically think "this is a group of Oregonians who have banded together to get something done." Fortunately, in Oregon, that is true, though even this solid group has been taking money from Rich and friends of late. Oregon is probably not the only state with a citizen group that pre-existed the Rich influence only to succumb to it in recent years. But in many other states where Rich-written and Rich-funded ballot initiatives are being put before the voters, the groups were created specifically for this effort and are anything but grassroots.

Several of Rich's groups have clever acronyms. In Arizona, Rich's group is Arizona HOPE (the Arizona Home Owners Protection Effort). In Nevada, Rich's eminent domain effort is called PISTOL (the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land). And his Nevada TABOR group is called TASC (Tax and Spending Control for Nevada). In Nebraska, it's SOS Nebraska (Stop Over Spending Nebraska) and in Michigan it's SOS Michigan (Stop Over Spending Michigan).

Other groups have pulled their names from existing groups. In Idaho, it's Idahoans for Tax Reform. In Oklahoma, the group is called Oklahomans In Action. In Montana, it's Montanans in Action. He also has the Western Nebraska Taxpayers Association. In Missouri, it's Missourians in Charge (even though it's really Rich in charge).

Others just plain sound local. In California, Rich is working with Citizens to Save California. In Maine, it's the Main Freedom Committee. In South Carolina it's South Carolinians for Responsible Government. In Ohio it's Citizens for Tax Repeal. Florida has Hands Off Florida, Minnesota has Let Minnesota Vote!, and Nebraska has Nebraskans for Human Care Committee (a Terry Schiavo inspired initiative).

All of these initiatives are being put forward and funded by non-local Howard Rich. Signatures were all collected by non-local petitioners. The language of the measures was written by non-local Rich-paid individuals (such as Dave Hunnicut, who wrote a number of eminent domain/Measure 37 style initiatives for various states).

Is it any wonder that Rich has also created and funded an astroturf group called "Citizens in Charge" that is designed to get ALL states to adopt initiative and referendum laws? It is the one means available to this extremist, heavy-handed libertarian movement to force its agenda on the country. Elected Representatives work together to fine-tune legislation and ensure it works for the good of all their constituents. Voters, on the other hand, can only give a measure an up or down vote. If you support term limits, you must accept the precise version offered or have no term limits at all. If you want to end eminent domain abuse, you must also accept Measure 37 compensation or forfeit the eminent domain protections. If you want a rainy day fund or some limitations on state spending, you must also accept Rich's extremely strict limits which will eventually cut the budget in half.

It is far too easy for an unscrupulous man with deep pockets and an unpopular extremist agenda to push aside more moderate proposals by preventing those proposals from obtaining adequate funding to compete for a spot on the ballot (this actually occurs), to create astroturf groups that generate the false appearance that local people are responding to a local crisis, and to then convince voters to make an extreme choice that may not be in their best interests. That is what is wrong with the tactics being used by Howard Rich.

Posted by Becky at 09:51 AM |

Katrina Victims Housed in Virtual Prisons

In its latest outrageous display of disregard for civil rights, FEMA has begun treating Katrina victims housed in relief trailers as inmates.

Federal officials are preventing Hurricane Katrina victims in government trailer parks from being interviewed by the media unless a FEMA agent is present at all times.

That is, if they even allow the residents to talk to the press in the first place. FEMA has ordered journalists to leave, refused to allow them to leave a business card with residents, and even ordered residents away from the fence and back to their trailers. Never mind freedom of speech. Never mind freedom of association. If you live in a FEMA trailer, then FEMA will dictate who you can and cannot talk to, and intimidate you by listening in to what you say.

It's all for their own protection, of course.

Posted by Becky at 06:27 AM |

Congressional Race Preview #10 - TX/CO

A Democrat pickup in Texas is a distinct possibility this cycle, and Tom DeLay may have no one else to blame for this one.

Texas 14 - Ron Paul (R) vs Shane Sklar (D) - Libertarian icon Ron Paul faces his first real challenge in over a decade with the campaign of Shane Sklar in the Houston area. While, in the end, Paul is likely to survive, it ties him up in his own district instead of being able to come to the rescue in the next one previewed. Leans GOP

Texas 22 - Tom DeLay (R) vs Nick Lampson (D) - DeLay is back on the ballot, for now, in a seat that he has virtually no chance of holding whether he retired or not. Even the GOPers in this district seem to have had enough of him. Former Congressman Lampson has put together an extremely strong campaign and is well known in the area. This is a seat the Republicans likely didn't think they would ever lose. But they're going to this year. Leans Dem

Texas 32 - Pete Sessions (R) vs Will Pryor (D) - Sessions won a tough race last cycle, and probably thought he'd have an easy go of it from this point on. Enter Will Pryor, Dallas attorney and nephew of former Arkansas Senator David Pryor. Pryor has the connections and the resources to make a run, but Sessions should be okay come election day. Leans GOP

Colorado 4 - Marilyn Musgrave (R) vs Angie Paccione (D) - Musgrave almost lost in 2004 to an underfunded candidate, thanks to an amazingly strong 527 campaign against her. This time her opponent may be able to do it on her own. Former Olympic basketball star and State Senator Paccione is an amazing campaigner and seems to draw people to her with just her presence and, despite concerns about weak campaign management, she shouldn't be underestimated. After all, Musgrave is often her own worst enemy. Toss Up

Colorado 6 - Tom Tancredo (R) vs Bill Winter (D) - Tancredo has been so focused on immigration and a possible run for President (a reminder of Bob Dornan with gays and a run for President in the 90's) that he may be losing touch with his own constituents - a no-no in politics. Enter veteran Bill Winter, who has quietly put together a credible challenge to Tancredo. This Colorado Springs district should be with Tancredo in the end, though. Leans GOP

Next up - The rest of Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico

Posted by Alan at 05:20 AM |

July 25, 2006

How A Couple People Can Create A Major Hubbub

Here is another reason why it matters so much when people like Howard Rich and his very small group of extremist libertarian friends create a myriad of fake groups that create the appearance of broad-based support for their actions: because then it is really easy to issue press releases signed by lots and lots of astroturf groups (which are really the same few individuals over and over again) and thereby influence unwitting members of Congress to take action on your behalf. Then all your different astroturf groups can issue their own press releases about their having signed the original press release and create even more hubbub about your issue.

In this case, the original press release was entitled, "53 Organizations Request Senate Action on Eminent Domain Abuse; Lack of Senate Action Leaves Homes, Businesses, Churches Vulnerable." Note that the subject is one of Howard Rich's top three ballot measure topics for this year. The contact person listed was Scott A. LaGanga, who just happens to be State Coalitions Manager for Americans for Tax Reform. And, naturally, Freedomworks jumped all over the opportunity to announce, "FreedomWorks Joins Huge Coalition Letter on Property Rights."

Huge - as in a small group of individuals sitting on multiple Boards of astroturf groups and thereby being able to sign the "Coalition letter" over and over and over again. Nifty, isn't it?

Posted by Becky at 01:43 PM |

Bush's priorities

With great fanfare U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman announced in Lebanon the arrival of the first shipment of $30 million in American humanitarian aid to the beleagured nation.

Compare that to the nearly $253 million in fraudulent charges the Bush administration paid to Halliburton just a few months ago, which they then paid five percent bonuses on which amounted to something like another $12.5 million dollars.

$30 million v. $265 million.

Posted by Kevin at 11:20 AM |

Are You Ready for the Rapture?

Is the current Israel-Lebanon conflict a sign of the End of Days? A number of people believe it is. They cite numerous prophecies and claim their fulfillment heralds the imminent Second Coming of Christ. They also claim prophecy foretells the involvement of particular countries and the destruction of particular locations.

For instance, both Isaiah 17:1 and Amos 1:3 prophesy that Damascus will be destroyed, so the rapture believers are watching with interest to see whether Syria will become involved.

Bible prophecy also states Armageddon will begin once Israel has been invaded by armies from the north. Russia's involvement in the conflict, then, is also expected (many see Russia as the "gog and magog" that will invade Israel).

Some biblical scholars, however, see the prophecies as being intended for the people of the time in which they were written and say they are now being taken out of context and misapplied to the current situation. But that certainly isn't a very exciting point of view, is it?

For more information about the end of the world, see Todd Strandber's Rapture Ready website. As for me, I was steeped in prophecy as a child and continue to be fascinated by it. For those interested in following the ongoing prophetic fulfilments and, at times, conspiratorial expectations of End-Times believers, I highly recommend regular visits to Cutting Edge.

Posted by Becky at 11:18 AM |

My Take on the Latest Initiative News

Today's news is full of commentary and reports stemming from the latest turn-in of contribution and expenditure reports for Oregon's latest pack of initiatives. I thought it might be fun to go through some of them and comment.

First, let's start with Bill Sizemore's editorial in today's Oregonian. Guess what. I agree with him and have for some time. I never thought Measure 26, which requires payment by the hour rather than payment by the signature, would do anything to clean up the initiative process. The reason is very simple: enforcement. There isn't any.

The next big story is that Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury says petitioners have been sloppy. I must say, I laughed right out loud when I saw that. I've seen many a petition sheet with cigarette burns, dirty footprints, tears, or food smears marring its pretty face. Some petitioners are, indeed, sloppy. But that is not the sort of sloppiness to which Bradbury is referring. The problem is failure to follow the rules.

I have a very hard time seeing what is unfair about the rules. Chief Petitioners must turn in their own petition sheets, the sheets must be properly filled out, they must be organized by county, and they must be numbered. You can't do like they did in Missouri and throw a box of mixed up, unnumbered petitions at the Secretary of State's office and expect them to be accepted. And you can't do like Oregon's term limits backers did and expect the Secretary of State to accept 1800 petition sheets on your behalf when they were turned in mixed up with TABOR petition sheets turned in by someone else.

Naturally, Ted Berthelote, chief petitioner of the term limits initiative, denies that occurred. He said, "I believe I turned them in personally and signed for all of the sheets." Yeah. Okay.

I've certainly had my disagreements with the Secretary of State's office – and the Attorney General's office, for that matter – over various things related to the initiative process. But I simply do not believe that the people who work in that office cheat, break the rules, or behave in an unprofessional manner. I've never once seen that. And even when I was working for Bill Sizemore and I knew they all hated what we were doing, never once were they anything but courteous and helpful. So I'm sorry, but I just do not believe Berthelote.

Edward Walsh and Dave Hogan have also weighed in today on the latest reports. Their primary message is that the TABOR and term limits measures were funded by Howard Rich. But if you've been reading PK faithfully (as you ought to!), you already know that.

So I'll move on to what surprised me. And that was the amount the campaigns have spent this year to make the ballot. Wow. TABOR backers spent $671,705 to make the ballot. And term limits backers spent $510,000. Contrast that to 2000, the last time I was involved in a drive, and we could make the ballot for $100,000 or less.

Interestingly, Bradbury's campaign finance effort, which followed the law about paying by the hour rather than by the signature, spent only $387,071. That's still a heck of a lot of money.

But here is where it gets interesting to me. Bill Sizemore claims he spent $196,601 to qualify his tax cut measure and just $111,150 for his insurance measure. How can that be? His measures were carried by the same petitioners who carried the term limits and TABOR measures. I'm not the only one who has questions about Sizemore's amazingly self-managed campaign. Does the difference in cost reflect unreported in-kind contributions of management services by the other campaigns that shared Arno? Or did Sizemore once again find a way to funnel money into the campaign without reporting it, as he did when he sold Robert Randall phony stocks in his petitioning company? Inquiring minds want to know.

Finally, the yapping lap dog Ted Piccolo weighs in at NW Republican claiming the Oregon Secretary of State has kicked off a "PR offensive to try to save face" for having disenfranchised 15,000 citizens by tossing their signatures because incompetent chief petitioners turned their petition sheets in all mixed together. He then asks, "Why is it that Oregon has some of the lowest validity rates in the nation? Why is it that Oregon is one of the costliest states to circulate a petition in the nation?"

Hmm. I don't doubt Oregon's validation process is stricter than other states. But this problem is compounded by the fact that the petitioning companies being used are not exactly what you would call "ethical". A bit of time spent looking through the archives at Our Oregon will bring doubters up to date on this problem.

Posted by Becky at 11:12 AM |

Tony Snow, mindless drone

Tony Snow at yesterday's news conference

"At the order of the president, humanitarian supplies will start arriving in Lebanon tomorrow by helicopter and by ship," Snow announced at the White House.

...

Asked why the aid has taken two weeks to deliver, Snow said, "The fact is, that we're first to the scene."

The fact is, to borrow Tony's own phraseology, the Swiss were "first to the scene" with humanitarian aid.

Kevin Sites reports that a ship chartered by a French NGO (Premiere Urgence) to deliver the Swiss aid arrived yesterday morning in Tyre, Lebanon. By Tony's own stated timeline the American aid won't arrive until today. And the aid isn't expected to reach southern Lebanon, which is where Tyre is located, until tomorrow.

Snow's later comments, on behalf of President Bush, about Lebanon were what really caught my attention.

"Look, we would like a cease-fire tomorrow," he said. "We would like a cease-fire immediately. But it has to be a cease-fire that is going to stand the test of time so the people in that region and people in Lebanon particular, a country that has been hard hit by occupying forces and by frustrations of its democratic aspirations, deserve a shot at having the freedom and democracy its people deserve. And the only way that's going to be possible is if there is no longer an internal threat of the sort that we've witnessed in recent weeks." (emphasis supplied)

While I know that Tony was talking about Lebanon there, I was struck by the sentence in bold because it describes the Occupied Territories in Palestine perfectly. And it underscores the hypocrisy of both the Bush administration and of the Israeli government.

Tony's boss, George W. Bush, is the one who insisted that the PLO-controlled Palestinian Authority hold new elections to foster democracy. And Tony's boss is also the one who insisted that Hamas ought to participate as candidates in the election. They did and look what happened? The Palestinian people have been punished because they took President Bush at his word. No sooner had Hamas won the election under conditions explicitly condoned by Bush then Bush turned around and cut off all aid, citing the fact that Hamas had won and encouraged every other country to do the same.

And they wonder why the violence rages on in the region?

Posted by Kevin at 10:24 AM |

Social Security Privatization Plan Is Still Kicking

Grover Norquist believes that the only thing standing in the way now of privatizing Social Security is the election of five new Republican senators.

Any reasonable American might believe the retreat from privatizing Social Security was due to the fact that backers finally recognized the people did not agree with it. Not so.

A morning with Norquist helps to solve one of the great mysteries of the political moment: How can it be that a clear majority of Americans can sour on the Republican rule of Congress, reject Bush's top domestic priority of privatizing Social Security and offer resounding disapproval of the president's stewardship of the economy -- while the radical conservatives responsible for it all still believe they are right on the merits and are, in fact, heading into another political victory lap?

Through Norquist's lens, no setback is the result of the citizens looking at -- and living under -- Bush's policies and rejecting them. The political misfortune is merely the result of errant tactics, not egregiously bad prescriptions for problems the American people really care about.

Interestingly, while Norquist is supporting Howard Rich by funneling money through his organizations to various Rich-backed campaigns, such as TABOR and term limits, he is also aligned with Howard Rich on Social Security privatization. In fact, Howard Rich has even been a member of the Board of Social Security Choice. He also serves on the Board of Directors of the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank that opposes Social Security.

This effort, along with TABOR and term limits, is the product of heavy-handed, fundamentalist Libertarians - people who will press their agenda on this country whether it is wanted or not. I'll go into that more in another post.

Suffice it to say that if preserving Social Security matters to you, this is a perfect time to become a single issue voter. Only Democrats can stop the attack on Social Security. Republicans have already become to radicalized to be trusted with it.

Posted by Becky at 06:28 AM |

Congressional Race Preview #9 - IL/NE

A battle royale is brewing in Illinois as the pet candidate of the Speaker of the House faces off with the pet candidate of the chair of the DCCC.

And two seats are in play in Nebraska, home to a revitalized state party.

Illinois 6 - Peter Roskam (R) vs Tammy Duckworth (D) - Roskam is the hand picked candidate of retiring Henry Hyde (of impeachment infamy) and Dennis Hastert. Many thought he would be handed this seat early on, until the entry of Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth. Duckworth is a very personable candidate and tireless in her campaigning, despite war injuries that led to amputation. When she talks about Iraq, people tend to listen. Still, this is a tough district, and there's always the chance the GOP will treat her like they did Max Cleland. Toss Up

Illinois 10 - Mark Kirk (R) vs Dan Seals (D) - Kirk hasn't faced a real race since 2000, but has one on his hands in this swing district this time. Seals has been compared to a young Barack Obama, and is putting together a strong, professional campaign. Win or lose, Seals is someone to watch out for in Illinois politics. Leans GOP

Illinois 11 - Jerry Weller (R) vs John Pavich (D) - The 2004 Democratic candidate was strong early on, then faded to the background. John Pavich, meanwhile, has managed to stay on the radar. Weller, though, is a strong campaigner and has many more resources. Leans GOP

Nebraska 1 - Jeff Fortenberry (R) vs Maxine Moul (D) - Fortenberry can be forgiven if he thought his tough open seat victory in 2004 would allow him to have a clean shot from here on out. If those thoughts were going through his head, he was mistaken. Former Lt Governor Maxine Moul is in this time and has the name recognition and resources to give Fortenberry fits. Her organization is building on the one that was put together in 2004, and she has a legitimate shot at this Lincoln area district. Toss Up

Nebraska 3 - Adrian Smith (R) vs Scott Kleeb (D) - Tom Osborne is leaving this seat, which he won routinely with 80 - 90 percent of the vote. Well, Smith is not the former coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers and Kleeb, a rancher in Western Nebraska, is a great fit for the district and has put together a stronger campaign thus far. The Democrats have a real opening in the reddest district in one of the reddest states in the country. Toss Up

Next up - Texas and Colorado. All Congressional Race Previews are cross posted at Swede And Czech

Posted by Alan at 05:15 AM |

July 24, 2006

PDX book signing Wednesday night: "Confessions of a Former Dittohead"

Jim Derych, author of Confessions of a Former Dittohead, will be at a book signing this Wednesday night, the 26th, at 7pm at the Lucky Labrador brew pub at SE 9th and Hawthorne in Portland.

From the book's promo material:

"At a time when "political persuasion" consists of little more than hurled epithets, Jim Derych gifts progressives with a lucid manual for rescuing their fellow Americans from the clutches of the Right. This will undoubtedly be one of the most important political books of the year."

--Markos Moulitsas, Founder of Daily Kos and
author of Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics.

Originally a diary on Daily Kos, Confessions is a unique personal and political memoir that follows former red-stater and social conservative Jim Derych on a unique journey from right to left. Opening with Jim's introduction to Rush by his father, Confessions details how over a thirteen-year period and a "thousand small cuts," Jim moved away from Rush and the Republicans and embraced the Democratic Party and liberalism. Sharing both the personal--a friend who had an abortion as a teenager, a gay college roommate who delayed his coming out because of "people like Jim"--and the political--a comical encounter with the Young Republicans, his reaction to the torture scandals and the Iraq War--this is a moving and thought-provoking account that dispels the myth of "compassionate
conservatism."

The book also provides a fascinating "insider" account on how dittoheads think on the major political, economic and social issues of the day.

The event is sponsored by the Portland chapter of Drinking Liberally. Whether you're a DL member or not, please drop by and give Jim a proper Rose City welcome.

Jim will also be on Tom Hartmann's show on KPOJ AM620 at 7.30am Wednesday morning (live streaming here). Give a listen.

And you can read Jim's DailyKOS diary, including book tour stories, here.

(Cross-posted at p3.)

Posted by Nothstine at 06:25 PM |

Imagine

Do you hail from a state with lotsa religion?

Do I? not so much.

Posted by Carla at 04:09 PM |

910

And I'm hanging on by the skin of my teeth.

(h/t: Hines Sight)

Posted by Carla at 04:04 PM |

Believe what I say, not what I do

"I am deeply concerned about the Lebanese people and what they are enduring," Rice said before meeting (Lebanese parliament speaker Nabih) Berri. "I am obviously concerned about the humanitarian situation."

Now I'm no expert on rhetoric or anything, but isn't it normally the case that when a speaker goes to the trouble of informing his or her audience that something is obvious that in fact the opposite is true?

Posted by Kevin at 02:02 PM |

The Hazards of Massive Inflation

Imagine how you would handle quadruple digit inflation. That is exactly what has occurred in Zimbabwe. Here is one remarkably good-natured woman's account of banks whose systems can't handle all those zeros, shopping with wheelbarrows of cash and trying to squeeze incredibly lengthy hand-written dollar amounts so that they fit into the allotted space on a check.

Most of us have hardly come to terms with the logistics of doing ordinary things like paying bills. If we are paying in cash we find ourselves walking around with carrier bags, duffle bags, plastic sacks and even suitcases literally filled with notes. Its a huge relief to get to where you are going without being mugged because its just not that easy to hide a sack of money.

Although, these days, I suppose even muggers must have to think in terms of wheelbarrows at the very least. The next mission is to get the timing right so that you pay bills when the electricity is on otherwise the money counting machines aren't working, the computers that write receipts aren't working and you spend hours waiting in queues, your arms getting longer and longer, weighed down by heavy bags of money. …

Everything in Zimbabwe, even writing a cheque, has become an exercise in extremes - miniscule handwriting for massive amounts of money to pay small fractions of huge monthly expenses.

I think we can all be very grateful for our government and the many people who work to keep our economy functioning properly. We may have our blips now and then and the occasional gas line, but stories like these help put those things back into perspective. They also remind me why government is so important and why I am not a Libertarian.

Posted by Becky at 10:24 AM |

Nice-Sounding Groups Aren't Always What They Seem

Back in 2000, Oregonians faced 27 ballot measures all at once. Seven of them were Bill Sizemore measures. Sizemore came up with a brilliant idea that would allow him to influence Oregon voters on every single measure without them knowing he was the one who was influencing them. He wrote up and I designed a slick multi-page voter guide entitled "27 Ballot Measures Made Simple." The guide was presented as a coordinated effort of several grassroots groups, and money was moved through an array of different bank accounts to hide the Sizemore connection.

The groups were what you would call "astroturf" groups (fake grassroots groups). We found people who could assure us that they would never be available to the media to lend their names as heads of these fake groups, some of which were created specifically for this project. Others had been defunct for some time and were reactivated in name only for this project. An introductory letter inside the front of the guide implied that the groups had met several times and voted on which measures to support. Altogether, these means allowed us to create the false impression that the views in the voter guide represented a broad cross-section of people, rather than the opinions of one man – Bill Sizemore.

I tell this story not because it is news today, but to illustrate a method that is being widely used this year across several states to create the appearance of support of multiple local grassroots campaigns when the reality is that these campaigns are being funded and pushed by a single individual – Howard Rich. Granted, other people are lending support and contributing funding to the project, just as occurred in the "27 Ballot Measures Made Simple" voter guide. But the reality is the campaigns are neither local nor grassroots.

Howard Rich and his extremely small group of libertarian friends are working through a broad array of front groups. They take advantage of local campaign finance laws where necessary to move money from one front group to another to create the appearance of a broad-based effort. Specifically, in several states around the country (including Oregon), Rich and his very small group of close associates are this year pushing ballot initiatives that would reduce the size of state governments by 50% within 15-20 years (TABOR), require payment to landowners for all land use regulations (under the guise of curing eminent domain abuse), and strictly limit the terms of elected representatives. This same group also is working to expand school choice and privatize Social Security. Just so you know.

Is Howard Rich working on a campaign in which you are interested? Look through the following list, and see if you recognize any of the names. All of these groups are either front groups for Howard Rich or groups that he controls, in whole or in part:

Americans for Limited Government, the Cato Institute, Social Security Choice.org, Laissez Faire Books, Foundation for Economic Education, U.S. Term Limits and multiple state term limits groups, Americans Back in Charge, Americans to Limit Congressional Terms, Howard Rich Irrevocable Trust, OKE Associates, Crunch Fitness, Reason Foundation, LaSalle Associates, Dayrich LLC, 538-14 Realty LLC, Fund for Democracy, Americans for Limited Terms, Montanans In Action, America At Its Best, LEAD Foundation, All Children Matter, Citizens in Charge, Committee for State Stewardship, state-level affiliates with Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, This House is My House, Parents in Charge, www.politicalactivists.org, National Voter Outreach, 470 W 166 LLC, NewEnvironmentalism.org, Privatization.org, UrbanFutures.org, National Alliance, Joseph R. Rich, Daniel Rich, 123 Lasalle Inc., 4220 Broadway Inc., 4220 Broadway LLC, 123 Lasalle Associates, Spinksville LLC, 405 49 Associates, West 14 & 18 LLC, JMG Realty, Rosemeade Investors, LLC, Ashborough Investors, Bradford Management of New York Inc., Rich Lending Corp., 538-14 Realty LLC, Votenet Solutions Inc., eConstituent, eBallot, and Votenet Voter Registration. I'm sure there are others – but the point is, if Rich needs a front to hide his contribution, he and/or his closest associates make up a new group or file a new corporation and he's off and running.

This practice is commonplace in Oregon. It is a system most used by Oregonians in Action, petitioning companies, and Bill Sizemore and it is very effective at both hiding the source of funding and creating the appearance of broad-based support when such support does not exist. It is a sophisticated means of avoiding the problems faced by people like Loren Parks, who donate large amounts of money in the open for everyone to see, suspect, and criticize. When you see the repercussions that Mark Hemstreet faced for his support of Bill Sizemore years ago, you can understand why people go to such extremes to hide their giving. But truly, voters need to stop being so dense about these things. That nice-sounding group "Grandmas for Affordable Housing" might well be more aptly named "Developers for Freedom from Land Use Laws."

Posted by Becky at 09:34 AM |

The fast track to Heaven

It seems that the pastors of Albany Georgia's Sherwood Baptist church believe that movies and TV have more influence than sermons. And so they've become budding movie moguls, having cranked out several movies for the big screen in the last several years.

That seems like a highly dubious tenet for Biblical literalists to take, given the extreme unlikelihood that any of Jesus' disciples would have agreed with it... What with the invention of theater, the precursor of both TV and movies, already ancient history when Jesus walked the earth, and the absolute lack of any mention of using it to spread the Gospel in my Bible. Still... it's a philosophy that I could get into.

My TV was on all weekend long. I must be on the fast track to Heaven! LOL

Posted by Kevin at 09:23 AM |

Chickenhawk Jacoby gets his panties inna bunch

It seems blogger/columnist Jeff Jacoby is up in a twist over the use by lefties of the label "Chickenhawk":

``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral or the necessary understanding to advocate military force.

Now its entirely possible that some people who use the chickenhawk label take it to mean the definition that Jacoby outlines. But I'd venture to say that its not most...or even that many.

"Chickenhawk" under my definition means someone who is a war hawk that hasn't served, has no intention of serving and will likely insulate their close blood ties from serving as well.

In other words, "Go to war and fight for my ideology..but don't expect me or mine to pick up a weapon and fight along side you".

Jacoby likes to tell us liberals what our problems are: we're "dishonest" and "incoherent". Like many conservatives, Jacoby uses that perception of liberals to make excuses for his positions and what is very apparently a cowardly stance on war.

It takes no effort whatsoever to sit your ass at a computer and type about going to war and killing people that you consider to be "terrorists" or "sponsors of terrorism". But its a whole other kettle of peas when you refuse to contribute anything more to the fight than some pixels and a column in the Boston Globe.

Posted by Carla at 07:50 AM |

July 23, 2006

Condi does stand-up

Condi Rice said this evening that "We believe that a cease-fire is urgent," and that "it is important, however, to have conditions that will make it sustainable."

Ms. Rice added, "the really important thing here is that whatever we do has to contribute to Lebanon's regaining sovereignty over all its territory."

Presumably she doesn't believe that Israel has bombed enough Lebanese military bases to sufficiently facilitate Lebanon's regaining sovereignty over all its territory.

:::rolls eyes in disgust:::

Posted by Kevin at 11:10 PM |

Six Degrees of Hezbollah/Israeli separation

Its interesting what happens when one drops ideology, deals in cold hard facts and answers serious questions from a serious person about the mess in the Middle East.

Its much too large to excerpt here, but over at Harper's, former Deputy Director of the State Department's Office of Middle East and South Asia Analysis Wayne White dishes out answers to six questions on the realities of the short-sighted moves of Israel against Hezbollah. And how our forsworn alliance to the other children of Abraham is going to erode the US even further on the world stage.

Its short, informative and well worth the click.

Posted by Carla at 08:18 PM |

Congressional Race Preview #8 - IA/WI/MN

The upper midwest is still a populist hotbed, even though that sometimes gets overlooked as we look at more populated areas of the country.

This is where people that work the land and people that work in the cities and factories seem to be able to find common ground politically.

In today's preview I have my 4th Democrat victory prediction.

Iowa 1 - Mike Whalen (R) vs Bruce Braley (D) - This is an open seat battle of political heavyweights in a swing district that both parties are intent on winning. Whalen is a very strong campaigner and comes out of his primary with the resources necessary to get his message out. Braley is the former head of the Iowa Trial Attorneys and has run a very smart, effective campaign thus far. This will be one to watch as we approach election day. Toss Up

Wisconsin 8 - John Gard (R) vs Nancy Nusbaum (D) - Nusbaum still faces a contested primary, but is the only Democrat with both the resources and the political acumen to make this a race. Gard is the GOP standard bearer in this GOP leaning open seat. Although Nusbaum could make a race of it, it will take some national momentum for her to win this seat. Leans GOP

Minnesota 1 - Gil Gutknecht (R) vs Tim Walz (D) - Gutknecht is one of the more thoughtful members of the House of Representatives and is a close match for the district. However, he faces "The Little Campaign That Could" in veteran and high school principal Tim Walz. Gutknecht has recently begun to question our involvement in Iraq, but his ties to and unpopular president could make this race close. Walz is plugging along and doing better than many expected of him, but it will take a wave to get him into Congress. Leans GOP

Minnesota 2 - John Kline (R) vs Colleen Rowley (D) - What started out as a highly touted success in candidate recruiting for the DCCC in FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley has turned into something close to an embarassment. Without even a basic understanding of how to run a political campaign, her campaign is teetering along and the brink of falling apart. Kline, on the otherhand, is a ruthless campaigner and should be able to make short work of Rowley in a seat that should be in play for the Dems. Leans GOP

Minnesota 6 - Michele Bachmann (R) vs Patty Wetterling (D) - Although this is a moderately conservative, slightly GOP leaning district, the perfect storm seems to be coming together for the Democrats. The GOP nominated extreme social right winger Bachmann, whose focus on homosexuality (she once was caught spying on a gay rights rally from the bushes) to the detriment of other issues puts her out of touch with most of the district. The Democrats nominated well known child safety activist Patty Wetterling, who challenged incumbent Mark Kennedy in 2004 and made it quite the race. Look for Wetterling in DC come 2007. Leans Dem

Coming next - Illinois and Nebraska. All Congressional Race Previews are cross posted at Swede And Czech

Posted by Alan at 10:52 AM |

More Cognitive Dissonance From the Right

How ironic is this: Freedomworks is funded by forced dues on insurance policy holders, and Freedomworks tried to get a measure on the ballot that would have ended union dues for political purposes. In the first instance, the dues were foisted on unwitting customers. In the second, the union members voted to impose the dues upon themselves.

Posted by Becky at 09:01 AM |

July 22, 2006

As The Pendulum Swings

George Will writes today about the political situation in Pennsylvania. In it, he describes Pennsylvania as a breeding ground of what may be the beginning of the pendulum swing away from the social and neo-conservatism that is in charge of the country right now.

The state also has recently been a cockpit for culture wars: The town of Dover voted out of office all eight school board members seeking reelection, because the board had tried to insinuate religion, in the form of "intelligent design" theory, into high school biology classes, beginning with a mandatory decree that evolution "is not a fact."

Such social conservatism is, Rendell says, one reason there is a "sea change" underway in the state. He points to suburban Chester County (west of Philadelphia), the state's only southeastern county to twice support George W. Bush and which had not elected a Democratic state senator since the 1870s. In a state Senate race this May, which Rendell describes as between two good county commissioners, both of them pro-choice, the Democrat won a 12-point landslide.

But most interesting to me is his analysis of the "Republican base" and how it is splintering.

Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a favorite of social conservatives, is in an uphill struggle to hold his seat. His campaign should help Swann's by energizing the Republican base. But, says Rendell contentedly, the Republican vote consists of three increasingly incompatible factions: the loyal base, the disappointed base that may not vote, and Republican moderates who are "fast concluding there's no place for them in the party." From "gay-bashing" to restrictions on stem cell research, he says, "they're appalled by it all."

In states like Pennsylvania, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the coalition of business, evangelicals, and the rich. And that may be the beginning of the end for the right wing that has gone too far to the right.

Posted by Alan at 11:52 AM |

Petulance?

When compared to the diplomatic efforts by Bush 41's administration, particularly among Arab states, the record of the Bush 43 administration stands in stark contrast.

Could Dubya's foreign policy decisions ammount to nothing more than a petulant effort to prove to his old man that he's a man too? It certainly seems plausible given the criticism of Israel's latest actions by military strategists in light of the obvious total support Dubya is granting them.

Meanwhile... while Condi Rice talks about the "illegality" of Hezbollah's initial strike on Israel, American legal experts examine the illegality of Israel's response.

Posted by Kevin at 10:16 AM |

Oregon Ballot Measures Part of Huge Libertarian Effort

My hat is off to Ed Waldo of Boregasm for uncovering an amazing story of how a small group of wealthy libertarians with a war chest of millions of dollars are working to impose their radical views all across the country this fall.

His series "Reportage on Perfidy Made Simple, or, Read the Series in Series" is a must read for anyone who is concerned about the ballot measures we're facing this fall, including TABOR, eminent domain, and term limits.

I'm digging into this deeper and will report on my findings throughout next week. But Ed's report will give you plenty of reading material to get you started through the weekend.

Posted by Becky at 08:48 AM |

Congressional Race Preview #7 - OH/IN/MI

Indiana is one of the redder states in the country, yet is a battleground for Democrats nonetheless.

Led by Vanderberg County Sheriff Brad Ellsworth, Indiana could also be an indicator early on as to whether the Dems will be able to take over the majority in the House.

Ohio 18 - Bob Ney (R) vs Zack Space (D) - Plagued by the Abramoff scandal (he is listed in the investigation as "Congressmember A") and spending more money on legal defense than on his campaign, this race should, by all rights, be a slam dunk for the Democrats. But the Democrats, bless their heart, nominated attorney Space, who seemingly has no idea of how to run a campaign or why he's running. He still could win, but he'll likely have to be carried across the finish line to do it. Toss Up

Indiana 2 - Chris Chocola (R) vs Joe Donnelly (D) - Chocola faces a rematch with business owner Donnelly. On paper, he is the perfect candidate and, in person, is one of the finest people you could ever meet. Unfortunately, Chocola has a lot of personal wealth and Donnelly, like Space in the previous race (although not nearly to Space's degree), seemingly seems lost on how to run a campaign properly. Leans GOP

Indiana 8 - John Hostettler (R) vs Brad Ellsworth (D) - Every incumbent has the "nightmare opponent". The one that makes them wake up in the middle of the night with sweats. Unfortunately for Hostettler, that opponent is running against him this cycle in the person of Sheriff Brad Ellsworth. Telegenic, smart, and extremely well respected, its hard to see how Hostettler, who is so far to the right that he's out of touch with even this conservative district, pulls of another victory here. The NRCC is already attacking Ellsworth with a "Willie Horton" type ad, but even this is unlikely to keep Hostettler in Congress. Leans Dem

Indiana 9 - Mike Sodrel (R) vs Baron Hill (D) - Sodrel won this seat in 2004 from Hill in the 2nd closest race in the nation. Hill is back for a rematch, hoping that Bush's drop in popularity is enough to give him his old seat back. Both parties are likely to pour money into this seat. In the end, though, this is a conservative leaning district, and unlikely to unseat the GOP incumbent. Leans GOP

Michigan 8 - Mike Rogers (R) vs Jim Marcinkowski (D) - This Michigan district has the makings of a battleground, and former CIA employee Marcinkowski has the background to put this seat into serious play - one day. Rogers, though, has far more resources this time around, and there doesn't seem to be the movement afoot in the district to throw out the popular Congressman. Leans GOP

Next preview - Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. All Congressional Race Previews cross posted at Swede And Czech

Posted by Alan at 08:38 AM |

July 21, 2006

Condi Rice spoon feeds the media lapdogs

Ms. Rice rejected the notion of an immediage ceasefire with the illogical excuse that I can guarantee you, if you simply look for a cease-fire that acknowledges and freezes the status quo ante, we will be back here in six months again or in five months or in nine months or in a year...

Someone please explain to me how seeking an immediate cease fire forces anyone to freeze the status quo ante?

Anyone?

Posted by Kevin at 09:17 PM |

Cease fires are for babies

Or so says our incompetent Secretary of State:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rejected the "false promise" of an immediate cease-fire in the spreading war between Israel and Hezbollah on Friday and said she would seek long-term peace during a trip to the Mideast beginning Sunday. The top U.S. diplomat defended her decision not to meet with Hezbollah leaders or their Syrian backers during her visit.

"Syria knows what it needs to do, and Hezbollah is the source of the problem," Rice said as she previewed her trip, which begins with a stop in Israel.

Rice said the United States is committed to ending the bloodshed, but not before certain conditions are met. The Bush administration has said that Hezbollah must first turn over the two Israeli soldiers whose capture set off the 10-day-old violence, and stop firing missiles into Israel.

So its okay with Rice that people are dying hand over fist..as long as she can put a diplomatic feather in her cap later on?

So much for being "pro-life".

And once again..its all Hezbollah's fault. No effort to discuss Israel's complete overreaction. Not to mention their demands--that they themselves made certain Lebanon and Syria couldn't meet.

Posted by Carla at 02:28 PM |

Eyman Of The Tiger

It looks like Tim Eyman's penchant for getting initiatives onto the Washington State ballot may be coming to an end.

It looks as though Tim Eyman's much-touted $30 car tab initiative might not have enough signatures to make the November ballot.

Initiative 917 calls for repealing weight fees and other vehicle taxes enacted by the Legislature last year to provide $2.7 billion for a massive transportation package. If the initiative fails to make it to the ballot, it would make Eyman 0-2 on measures many predicted would be shoo-ins for the fall election.

In June, Eyman failed to collect enough signatures to qualify Referendum 65, which would have repealed gay rights legislation passed by the Legislature this year. The shortfall came as a surprise since Eyman had the help of some church leaders, who circulated the petitions at Sunday services around the state.

All good things - and gravy trains - must come to an end eventually, eh Tim?

Posted by Alan at 01:23 PM |

Congressional Preview #6 - KY/OH

Another hot battleground for house races this year will be Ohio. The GOP is in disarray, Governor Taft has approval ratings somewhere equal to Attila the Hun, and the Democrats smell blood.

We still have a couple of races in Kentucky to finish up with first though.

Happy Friday.

Kentucky 3 - Anne Northup (R) vs John Yarmuth (D) - This is one of those seats that the Democrats think they can win every year, only to be disappointed on election day. Northup is an extremely strong campaigner and has done a lot to solidify herself with the minority communities in Louisville. That being said, former newspaper publisher John Yarmuth is proving himself to be a strong campaigner in his own right. And Congresswoman Northup's ties to the Bush administration, as well as the scandal-plagued GOP Governor, make this race one very much worth watching. Toss Up

Kentucky 4 - Geoff Davis (R) vs Ken Lucas (D) - Davis won this seat in 2004 against Nick Clooney (George's father) after Lucas decided to call it a career. Well, Lucas has had a change of heart, and is running to win back his old seat. Lucas has the credentials as a Blue Dog Democrat, but this district is turning into solid GOP country. Despite what national Democrats think, this is Davis' to lose. Leans GOP

Ohio 1 - Steve Chabot (R) vs John Cranley (D) - The right atmosphere (Bush losing steam & a corrupt state GOP) and the right candidate (Cincinnati City Councilmember Cranley) combine to make this one of the more exciting races to watch in the country come November. Chabot had beaten back a few previous strong challenges (including one from a younger Cranley) and seemed on his way to making this a safe seat. But all that changed with the entry on Cranley. A bulldog on the campaign trail, Cranley isn't likely to let up on Chabot, and may have him on the defensive through election day. Toss Up

Ohio 12 - Pat Tiberi (R) vs Bob Shamansky (D) - Tiberi was likely to coast to victory in this seat until a very spry former Congressman Shamansky decided to make a run. He knows what it takes to win, and Tiberi is going to have to work much harder than anyone expected. But, in the end, no one expects Tiberi to lose this seat. Leans GOP

Ohio 15 - Deborah Pryce (R) vs Mary Jo Kilroy (D) - Yet another member of the GOP leadership faces a big challenge this cycle in the name of Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy. EMILY's List is strong with Kilroy and, early on, a number of pundits figured that Pryce was ripe for the picking. However, Pryce hasn't backed down from the challenge, and Kilroy's early momentum may not be enough to get her into Congress. Leans GOP

Next - Finish up Ohio, then Indiana & Michigan. All Congressional Previews are cross posted at Swede And Czech

Posted by Alan at 12:28 PM |

Freeeaaakkky....

Websites can't read your mind, can they?

I've played this a dozen times this morning and its right EVERY freaking time--even though I change out the symbols periodically on purpose.

How does it do this???

Its freaking me out!

(via Vonski.)

Posted by Carla at 12:14 PM |

Another Torture Backer Rewarded

Looks like President Bush is about to reward another bad guy.

William Haynes II, the Pentagon's general counsel, has been closely involved in shaping some of the Bush administration's most legally and morally objectionable policies, notably on the use of torture. ...

Haynes has for years been part of a small group of insiders who have mapped out the Bush administration's policies on questioning detainees and declaring American citizens to be "enemy combatants." The administration's policies in this area have been indecent and lawless, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly had to step in to rein them in.

Haynes was by many accounts a key player in the administration's development of its shamefully narrow definition of "torture," which gave the green light for a wide array of abuses. The decisions made in Washington cleared the way for abusive treatment of the detainees being held in Guantánamo Bay, and created the environment necessary for the Abu Ghraib torture scandal to occur.

And now, like another of Bush's torture supporters, Jay S. Bybee, Haynes may get to become a federal judge. How sweet.

Posted by Becky at 09:33 AM |

July 20, 2006

Congressional Race Preview #5 - FL/KY

Today's preview comes to you from beautiful Dallas Fort Worth International airport, where I wait for my next flight on my way to Seattle and my 20 year high school reunion.

We have 4 more races today to talk about in Florida, then we start to move toward the midwest.

Florida 9 - Gus Bilirakis (R) vs Phyllis Busansky (D) - Mike Bilirakis is retiring and wants to keep this seat in the family. What I would guess the Bilirakis clan thought was a slam dunk at the beginning of this cycle turned into anything but with the entry of former Hillsborough County Commissioner Phyllis Busansky into the race. Phyllis is energetic, well known, and well liked in this north Tampa Bay district. Although Gus is raising money like and incumbent with the help of his father, Phyllis is showing that she will have the resources necessary to make this too close to call. Toss Up

Florida 13 - Vern Buchanan or Tramm Hudson (R) vs Christine Jennings (D) - Katherine Harris' seat is open, and the floodgates opened with candidates. The GOP primary has five candidates, although it looks to be down to Vern Buchanan or Tramm Hudson. Buchanan built a national auto part business that is now under scrutiny for business ethics questions, and Tramm Hudson is a banker. Both would be strong candidates in the general (Buchanan because he is pouring his own money into this and has very deep pockets). On the Democrat side, Sarasota Bank founder Christine Jennings is in a primary against two time Dem nominee Jan Schneider. Bottom line - if Jan Schneider wins the Democrat primary, this race is over. If Christine Jennings comes through, she has the standing and the resources to make a go of it. But even the, it's a tough pickup for the Dems. Leans GOP

Florida 16 - Mark Foley (R) vs Tim Mahoney (D) - Foley faces his first real challenge in years in the form of former GOP dot commer Tim Mahoney. Mahoney is a factor because he has access to financial resources. However, in the end, it will take a lot more than money (Foley has $3,000,000 in the bank) to unseat the popular moderate Republican in this district. Leans GOP

Florida 22 - Clay Shaw (R) vs Ron Klein (D) - This is a collosal battle in South Florida. Clay Shaw won this race in 2000 by less than one percent. Since then he has faced two "promising" Democrat candidates, both of whom imploded before election day. That won't happen this time with State Senate Minority Leader Ron Klein. Both sides have been going after each other for a year now, and either candidate could come through in the end. However, it seems that Clay Shaw, who has had health issues, wants to make this his final hurrah, so to speak - raising $1.3 million in the last three months alone. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Klein pull this off, but I'm guessing that Shaw and the NRCC will pull through again. Leans GOP

Kentucky 2 - Ron Lewis (R) vs Mike Weaver (D) - Ron Lewis hasn't faced a challenge in this seat in a long time - maybe ever - but that's not the case this time. State Rep & Army Veteran Mike Weaver is in tune with this district and has the dormant Democrats in this district, and the state, fired up. That being said, it would still take a wave to pull him across the finish line in the strong GOP voting district. Leans GOP

Next - Kentucky continued and into Ohio. All Congressional Previews are cross posted at Swede And Czech

Posted by Alan at 12:53 PM |

Knee-jerk idiocy

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday that the fighting in Lebanon would end when two Israeli soldiers were freed, rocket attacks stopped and the Lebanese army deployed along the border. These are the conditions he insists must be met before Israel can agree to a ceasefire. Olmert must think the international community to be fools.

Let's take just one of his stipulated conditions - that the Lebanese army be deployed along the southern border.

Olmert's IDF has bombed several Lebanese military bases throughout the week. They bombed at least two bases and possibly a third last Friday, two on Monday and two more on Tuesday, one was bombed repeatedly including during an attempted rescue operation by the Lebanese military to extract soldiers trapped in the rubble. Assorted other less well defined military targets have been hit as well. Such as a squad of soldiers in a fishing port in the far North or radar installations. All this in the name of purportedly fighting Hezbollah.

Does PM Olmert seriously believe that these are actions conducive to his alleged goals?

Then there is the fact that, as the Lebanese Embassy in Washington DC puts it, the South "has become virtually cut off from the rest of the country after the major roads and bridges leading to it were bombed."

How does PM Olmert expect the Lebanese military to get there?

The PR coming out of the Israeli government is that they are only deliberately targeting Hezbollah and related targets. If that's true then they clearly consider the Lebanese military to be Hezbollah related. Which begs the question of why would Olmert insist that an entity which he is deliberately and actively targeting as ostensibly part of the enemy move closer to Israel with a military force?

Posted by Kevin at 12:43 PM |

Beating Fundamentalism into your kids

Yup. Literally:

Family Integrity has produced a controversial eight-page booklet on how to use physical punishment under the present law.

Parents are told that smacking can be a "10-to-15-minute process" and that if a child reacts angrily, such as by slamming doors or "pouting", they should be smacked again.

"Smacking is meant to drive the foolishness, the sinful manifestations, out of the child's personality so that they do not become permanent fixtures," it says.

Smacking is justified because children younger than age eight "do not think straight" and lack a developed sense of fair play and duty.

Yeah..nothing cements a sense of "fair play" into a kid like hauling off a big, open-handed slap on their hindquarter. We wouldn't want do something like say, logical consequences so that kids could understand real life responsibility, perhaps?

The booklet even provides a special "how to" guide in case the smacker isn't smart enough to give the smackee enough of a wallop:

My personal favorite is bullet point #4: If the child is still angry after the smack, you haven't smacked them hard enough.

The good ol' beat your kids into submission routine.

Take it from someone who was beaten as a child, this doesn't work.

I was beaten under similar guidelines when I was growing up. Not only does it NOT eliminate anger--it pushes it to fester. And for kids with personalities like myself (controlling, competitive, stubborn and opinionated), it only makes it worse.

Posted by Carla at 10:53 AM |

July 19, 2006

Christians Fighting for Everyone's Freedom of Speech

One of our most precious freedoms in this country is the right to speak freely in the public square. And one of the more frustrating interferences with our civil rights of late has been the increasing use of designated free speech zones, where people can say whatever they want but only out of earshot of any audience – thereby rendering the speech effectively mute.

Now the free speech zones are hitting a group that may be able to do something about them. A Christian group has just filed suit for having been kicked off Navy Pier in Chicago, where they were preaching and handing out fliers, and being told to do their preaching in a designated free speech zone. I really hope this one goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and that the Court rules in their favor. If so, it will not be the first time religious proselytizers have gone to court in free speech battles that have strengthened civil rights protections for the rest of us.

All you need to do to understand the significance of this is to replace the following suppression of religious speech with suppression of political speech. Clearly, it is essential that these street preachers win in Court:

According to the suit, the plaintiffs were [distributing free religious literature and engaging in one-on-one discussion in the public square] on Saturday, July 15, at Navy Pier, when a police officer told them "they must leave or be arrested. Another officer informed plaintiffs that they must stand in designated 'free speech zones.'"

On Sunday, the plaintiffs returned to Navy Pier, and were told they could hold their demonstration across the street from the Pier. They were then told they could not stay in the park across from Navy Pier and were arrested, the suit says. The suit alleges that following their arrest, a police officer told one of the plaintiffs, as he was picking up his box of "gospel tracts," to "get this s**t our [sic] of here. Nobody wants to hear your bulls**t."

The plaintiffs met with an attorney for the city on Monday, the suit says, who reiterated that the group could preach in the free speech zones, but the suit contends that "confining plaintiffs to free speech zones would prevent their ministry objectives because they would be unable to effectively engage in dialogue with the public."

I sincerely hope the ACLU takes up this case. (Of course, even if the ACLU did take up and win the case, I wouldn't expect the Christian community to get over their insane aversion to the group. But the rest of us would love them even more.)

Posted by Becky at 01:50 PM |

Once again Democrat's moral backbone is AWOL

The WaPo is reporting that Congress Is Giving Israel Vote of Confidence. But the real story is in the subtitle: Both Parties Back Ally, Court Jewish Support. This is more about politics than anything else and I find that reality to be morally repugnant, real politik though it may be.

Surprising as it may seem Pat Buchanan is a rare voice of reason in American politics right now.

While Democrats stumble over themselves checking that their rhetoric is blowing the same direction as the prevailing winds, morality and ethics be damned, Buchanan calls a spade a spade and doesn't come across as a pacifistic wimp while doing it.

Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.

But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian. (emphasis supplied)

The Democrats... or should I say Republocrats, according to the WaPo piece?

Democratic and Republican congressional leaders are rushing to offer unalloyed support for Israel's offensive against Hezbollah fighters, reflecting a bipartisan desire to not only defend a key U.S. ally but also solidify long-term backing of Jewish voters and political donors in the United States, according to officials and strategists in both parties. (emphasis supplied)

How many more times do we have to hear Dems later struggle to explain away having granted uncritical support for wars of aggression which only make things worse? I mean with Republicans... it's what they do. It's what they're about. But what kind of "choice" does the Democratic party offer voters on the moral or ethical direction this nation is headed? Are they not complicit by their own choices?

Posted by Kevin at 01:28 PM |

Israeli Children Sign Bombs Headed for Lebanon

I am so deeply disturbed by a photo posted at Rense.com that I can't get it out of my mind. The photo shows beautiful little Israeli children writing messages on bombs that are headed for Lebanon. When you click through the caption of the photo you see dead Lebanese children who were killed by Israeli bombs.

When I mentioned this to a conservative I know, I was told that we did the same thing with our children during WWII. I suppose I can imagine the children of our slaughtered Navy men writing nice little messages to the Japanese on the bombs we were sending over. And I know our soldiers wrote messages on bombs we dropped in Afghanistan following 9/11.

It still bothers me. And I think the reason why is that when anger explodes, people forget that the objects of their anger are human beings - and in war, those human beings are often children. At the same time, I'm torn by the reality that those children will grow up every bit as hateful as their parents, and the warring will just continue on from one generation to the next. So I'm left to wonder whether the human race really does ever have any hope of finding peace. I tend to think not.

Posted by Becky at 01:24 PM |

Congressional Preview #4 - PA/VA/NC/FL

Now that we're wrapping up the Northeast, things will move a bit more quickly around the country - at least until we get to the midwest.

Democrats are constantly wondering about The South and what to do about it. I don't have the answers, but today we'll preview a few candidates that might give us some clues.

Pennsylvania 10 - Don Sherwood (R) vs Chris Carney (D) - In normal circumstances, with an average incumbent, this wouldn't be on anyones radar. Allegations of adultry and assault of a girl in her 20's against Sherwood, and Sherwood's admission to an affair with her, got the Democrats looking at this seat. Chris Carney is a perfect candidate to step into this challenge. A former intelligence officer, Carney is conservative enough to be able to reach out to independents and angry Republicans. Sherwood barely made it through his primary against someone with no name recognition, which tells us that there are quite a few people not happy with him. All that being said, this is solid GOP territory, and it's hard for me to see this one going blue in the end. Leans GOP

Virginia 2 - Thelma Drake (R) vs Phil Kellam (D) - Thelma Drake won this seat in 2004 in what was a bigger battle than the GOP expected, and this time the Democrats got their best candidate to run. Phil Kellam is the Virginia Beach Commissioner of Revenue, and is well known and well liked in this military district. His campaign is running well, and he will have the resources to challenge Drake. This is going to be a dogfight. Toss Up

Virginia 10 - Frank Wolf (R) vs Judy Feder (D) - Congressman Wolf can't be sleeping well at night. Judy Feder is a tenacious candidate that frankly reminds me of Melissa Bean in her doggedness on the campaign trail. This is a suburban DC district that is growing more blue all the time. Feder has what it takes, and is showing that she can bring in the resources, to make this a battle, and one I'm sure Wolf was not expecting. Toss Up

North Carolina 11 - Charles Taylor (R) vs Heath Shuler (D) - Charles Taylor has been wrapped in scandal for years, yet the Dems haven't been able to unseat him. That's about to change. Former U of Tennessee quarterback Heath Shuler is a native of western Carolina, socially in line with the district, and has put together an extremely strong campaign. Charles Taylor will use his personal wealth to try to blunt Shuler, and both the DCCC and NRCC will play heavily here. However, Taylor's "missed vote" on CAFTA is likely to be the biggest mistake of his career in representing this textile district. Expect to see Heath Shuler in the next Congress. Leans Dem

Florida 8 - Ric Keller (R) vs Alan Grayson (D) - This race popped on everyone's radar about a month ago with the entry of attorney Alan Grayson into the race. Grayson went after corruption by government contractors and recently won a settlement against Iraq contractors that were bilking the government. He has the personal wealth to give Ric Keller fits. Grayson faces a three way primary and, if he is defeated, this race comes of the chart. Keller has won tough battles before, but not in a while, and it'll be interesting to see if he is ready for this one. Toss Up

Coming next - Florida continues, then Kentucky. All Congressional Previews are cross posted at Swede And Czech.

Posted by Alan at 06:31 AM |

Bush's Stem Cell Veto Being Mischaracterized

All the hullabaloo over the President's threatened veto of the stem cell research bill had me actually believing that the bill was about whether or not to allow stem cell research in the United States. People have been arguing that the President should sign the bill because it would save lives, help paralyzed people walk again, etc., with the implication being that unless the bill is signed into law, stem cell research would not be performed here.

But that's not what the bill does at all. That argument is, no doubt, intended to accentuate the perception that the President is a heartless fundamentalist. But unlike most message simplification for the masses, the argument is actually false. Why do people think they need to do that? Especially when the truth about the looming veto would give us a clearer and, in my opinion, darker picture of the man?

What I didn't know until yesterday is that stem cell research is already being legally done in the United States. Here's what the bill is actually about:

In the United States, stem-cell research is being conducted in a federal regulatory vacuum. This stands in stark contrast to the situation in most of Europe, Canada and Australia, where comprehensive national systems of oversight have been established. In the United Kingdom, a Stem Cell Steering Committee (SCSC) develops national rules of conduct for stem-cell research and oversees the operations of a nationally sponsored stem-cell bank. The SCSC includes scientists, health experts, ethicists, theologians and lay members. Any institution wishing to conduct stem-cell research, or to deposit or have access to cell lines held by the stem-cell bank, must first obtain a license obligating it to abide by nationally uniform rules.

Why has nothing like this been established in the United States? A key reason is that the major interest groups involved have resisted regulatory oversight. Religious conservatives fear that creation of regulatory structures could ease the way toward approval of practices they believe should be banned. Scientists, commercial biotech firms and fertility clinic operators have been reluctant to accept limits on what they see as their inherent right to conduct research and make profits.

Why have the pundits on the left focused on the Christian angle here and not on the government oversight of the medical research industry? Surely there are ties here to Big Pharma - part of the nest of greed that manipulates our government for profit. To me, that is a more damning loyalty on the part of the President than if he made a decision to veto the bill based on his religious principles.

Posted by Becky at 06:17 AM |

July 18, 2006

Q: What's the difference between a "grope" and a "massage"?

What exactly the hell was Bush doing to the neck and shoulders of German Chancellor Merkel the other day?

Hint from James Wolcott: Bush is not a giver; he's a taker. That's really all you need to explain it.

Wolcott's nailed it in one. Go see. Then, if it seems necessary, give yourself a few minutes to take a shower and burn your clothes.

Posted by Nothstine at 05:10 PM |

When no one trusts you, you've no one to trust

Carla's post below on Lieberman's increasing troubles in Connecticut started a thread about exactly what Joe's problem is: Is he generally too conservative for Connecticut? (Carla says yes, Chris says not so much.) Is it that he's pissed off the Connecticut voters, or the Democratic Party apparatus in CT? (My vote was both, with strong emphasis on the latter.) Chris also forwarded a column by former CT state senator Kevin Rennie, detailing Leiberman's disfavor among the rank and file.

This afternoon, via Kos (who adds some interesting statistics) and the Hotline, comes the latest piece from Rennie, which includes the following:

The theme of a Saturday conclave of Greater Hartford Democratic town committee chairs was that if Lieberman loses the primary he will hurt all other Democratic candidates by running as an independent in November. The message was clear: help him now or your favorites suffer in November. [...]

The response of the crowd of about 50 could not have been encouraging, though Lendenfeld impressed with his plan. Still, there was much resentment about Lieberman’s support of the war in Iraq and, now, threat to bolt party if he falls short on 8/8. Reactions ranged from support to nods to hostility. Most local leaders are far more interested in the gubernatorial race with its tangible rewards in patronage and prestige.

One of Lieberman’s problems became evident in aftermath of meeting: lots of local leaders are quietly opposing him and were eager to share tales of the event. Plan is to hire workers to make calls and hit the pavement. Fears are growing that Lieberman will have no chance of winning in a low turnout. Twenty percent, the number batted about, is thought to be fatal to his chances.

Rennie describes the treatment Lieberman's getting as "a snootful of democracy." Love that phrase. It's a blog title waiting for the blog to appear that's worthy of it.

Posted by Nothstine at 03:38 PM |

The Lunatics Have Taken Over

Jim Lobe opines in the Asia Times that U.S. war hawks are smelling blood in the current Israeli-Palestinian explosion, and he makes a compelling case that is worth a careful read. Here's a taste:

Just nine days after September 11, Kristol and PNAC - whose charter members included Vice President Dick Cheney, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and half a dozen other senior Bush administration officials - released an open letter to Bush that called for the United States to retaliate not only against al-Qaeda and Afghanistan, but also against Israel's main regional foes, beginning with Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat.

In addition, the letter advised, "any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe that the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these state sponsors of terrorism. …

[T]he current conflict represents a golden opportunity for the neo-conservatives to reassert their influence and reactivate their Israel-centered agenda against Hezbollah and its two state sponsors.

Not everyone views Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists, despite their terrorist activity. Some see them as something much worse.

They are not terrorists. They carry out terrorist attacks, but they are not terrorists. They are something far more dangerous. They are a fully functioning political, social, religious, and military organizations that use terrorism tactics, but they are far more formidible than terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or the Basque Terrorist Organization. They do have the resources and the personnel to project force, sustain operations, and cannot be easily defeated. Unlike the Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1973, Hamas and Hezbollah will not easily fold and cannot be defeated in a seven day war. If that is the assumption among some Israeli military planners it is a crazy fantasy.

The worst part of this for me is not that North Korea, Iran, Israel, and God knows where else are run by a bunch of lunatics. It's that the United States, once a force for peace and stability, is run by a bunch a lunatics who want to go to war with all the other lunatics in the world. It just plain pisses me off. Particularly seeing as how there is about a zero percent chance that anyone can stop this runaway train at this point and I'm stuck on board.

TruthOut.org has some more commentary on the matter. And if you want a real heart breaker, go to Jeff Rense's conspiratorial website and have a look at the photo of the gifts Israeli children are sending to Lebanese children. Be sure to click through to see how well received those gifts have been.

Posted by Becky at 09:43 AM |

Take Responsibility for Your Food Choices

It is really quite humorous to me how many Americans eat meat and poultry and are at the same time entirely disconnected from the reality that what they are eating was once a living animal and was intentionally killed for food.

Take, for instance, a planned chain of grocery stores for Colorado that is seeking approval to slaughter chickens by electrocution each morning for its customers. Suddenly the public is having a conniption fit.

I won't deny that the horrors of corporate meat production and the slaughterhouse make me think twice about eating meat. In fact, that is the primary reason I support hunting and go hunting. A well-shot animal, after living a free life in the wide open country, dies in seconds and doesn't really understand what even happened. A commercially produced animal, on the other hand, after being crammed into disgusting quarters for weeks or months at a time, waits in line smelling blood and fear sometimes for hours before being hung upside down and bled to death or, in the case of chickens, electrocuted. It's disgusting.

But we don't think of that when we see the neat little packages of steaks and drumsticks lined up in the grocery store, do we? Few of us are willing to give up meat, and even fewer, it seems, are willing to take moral responsibility for our eating choices. For me, the responsible choice has been hunting – and I feel good knowing my license fees are working to protect wildlife habitat at the same time.

Posted by Becky at 08:56 AM |

Remember all the chatter...

... among conservative bloggers about how hot those Lebanese women were who participated in the Cedar Revolution demonstrations?

Now what do you think of them?

Nothing more than tools. Useful when they were demonstrating in a manner and cause that the conservatives approved of. Now that they're on the receiving end of Israeli violence...? Well now they're just that dehumanizing euphamism - "collateral damage." Of course if these were pics of Israeli girls... we all know that those same conservatives would be having an aneurysm trying to vent their rage.

Effing hypocrits...

Posted by Kevin at 08:52 AM |

New IRS Enforcement Initiative Likely Meaningless

A new IRS initiative, called the Political Activity Compliance Initiative, is being billed as an effort to pursue churches and other nonprofits engaging in politicking in violation of their 501(c)3 status.

Under the initiative, the IRS plans to expedite investigations into claims of improper campaigning, no longer waiting for an annual tax return to be filed or the tax year to end before launching a probe. A three-member committee will make an initial review of complaints and then vote on whether to pursue the investigation in detail.

Before you get too excited, though, remember that the IRS is ultimately a politically-controlled organization. I learned that when an IRS investigation into Oregon Taxpayers United's Education Foundation for falsifying tax returns and engaging in political activity was quietly dropped. Fortunately, a local judge was able to step in and order the Foundation shut down, calling it a "sham charity." But the IRS, despite clear evidence, did nothing. I found that interesting considering all the talk amongst conservatives during the Clinton years about how the IRS was being used to harrass conservative organizations.

What I'm getting at is that, barring a regime change in Washington, we can probably expect the IRS to pursue instances of Democratic politicking in churches, but not Republican politicking in churches. Take, for instance, the ongoing IRS investigation of All Saints Church in Pasadena.

Two days before the 2004 presidential election, the Rev. George F. Regas, the church's former rector, delivered a guest sermon that pictured Jesus in a debate with George W. Bush and John Kerry. Although Regas didn't endorse a candidate, he said Jesus would have told Bush that his pre-emptive war policy "has led to disaster."

I don't doubt that the investigation would have been dropped by now – if it had ever even begun – had Jesus told Kerry that George W. Bush was doing God's will when he ousted Saddam Hussein. And frankly, I'm sick to death of politically-motivated enforcement. Unless partisanship and politics are kept out of the legal branch - including enforcement within various government agencies - then we really have no law at all.

Posted by Becky at 08:38 AM |

Atrios: Why Lieberman is in trouble

Duncan Black aka Atrios has a superb piece in the LA Times this morning on Joe Lieberman's erosion within the Democratic Party:

Lieberman's problem isn't bloggers, it's the voters of Connecticut, who seem to be increasingly tired of his support for some very uncivil policies, including federal intervention into the Terri Schiavo case, the administration's operations at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay and, yes, that disastrous invasion of Iraq.

That's the problem with many Democrats, although I do see it beginning to resolve itself for some other than Lieberman. For too long there has been a lack of principles within that organization.

Lieberman represents the worst of that breed. He uses the "D" after his name as a convenience rather than as a matter of beliefs. What's worse, he's labeled as a centrist or an independent because of that.

Lieberman isn't centrist (don't even get me started there). He's conservative. That "D" after his name doesn't change that.

Posted by Carla at 08:13 AM |

Congressional Preview #3 - NY/PA

Like New York, Pennsylvania is a state the the Democrats are concentrating a lot of their resources and effort in their attempt to take control of the House.

The number of targetted races in the Northeast is mind boggling, but we're almost done - so let's get to today's previews, including my first prediction of a Democrat victory.

New York 29 - Randy Kuhl (R) vs Eric Massa (D) - Kuhl pulled of victory in 2004 because his opponent turned a story about Kuhl's past with spousal abuse (including a couple of shotguns) into a story about herself by the way it was given to the press. This time, it looked early on like he would get another break when former aide to General Wesley Clark Eric Massa couldn't seem to get traction. But Kuhl seems to be sleepwalking through his re-election bid, and Massa is starting to pull it together. And with the dynamics at play in New York, Kuhl might sleepwalk himself right out of a Congressional seat. Toss Up

Pennsylvania 4 - Melissa Hart (R) vs Jason Altmire (D) - Hart hasn't faced a serious opponent in a while, but has one in Jason Altmire. A local businessman, Altmire has shown himself to be a solid candidate with a bright future in politics. Still, Hart has the experience and the resources to win this one unless a blue wave hits the Northeast. Leans GOP

Pennsylvania 6 - Jim Gerlach (R) vs Lois Murphy (D) - Lois Murphy ran one of the best campaigns in 2004 and came within a few thousand votes of knocking off Gerlach. She's back, and her machine is well oiled and running strong. Gerlach, for his part, finds himself tied to an extremely unpopular President in a suburban district that is trending blue, anyway. Murphy has Gerlach on the ropes and has what it takes to deliver the knock-out punch. Leans Dem

Pennsylvania 7 - Curt Weldon (R) vs Joe Sestak (D) - Retired Admiral Sestak has quickly put together yet another strong Philadelphia area campaign against the well liked Curt Weldon. Weldon's stances on the issues are a bit extreme for the suburban district, but no one has been able to mount a credible challenge in the past to point this out to his constituents. That doesn't seem to be a problem for Sestak who has raised over $1,000,000 in less than 6 months. Weldon is a strong campaigner, but is as likely to say something to knock his opponent off kilter as he is to say something that will knock himself out. Toss Up

Pennsylvania 8 - Mike Fitzpatrick (R) vs Patrick Murphy (D) - Mike Fitzpatrick backed into this seat in 2004 against a very weak Dem candidate after the August '04 retirement of Greenwood. This time, his opponent, veteran Patrick Murphy, will make sure he has to work to keep his seat, yet another of the Philadelphia suburb seats in play. Murphy has put together a strong campaign and, with the Rendell and Casey machines going full throttle to get out the vote here, Murphy could make Fitzpatrick a one termer. The concern for Murphy, though, is having his message lost in a saturated media market. Toss Up

Next - Pennsylvania continued, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. All Congressional Previews are cross posted to Swede And Czech.

Posted by Alan at 04:37 AM |

July 17, 2006

Oregon rape case: an unsatisfactory resoluton

Back in December, I followed the case of a young woman in Oregon who was accused of filing a false police report based on her complaint of a rape.

What happened (in a nutshell) is this:

The woman claims she was raped and filed a police report. The police could find no evidence of rape--the young men (there are three) involved say that they had sex with her but it was consensual.

The young woman says she was frightened following the incident. She was taken to a party afterward where she says she was told to be good and she'd be taken home soon. She also didn't shower for a 3-4 days following the incident--which police claimed was a red flag. They say most rape victims shower as soon as possible.

The case went to municipal court where she was found guilty of filing the false report. On appeal, the case went to Washington County court. It was finally "resolved" last Friday:

A 19-year-old woman charged with filing a false police report for claiming she was raped by three young men resolved her criminal case Friday without admitting guilt.

But she's not allowed to talk about it.

Part of her diversion agreement with Beaverton prosecutors forbids her and city officials from talking about the case with the media. Legal experts said the requirement is highly unusual in criminal cases and could set a dangerous precedent.

I don't know what the hell is going on with the police and court system in Beaverton/Washington County--but this is completely screwy.

The young woman admits to doing nothing wrong in this criminal case, gets a diversion and as part of the agreement is placed under a gag order?

I've wondered all along if the three men in this case were wealthy and/or well connected in local circles. It would seem to me that the outcome of this case lends creedence to my wonderings.

Is there another case in the span of criminal case histories where a person who stands not guilty is unable to discuss their case with the press under a gag order?

Even OJ didn't have a gag order.

Posted by Carla at 01:17 PM |

Congressional Race Preview #2 - NJ/NY

New York is a unique state for Democrats this cycle. The GOP hasn't put up any real candidates at the top of the ticket, and both Spitzer and Clinton are likely to pull out Democrat voters.

If a wave develops for the Democrats, look for it to start in New York.

If a race is not listed when I finish a state, it's because I don't see it as a viable race. Just an FYI.

Now, on to today's previews.

New Jersey 7 - Mike Ferguson (R) vs Linda Stender (D) - Ferguson got an easy go last cycle when the Dem candidate's campaign imploded, but he won't be so lucky this time around. Linda Stender is the real deal. I would say that Ferguson's shady past (including a huge fine from the FEC) will be an issue, but it hasn't proven to be in past elections, so I doubt it will be this time, either. Stender will have the added muscle of EMILY's List and, with not a whole lot going on in New Jersey politics in November, this race will get some attention from just about everybody. Toss Up

New York 19 - Sue Kelly (R) vs Judy Aydelott or John Hall (D) - Moderate Sue Kelly faces her first real race this decade. The question right now is, who is she going to face? There is a five way Democrat primary in September. Two candidates have risen to the top. Judy Aydelott has the better overall operation, but John Hall has the local connections, and is coming on strong. Meanwhile, Kelly is sitting quietly on $1.2 million dollars waiting for the battered Dem to stumble toward her. Whomever wins will need help to cross the November finish line. Leans GOP

New York 20 - John Sweeney (R) vs Kirsten Gillibrand (D) - John Sweeney is in the race of his life against dynamo Gillibrand. Sweeney seems to have been knocked back on his heels by her aggressive campaign as she hit him on lobbyist paid trips early on. Local news had a field day with his trip to a frat party. This is a great pick up opportunity for the Democrats. Toss Up

New York 24 - Ray Meier (R) vs Mike Arcuri (D) - Both parties recruited their strongest candidate for this open seat race. While both seem to be steady, I don't imagine that Tom Reynolds at the NRCC is going to let this seat go without a fight. Leans GOP

New York 25 - Jim Walsh (R) vs Dan Maffei (D) - This seat is in play mostly because of the New York election dynamics this cycle. Maffei is a passable candidate, and is raising enough money to keep this on people's radar. But in the end, I suspect Walsh will be able to pull this one out. Unless there's a wave, of course. Leans GOP

Next preview - New York continued and Pennsylvania. All Congressional Race Previews are cross posted at Swede And Czech

Posted by Alan at 04:19 AM |

July 16, 2006

Transgender Scientist Shines Light on Discrimination

Well, here's something you don't see every day: a transgendered scientist who can knowledgeably attest to the discrimination women face in the scientific world.

Ben A. Barres spent most of his life -- and his career as an accomplished scientist -- as a woman. Only nine years ago did he complete the process of changing into a man; only recently, he says, did he begin to realize how bias holds women back.

It seems that when Ben was Barbara, she had a some difficulty being taken seriously as a scientist. All that changed when she became a he. And as time has passed, a light has turned on for him.

Barres wrote the article in response to the debate then-Harvard President Lawrence Summers ignited last year when he said that difference in "intrinsic aptitude" among men and women might explain why fewer women excel in scientific careers.

It wasn't that the discrimination was overt; in fact, it took some time before Barres even recognized it. Looking back, however, he sees that it is real.

Although Barres said he never had a strong sense of being discriminated against as a woman, he recalls an experience at MIT in which he solved a complicated math problem but was told by a professor that "my boyfriend must have solved it for me." ...

And he still bristles at losing a fellowship at Harvard to a man who had published less work and later dropped out of science.

"Women and minorities are being indoctrinated from a very young age that they are less good," Barres said.

This is a fascinating article. Barres is full of ideas on how to improve opportunities for women in science and observations about why it's tougher for women. He is uniquely positioned to bring about change in this area, as well as understanding.

Posted by Becky at 08:01 PM |

Gingrich Advice to GOP: Say It's WWIII

Newt Gingrich has a wonderful idea to help Republicans win in the Fall: tell everyone we're involved in World War III and suddenly everything will be OK.

In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy…

Gingrich says that as of now Republicans "are sailing into the wind" in congressional campaigns. He said that's in part because of the Iraq war, adding, "Iraq is hard and painful and we do not explain it very well."…

Gingrich said in the coming days he plans to speak out publicly, and to the Administration, about the need to recognize that America is in World War III.

He lists wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, this week's bomb attacks in India, North Korean nuclear threats, terrorist arrests and investigations in Florida, Canada and Britain, and violence in Israel and Lebanon as evidence of World War III. He said Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and "connect all the dots" for Americans.

What he says next is what I find most troubling:

He said people, including some in the Bush Administration, who urge a restrained response from Israel are wrong "because they haven't crossed the bridge of realizing this is a war."

"This is World War III," Gingrich said. And once that's accepted, he said calls for restraint would fall away:

"Israel wouldn't leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts."

There is a public relations value, too. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is "'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"

Isn't that wonderful? If people see this as WWIII, then they'll support moving full speed ahead to destroy anyone who stands in the way of victory – whatever that is – and with the Republicans leading the way, well, they'll be able to stay in power.

Posted by Becky at 07:33 PM |

Congressional Race Preview - New England

For the next couple of weeks, I am going to be giving my analysis of the Republican held House races around the country.

I spent the last 9 years working in Democratic politics, from the City Council level to the Governor & US Senate level, as well as time within the national party infrastructure here in DC, before leaving for the much saner world of non profits earlier this year.

For the record, this analysis is my own, and not that of any other organization. In fact, I imagine they probably won't agree with the way I call a few of the races.

Races will be grouped in one of three categories - leans Dem, toss up, leans GOP.

That being said and out of the way, let's get started.

New Hampshire 1 - Jeb Bradley (R) vs Jim Craig (D) - Jim Craig is the strongest opponent Bradley has had in a couple of cycles. Bradley is a bit more moderate than a lot of the GOP caucus, and will likely try to play on that to his advantage. Craig does face a primary, but none of his opponents have the resources to challenge him or, should an upset occur, Bradley. Craig's fundraising numbers from last quarter are a bit worrisome for the Dems, though. Leans GOP

New Hampshire 2 - Charlie Bass (R) vs Paul Hodes (D) - This is Paul Hodes' second try at this seat, having lost in 2004. His campaign seems to have finally hit it's stride after a slow start this cycle, and there is a chance for him to catch Bass off guard, and possibly knock him off his stride. Toss Up

Connecticut 2 - Rob Simmons (R) vs Joe Courtney (D) - Courtney is mounting another challenge for this seat, having lost in 2002. He's a well spoken candidate and knows the issues of the district very well. That being said, the Dems were knocked off guard a bit when Simmons was able to take credit for saving the Sub Base in the district that was originally slated to be shut down. Labor is split in this district, as well. Leans GOP

Connecticut 4 - Chris Shays (R) vs Diane Farrell (D) - A rematch of a very close election in 2004 pits moderate Chris Shays against Diane Farrell. Shays is portraying himself as an independent Republican, and has taken on the party on a number of issues this cycle, including calling for Tom DeLay to step down. Farrell, for her part, is hammering away at Shays for his support of the Iraq war, which is not a popular position in Connecticut. Both will have the resources necessary to push their position in this expensive district and, with the DCCC and NRCC likely to pour money in as well, this could well end up being the most expensive race in the nation. Toss Up

Connecticut 5 - Nancy Johnson (R) vs Chris Murphy (D) - This may be one of the most exciting races you've heard nothing about. State Senator Chris Murphy came out of the gate strong and is mounting an incredibly well focused challenge to incumbent Nancy Johnson, who is not used to this kind of race. Early, Murphy seemed to knock Johnson off stride with his successful attack against her stand on Medicare. That being said, Johnson is one of the most prolific fundraisers in Congress and started out fairly well liked in the district. Leans GOP

Next - New Jersey and New York. All Congressional Previews will be cross posted at Swede And Czech.

Posted by Alan at 09:02 AM |

Conservative Christian Schools Are the Worst

Check this out: private conservative Christian schools are not keeping up with public schools in educating kids.

The federal Education Department reported Friday that, in reading and math, children attending public schools generally do as well as or better than comparable children in private schools. The exception was in eighth-grade reading, where the private-school children did better.

The report, which compared fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math scores from nearly 7,000 public schools and more than 530 private schools in 2003, also found that conservative Christian schools lagged significantly behind public schools when it came to eighth-grade math.

This matches my own experience in conservative Christian schools (3rd grade through college), as well as what I observed with my own children. My oldest son spent a year in Christian school, and when he got to public school he was behind in math. Having been fed public school horror stories all my life, I have been quite impressed with the quality of education my kids are receiving in public schools – far better than I ever received.

The study, along with one of charter schools, was commissioned by the former head of the National Center for Education Statistics, Robert Lerner, an appointee of Bush, at a time preliminary data suggested that charter schools, which are given public money but are run by private groups, were doing no better at educating children than traditional public schools. …

Findings favorable to private schools would likely have given a boost to administration efforts to offer children in ailing public schools the option of attending private schools. An Education Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the climate surrounding the report said researchers were "extra cautious" in reviewing the study and were aware of the "political sensitivity" of the issue.

Regarding the reading thing, what is really interesting is when you focus on the type of Christian school – liberal or conservative – the conservative Christian schools do the worst job of educating kids and the liberal ones do the best.

The report separated private schools by type, and found that among private-school students, those in Lutheran schools did best, while those in conservative Christian schools did worst. For example, in eighth-grade reading, children in conservative Christian schools did no better than comparable children in public schools.

In eighth-grade math, children in Lutheran schools did significantly better than children in public schools, but those in conservative Christian schools fared worse.

It's a sad situation, really, that the worst schools are offered to the parents who are most riled up about public schools. These concerned parents are making personal sacrifices to send their kids somewhere they believe will best educate them and are in actuality buying them an inferior education.

Posted by Becky at 08:10 AM |

A True Religious Leader

I found in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer a fantastic profile piece on Rev. James Forbes Jr.

The profile begins by calling him a force of the 'religious left'. And as a force, he has a few things to say to us.

"In times of war and intense conflict, the natural impulse is to demonize the adversary," he says in a soft, resonant voice. "Sometimes, we say, when we see a political drift away from democracy, 'it's those right-wing fundamentalists, they are the devil of the season.'"

Stop blaming them, he says. Work for change.

But what really struck me, as I continued reading, was how he talked to his congregation, and what he talked about.

Like his question about Jesus in the wilderness.

"Do we read these accounts as literal descriptions of Jesus being baptized, coming out of the water, having the dove of the spirit light on his shoulder and then being driven into the wilderness?" he asks.

Gradually, he becomes more animated - shaking, rubbing his hands audibly into the microphone, mocking the literal reading of the text.

"And 'long come the devil. And the devil, obviously with the red underwear and the pitchfork and the long tail says to him ..."

He challenges his congregation on the fundamentalist notions that the Bible is meant to be read literally. His view, obviously, is that it's preposterous to think so.

But what really struck me about this man is that he seems to understand that religion and spirituality are about something that rarely is spoken about - the struggle within each of us to become spiritually centered beings.

"But here goes," he says. "The story is not about Satan the devil out there. It's about JESUS, Mary's baby, BORN IN BETHLEHEM, going through an actual, honest to goodness struggle."

Jesus' struggle was not out there, he tells them.

"The struggle was- DARE I SAY IT?- the struggle was in himself as to how he was going to live his life. Please don't use this to say, uh oh, the boy's done lost it now cause he's saying that the devil was in Jesus. I am saying whatever the devil is, when experienced in temptation, it's not external to the person going through the experience."

Now there's a preacher whom I'd go listen to and learn from on a Sunday morning.

Posted by Alan at 04:17 AM |

July 15, 2006

The Wrong Kind Of People

According to a Kentucky State Senator, that would be anyone in the LGBT community.

This week, Roeding mixed himself up in the University of Louisville's decision to offer health benefits to domestic partners, and in so doing the senator came across as a bigot unfit for further public service.

"I find this very repulsive,'' Roeding said of U of L's plans, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal. And he continued: "I don't want to entice any of those people into our state. Those are the wrong kind of people.''

It gets better.

In case you're thinking Roeding was misquoted, or that those statements don't reflect his genuine sentiments, consider what he said when a Kentucky Post reporter called to get his reaction to criticism of his remarks from the Republican Log Cabin organization. "Who are they?'' Reading asked our reporter. Told they were a gay rights organization within the GOP, Roeding said, "Oh, a bunch of queers.''

Okay, I'm not one of the people that jumps all over the Log Cabin Republicans - but for the love of all that is holy, please tell me you're going to stand up for yourself when you're called queers by a bigot.

Okay, that was a bit off topic. Let's get back on track here.

The bottom line is this - if the State Senator had his way, the state of Kentucky would be saying goodbye to a whole lot of intellectual capital and productive citizens. But to the mind of a bigot, it's a small price to pay to be surrounded by "the right kind of people".

I guess the final question for the Senator would be this:

Who else do you consider to be the "wrong kind of people"?

Posted by Alan at 08:48 AM |

Americans work for diplomatic solution in Middle East--too bad they're not from our government

I find the Israel vs everyone-else-in-the-Middle-East constancy to be exhausting and alarming and bizarre. But its there. It needs to be talked about (again) if for no other reason that to cross our fingers and hope (again) that World War III didn't just get underway.

Over at TAPPED, an American group trying to find diplomatic ways to deal with the power groups on the nonIsrael side highlights our government's paralysis:

So explain what your group, Conflicts Forum, is about and under what auspices you have been having a dialogue with Hezbollah

We have been talking to Hezbollah for three years. [Conflicts Forum] has put together a group of former senior policy-makers to talk to Hezbollah. We did two official, open sessions, in March and July of 2005, and then we did a lot more informal, private sessions. And [my co-director, former MI6 agent] Alistair [Crooke] and I talk to them every time we go to Beirut -- about once a month -- and talk to them on the phone on a weekly basis.

What’s your relationship with the American government?

We have none. I talk to some people in the American government. They don’t like what we do, they don’t endorse what we do, they don’t condone what we do. But we have shown that we do what they should have done, and they almost feel like they have to listen [to us]. We’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing: diplomacy and politics.

There are five major political movements in the Middle East: Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood. And we [the U.S. government] don’t talk to any of them. How can we possibly have any leverage diplomatically to end the current conflict when the only party we talk to is Israel?

You can bet your ass Ronald Reagan wouldn’t do this. Ronald Reagan sent Philip Habib into Lebanon in 1981 to talk to anyone to end the violence. He didn’t say, "Don’t talk to the terrorists." Ronald Reagan said, "Violence is no good, let’s talk." Now we’ve got a president who says he emulates Ronald Reagan, but he doesn’t follow his principles.

More Cowboy Diplomacy bullshit on the Bush team's part. Jeezus.

And Hezbollah seems to be way above their pay grade in managing this latest round of fighting.

Posted by Carla at 07:28 AM |

Home Is Where The Heart Is

With all the news about schisms in Christianity today because of differences of opinion on gays, it's refreshing to see a denomination welcome an LGBT church into it's fold.

Nashville's largest predominantly gay and lesbian church is joining a national Protestant denomination that has seen dozens of churches leave in the last year because of its support for same-sex unions.

Holy Trinity Community Church in west Nashville officially will join the United Church of Christ in an installation ceremony Sunday.

In Nashville, no less. I suppose this is also a reminder to me that stereotypes (this time, about the south) don't hold true when put to the test.

Posted by Alan at 03:16 AM |

July 14, 2006

Free Speech in Action

Thom Hartmann has some of the best guests on his show during morning drive time on KPOJ. This morning's interview with Scarlet P. of Freeway Blogger was no exception.

Freeway Blogger is a movement that is spreading across the nation, with the posting of banners and signs containing poignant, clever political messages along heavily traveled traffic routes. It is a VERY effective way to reach people. Check out the site and be inspired. Then go exercise your First Amendment rights.

Posted by Becky at 12:39 PM |

Pig Humor

Why is it okay for comics to have a sense of humor about really seriously bad occurrences but not okay for the President to have fun while a war is raging? No doubt, that is the question indignant Republicans are asking this morning in response to outrage over the President's light-hearted treatment yesterday of the escalating violence in the Middle East.

Following the President's meeting yesterday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, German chef Olaf Micheel served a barbecued wild pig for President Bush. And pretty much as soon as Bush heard what was on the menu he couldn't stop talking about it.

"I understand I may have the honor of slicing the pig," Bush said at a news conference earlier in the day punctuated with questions about spreading violence in the Middle East and an intensifying standoff with Iran about nuclear power.

The president's host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, started a serious ball rolling at this news conference …But Bush seemed more focused on "the feast" promised later.

"Thanks for having me," Bush told the chancellor. "I'm looking forward to that pig tonight."…

"Apart from the pig, Mr. President, what sort of insights have you been able to gain as regards East Germany?" a German reporter asked.

"I haven't seen the pig yet," Bush said, sidestepping the question about insights gained from his two-day visit to this rural seaside region that once rested behind the Iron Curtain.

And when an American reporter asked whether Bush is concerned about the Israeli bombing of the Beirut airport and about Iran's failure to respond to an offer for negotiations, Bush replied with more boar jokes before delving into the substance of the questions.

"I thought you were going to ask about the pig," said the president. "I'll tell you about the pig tomorrow."

I was able to watch a bit of this press conference on TV last night and I've got to say that even though I enjoy a joke as much as the next person, when the Middle East is exploding and the fear on everyone's mind is nuclear war I had a really hard time with the pig jokes. It is appropriate for comedians to relieve our tension with jokes at a time like this, but we look to our President for thoughtful leadership, not nonchalant comedy.

Posted by Becky at 08:55 AM |

July 13, 2006

Respectability

Josh Marshall temporarily leaves the bare-knuckled world of blogging for the lace doilies and fainting couches over at Time Magazine. At least he seems to consider Time readers a bunch of faint-hearts, because he goes out of his way to cushion them from the shock of this:

In these perilous days, we must be ready to think the unthinkable. No, I don't mean the possibility of a catastrophic terrorist attack. After 9/11, that's all too easy to imagine. No, I'm talking about a thought that even now seldom forces its way into respectable conversation: the quite reasonable suspicion that the Bush Administration orchestrates its terror alerts and arrests to goose the GOP's poll numbers.

Now, I'm a respectable columnist. I don't want to draw rolled eyes. But think about it.

I've been a reader of Marshall's stuff, on his blog and even before that, for years. He's a smart, principled guy. But if "respectable conversations" and "respectable columnists" are finding it difficult to mention aloud that Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Gonzales (and, before him, Ashcroft) seem clearly to be manipulating terror alarms and arrests to fit their immediate political needs, then ol' Josh needs to start hanging out with more disreputable people, and fast.

In the non-respectable world where most Americans live, political manipulation of terror warnings by Bush, like the absence of WMDs in Iraq in 2002-2003, is pretty much taken as a given.

If, by "respectable" conversation," Marshall means not those of us out here who read Time, but rather the little group that ABC News' The Note refers to as "The Gang of 500"--the cabal people who write and publish Time, and Newsweek, and the Times, and the Post, and the network news, and appear on the weekend talking-head shows--then the matter of delicacy here is mainly about protecting them from the consequences of their own shoddy work over the last five years (lest, as Bob Somerby would point out, they get dropped from the invitation list for the right cocktail parties).

Rove's politics of fear is hardly breaking news. Last fall, Keith Olbermann documented 13 instances of terror alerts or arrest announcements following a step behind some bit of bad news for the GOP or good news for the Democrats between 2002 and 2005.

What would indeed be breaking news would be if Time Magazine, et al., decided to cover this pattern as a genuine news story.

But back to Olbermann's 13 documented instances. Coincidence? Thirteen cases of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? Maybe. There's certainly an easy enough way to tell:

If it's not a coincidence, then the Bush administration will announce a terror threat or a foiled plot (however dubious it appears after a few days) within a few days of the November 7th general election. Probably the chronology will indicate it's information they've been sitting on for weeks and months, and there'll be no obvious reason why they made the announcement then--other than the possibility of influencing the election at the last minute, which, of course, no respectable columnist would say aloud.

If you want to go double-or-nothing, consider the same possibility in the days before the Democratic primary in Connecticut on August 8, to give a little momentum to Bush's favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman.

Any takers?

Posted by Nothstine at 01:57 PM |

Sizemore: The Black Knight

In Bill Sizemore's mind, he has been repeatedly and unfairly burned by the courts, and yet he displays the oddest inclination to continue to trust the court system to save him from the "unfair" liberal attacks against him.

He was apparently so sure that the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would throw out Measure 26 that he hired petitioners who ignored the measure and conducted business as usual, paying by the signature. But the Court didn't save him.

Measure 26 holds chief petitioners personally responsible when their petitioners break the law. Sizemore now says, "I hope they come after us with big fines so we can get it thrown out by a federal judge." Huh? Does he believe his own blustering bullshit?

Sizemore's continued denial of reality reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail" who continues to threaten King Arthur even after the king has chopped off both of his arms and legs.

Posted by Becky at 09:17 AM |

Training The Next Tim McVeigh

Uncle Sam can't abide by gays in the military. Damaging to unit cohesion, don'tcha know.

But apparently, neo-Nazis and skinheads are a okay.

Homosexuals in the military have long had to deal with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Gays and lesbians are shown the door the second their sexual orientation is known.

The military has been consistently ruthless in this regard, even when it meant thinning the ranks of capable translators and intelligence operators for an inconsequential factor like sexual identity.

But when it comes to the Pentagon's zero-tolerance policy for hate groups, recruiters appear more committed to making monthly quotas than ensuring the values of a racially diverse military. While the Iraq war grows more unpopular, recruiting shortfalls have allowed undesirables to fill the ranks.

It is simply unfathomable that our military would turn a blind eye to racists and neo-Nazis to meet a quota, yet discharges highly qualified and trained (at a considerable expense, I might add) personnel because someone found out they're *gasp* gay.

On a personal level, it's even more depressing. Is our government saying that I am worth less than someone that is an avowed racist and wants Uncle Sam to foot the bill for the "upcoming race war"? Sadly, the answer appears to be yes.

Sensing an opportunity for mischief, white supremacists are enlisting and volunteering for battle assignments so they can get training in light infantry tactics they'll need for what they see as the coming race war in America. According to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, large numbers of neo-Nazis and white supremacist skinheads, possibly in the thousands, are on active duty in the U.S. military.

Nice. They're joining the military - and our tax dollars are paying for their training and their pay - so they can be ready to attempt to start a civil war.

And it's not like they don't know who they are.

When a Defense Department investigator positively identified 320 racist extremists in the past year, only two were discharged, according to The New York Times. This reflects a "see no evil, hear no evil" stance by the military in a time of recruitment shortfalls.

And the question is - which ones of these hundreds of racist extremists that we're training are going to come back home and become another homegrown terrorist?

If it happens - or when it happens - we can look back on this moment and remember that the government felt that training homegrown terrorists was less a threat than allowing gays to serve our nation without hiding who they are.

Posted by Alan at 08:46 AM |

July 12, 2006

You Might Be a Fundamentalist Christian

Curmudgeonly Crab has a fantastic post listing the top ten signs you're a fundamentalist Christian.

I hate poking fun at anyone's religious beliefs, but this is too good not to share.

Posted by Becky at 03:14 PM |

Is Media Choice Harming Our Culture?

Do we have too many media choices for our own good? That is the argument being explored in a new book by Chris Anderson (The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More) that decries the lack of a unifying pop culture as a result of a broad range of media choices.

The point is, mass culture isn't so mass anymore. Instead, culture is evolving into a "mass of niches." …"We're leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content," Anderson writes. "And we're entering the microculture era, when we are all into different things."

Marc Gunther of Fortune magazine points out two areas in which he sees "the explosion of choice" in media as harmful to our culture.

The first is journalism. … The network evening newscasts, big-city newspapers and the national news magazines once had the money, access, skills, commitment and power to deliver lots of original reporting and put important issues on the national agenda. Today, they are all diminished….

The second arena where we are worse off is politics. This is related to journalism, as the moderate and responsible (okay, bland) voices of the MSM get drowned out by partisan, opinionated cableheads and bloggers.

Politics in America has become polarized for many reasons, but a big one is the fact that people can now filter the news and opinion they get to avoid exposure to ideas with which they disagree. Anderson suggests that this could well be a temporary problem, and that if the major parties continue to move to the extremes and the quality of debate continues to deteriorate, the Internet could well enable a new party or parties, to arise.

In an era when network newscasts and radio stations are controlled by a small group of corporations we can't trust, I have to disagree with Gunther's conclusions. Despite the dangers he cites, choice in media is, I believe, the very thing that will save us from the propaganda machine. And we'll always have things like blockbuster movies, the Superbowl and American Idol to unify us culturally.

Posted by Becky at 10:04 AM |

Personal Responsibility and the Nanny State

The debate over allowing Internet gambling really highlights for me the whole issue of where personal responsibility should end and where government ought to step in to act. And I will readily admit this is a philosophical area that I am still exploring.

It takes no stretch for me to understand the dangers of gambling. I grew up in Reno and my father spent nearly his entire career working in casino management. My brother was a gambling addict, and I have a girlfriend who is working three jobs to pay off her gambling debts. On the other hand, I know many people who enjoy gambling occasionally and who have no difficulty self-limiting their losses. As for me, the furthest I'll go is losing $20 bucks on nickel slots while taking advantage of the free drinks. Gambling really doesn't interest me at all.

I think most people can control their own behavior just fine. They can gamble now and then without ever losing control. Similarly, they can drink occasionally and never develop a drinking problem. In fact, I know people who smoke marijuana on occasion and have never developed a drug problem. And I know people who have struggled with alcohol and drug abuse for years, much to the detriment of their relationships and financial stability.

The real question is, at what point is it appropriate for the government to step in and restrict personal choices that have become self-destructive? We've banned all recreational drugs because some people using some drugs lose control and harm their children and others. Yet we allow alcohol use, which can do exactly the same things, unless a person is out of control drunk in public or driving under the influence of alcohol. Why is the substance abuse principle not applied equally in both cases?

We have banned smoking in most public work places (except bars) because of the health impacts on others. But we allow it in bars where people are dancing and, therefore, breathing second-hand smoke deep into their lungs. Some are talking about banning smoking around children under the same rationale that has led us to require that children be buckled into car seats and that they be required to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. But talk about requiring parents to feed their children healthy food, which is far more important, and most people feel you've crossed a privacy line.

Any time the government begins to regulate private choices the conflict will arise between protecting people from themselves and others on the one hand, and protecting people's right to live as they please on the other. And it is a slippery slope.

The Libertarian view that so long as you do not harm others, you should be free to make your own choices, including use of drugs, wearing helmets while riding motorcycles, etc. sounds reasonable and yet these freedoms impose a cost on society and, therefore, do become society's business. But do we want to end up with the proverbial "nanny state," in which people are not allowed to eat potato chips and hot dogs because of the health costs to society? Would this become even more possible if we had government-funded health care? When is it the responsibility of friends and family to step in and help someone overcome destructive behavior, and when does it become the responsibility of the government?

I don't have the answers, but generally I think we have made good choices as a society so far. But we really need to proceed carefully from here on. The arguments made in support of restrictions on personal choices can be applied to just about anything we do, and if we are not careful I fear we will eventually end up with a legalistic society in which we lose our sense of personal responsibility and instead become nit-pickers over semantics and interpretations of the law.

Posted by Becky at 08:53 AM |

Old McDonald was a terrorist target, E-I-E-I-O

Abandon all common sense, ye who enter here:

It reads like a tally of terrorist targets that a child might have written: Old MacDonald’s Petting Zoo, the Amish Country Popcorn factory, the Mule Day Parade, the Sweetwater Flea Market and an unspecified “Beach at End of a Street.”

"A child might have written.."? I've been convinced for a while that the Bush people have been appointing children to run some of these agencies. As long as the kids were out raising cash and thwarting fair elections they have a guaranteed sweet spot in the Executive branch.

It doesn't end there, of course....

But the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, in a report released Tuesday, found that the list was not child’s play: all these “unusual or out-of-place” sites “whose criticality is not readily apparent” are inexplicably included in the federal antiterrorism database.

The National Asset Database, as it is known, is so flawed, the inspector general found, that as of January, Indiana, with 8,591 potential terrorist targets, had 50 percent more listed sites than New York (5,687) and more than twice as many as California (3,212), ranking the state the most target-rich place in the nation.

Gasp! Does this mean the Bush Administration might be greasing the red states and screwing the blue states?

Posted by Carla at 07:56 AM |

The Opposite Of Tolerance

I've been following with interest the intensity of the fight to go forward with World Pride 2006 in Jerusalem.

Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Christians, and Extremest Muslims are all up in arms that gay people would dare march in the Holy City.

Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum editorializes in the New York Blade why it should matter to more than just gay people that we go forward.

We are celebrating WorldPride 2006 in Jerusalem because Jerusalem is a holy city for more than half the people on earth—Jews, Muslims and Christians—and because we believe that the message of love and tolerance at the heart of these three great world religions must not be abandoned in the face of those of their adherents who preach instead a message of hatred and bigotry not only against gay people but against one another.

Worldwide, the religious right has hijacked the language of religion to promote its reactionary political agenda. The religious right of all three religions constantly seeks to expand the legal force of its own reactionary theology. Their anti-gay campaigns serve this effort. In this regard, the Christian religious right in America is no different from the religious right that wants Israel to be a Jewish theocracy, or the religious right that established an Islamic theocracy in Iran.

Regardless of the religion, the religious right is the religious right, and their leaders will fight to control people based on a theology that allows them to control peoples everyday lives - and therefore consolidate their own power.

I am convinces that the leaders of extremist religion groups are not spiritual people at all. In fact, I believe their end goal is power rather than enlightenment.

I, for one, will fight to keep my right to my own spiritual path. Although I don't hear people talk about it much, that right is, in essence, the right to individuality. And it's worth fighting for.

So, as gays and our allies march in Jerusalem this weekend, I will watch with pride not only as a gay man, but more importantly as a spiritual one.

Posted by Alan at 03:56 AM |

July 11, 2006

S&C In The Hizzouse

Thanks to the gang at Preemptive Karma for allowing me to join such a great group of writers.

I wanted to give you just a little bit about me to get us started - before we get all serious.

I'm a 37 year old gay former political hack living in (surprise!) Washington, DC. I left the political rat race in May of this year and now work for an LGBT non-profit.

I'm a moderate Democrat, a Taoist, and tend to think I'm much wittier than I really am.

Just remember, I'm fairly new at this, so be gentle. :)

Posted by Alan at 07:14 PM |

He Voted Against It Before He Voted For It

It seems like forever ago that I wrote a letter to Senator Gordon Smith about his switching sides and voting to allow oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. After campaigning for office as being opposed to it, something made him change his mind at the last minute. On March 17, 2006, he voted to support the Senate budget bill, which, as he well knew, included a provision allowing ANWR drilling. I oppose drilling in ANWR so I wrote to Senator Smith to express my opinion.

Smith had been quite clever about it, voting against it when it was a stand-alone amendment on March 16 before voting for it as part of the total budget on the 17th. Smith knew it was included in the budget. Two other Republicans had the balls to say no based on its inclusion, but not Smith.

So here's what Smith had to say in his response to me:

I have continually voted against oil exploration in ANWR. In March 2005, I voted to remove a provision in the 2006 fiscal year budget that would open ANWR to drilling. On November 3, 2005, during the Senate's consideration of the budget reconciliation bill (S. 1932), I voted for an amendment that would remove provisions permitting oil exploration in ANWR. On December 21, 2005, I also voted for a resolution (S. Con. Res. 74) that removed a provision from the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act that would have authorized oil exploration in ANWR.

Of course, he didn't mention his vote of March 17, 2006. Am I wrong, or did Senator Smith just lie to me?

Posted by Becky at 06:38 PM |

New writer

PK is pleased to welcome our newest addition: S&C. He's an old friend of both Kevin and myself.

S&C writes at his own blog called Swede and Czech.

Czech it out! (sorry)

Please play nice with him. :)

Posted by Carla at 02:41 PM |

Paul Jacob is Lying About Terminator Seeds

In the latest of his many political commentaries, conservative Paul Jacob calls concerns about genetically engineered foods and so-called "terminator seeds" wild rumors. Interestingly, the commentary is posted on a site called "Free Liberal." So right away, we know he's lying.

In most modern farms, farmers buy seeds every year. In earlier times, and more primitive places, farmers harvest seeds from their fruits and vegetables, to plant next season. Now, some genetically modified foods are also being engineered to produce sterile seeds in the produce. So farmers using those seeds could not harvest the seeds as a recycling effort.

Now, the reason most farmers in the first world don't do harvest seeds any more is that the better hybrids decay over time, thus the seeds they'd harvest wouldn't produce as well as newly produced and bought seeds. Besides, it's something of a hassle to do that extra work. For many farmers, cultivating strains and seeds is "somebody else's job." And with this division of labor comes efficiencies.

But the terminator seeds that some major companies want to sell have caused quite an uproar. You hear about poor, illiterate farmers not being able to handle the alleged "pressure" to buy the new seeds. I don't know about you, but I raise my eyebrow when people assume that farmers are stupid.

Very clever, subtle reinforcement of the right-wing lie that it is liberals who are prejudiced and elitist – Jacob implies that those scaremongering, environmentalist wacko types think farmers are stupid and in need of mommy-type protection. Interesting that he doesn't talk about all the third world efforts by farmers to stop Monsanto from stealing away their independence for a buck.

But food purist activists are another matter! In nearly every discussion of terminator seeds I've come across recently, there's this section devoted to the spectre of terminator seeds spreading throughout the farm stock, making other strains sterile. Listen: sterile seeds can't spread their sterility.

Sigh - where to begin. First of all, the jury is still out as to whether "terminator" varieties could cross-pollinate with other varieties, rendering them sterile, as well. Second, Jacob is dead wrong about the impact of "terminator seeds" (designed by Monsanto) on farmers (not to mention Monsanto's copyrighting of certain strains of seeds that prevent their harvesting and replanting). Poor farmers who can't afford Monsanto's seeds grow 15 to 20% of the world's food and feed 1.4 billion people.

Billions of people on the planet are supported by farmers who save seeds from the crops and replant these seeds the following year. … Most farmers cannot afford to buy new seeds every year, so collecting and replanting seeds is a crucial part of the agricultural cycle. …

In less rich countries, hundreds of millions of people rely heavily on small farms which produce foods for the region. If these farms begin to use Monsanto's terminator technology, and cannot afford to buy new genetically engineered seeds from Monsanto the following year, many of the people in the region may starve. Under normal circumstances, food could be brought in from other regions. However, many of those other regions will likely have the same problems with famine due to Monsanto's terminator technology.

The third problem with Jacob's piece is his implication that modern farmers, even in the first world, don't save and replant seeds. In fact, they do:

By some estimates, 20 to 30 percent of all soybean fields in the US midwest are planted with farmer-saved seed. Most North American wheat farmers rely on farm-saved seeds and return to the commercial market once every four or five years. Almost all of the wheat grown on the Canadian prairies is from seed produced in the communities in which it is grown. The same is true for lentils and peas.

Farmers being forced to buy seeds each year is not the only problem. Using the Monsanto seeds imposes other expenses on farmers:

[F]armers find themselves increasingly tied to the biotechnology companies. When they buy Monsanto's modified soya beans, for example, they have to spray with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide that kills all other plants. Only Monsanto's seeds and beans survive because they contain a gene that makes them resistant to the herbicide.

Now, you might say "terminator seeds" are just fine in the first world and nobody is going to make the rest of the world use them, right? Wrong. We're already forcing Iraqi farmers to buy Monsanto seeds every year:

"In 2002, FAO estimated that 97 percent of Iraqi farmers used saved seed from their own stocks from last year's harvest or purchased from local markets. When the new law - on plant variety protection (PVP) - is put into effect, seed saving will be illegal and the market will only offer proprietary "PVP-protected" planting material "invented" by transnational agribusiness corporations." In effect given the opportunity and friends in high places Monsanto is now forcing farmers to buy their engineered grain at the point of a gun.

I wonder of Jacob's friend Norquist funneled some Monsanto money his way.

Posted by Becky at 01:45 PM |

Yeesh.

The Republican Party is offering quite an ugly collection of prospective candidates for the 2008 Presidential race:

Moreover, the four top candidates in most polls for the GOP's 2008 presidential nomination -- Sen. John McCain, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and former House speaker Newt Gingrich -- all promise very different styles of leadership.

Really? This is the cream of the Republican crop?

A guy who sold himself out to Bush months ago, an anti-civil rights former mayor who ran a corrupt ship, a governor who bucks his constituents on gay rights and a guy who put out on a contract on America.

Don't the Republicans have a procivil rights, pro civil liberties fiscal conservative?

It looks like they're taking out their trash on us.

Posted by Carla at 07:22 AM |

July 10, 2006

More comment issues

I'm still getting emails from folks wanting to comment here on PK but can't due to the Blacklist filter. Once again, my apologies.

I'd like to encourage all of our readers to obtain a free-of-charge Type Key account. Type Key allows you to comment here without restrictions. It also keeps comment spammers out.

Posted by Carla at 11:00 PM |

If Jesus Was a Palestinian Would It Matter?

In the never-ending Israel-Palestine conflict, a new tactic seems to be emerging – that of claiming that Jesus was not a Jew at all, but rather was a Palestinian.

This notion came to my attention yesterday, when I saw a political cartoon from a Palestinian newspaper showing a Palestinian Christ being crucified on one side of a cross and an Iraqi "brother" on the other side of the same cross. Palestinians have for some time now been claiming Jesus was a Palestinian and, in fact, was the first Palestinian martyr for Allah because it was their arch-enemies, the Jews, who arrested him and had him crucified.

Jews and Christians, of course, say the notion that Jesus was Palestinian is historical revisionism. What we do know is that it was not until 136 years after the death of Jesus that Palestine officially came to exist. It was then that Rome attempted to cut the Jewish people off from their land by naming the area of Judea-Israel, including Nazareth and Galilee where Jesus is said to have been raised and performed many of his miracles, "Palestine."

I have no dog in this fight. I am equally disgusted with the slaughter and hatred on both sides and the danger it poses to the entire world. But as a former Christian, I find this twist interesting. In real time we are watching politics shape religion, just as occurred in the writing of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament).

But to some, the implications of this for modern times could actually be quite serious. If American Christians decided to withdraw their support for Israel and begin standing up for Palestine, the fear is it could undermine the United States' commitment to Israel and threaten the nation's very existence.

Christianity, thus liberated from its Jewish roots, can be transplanted in Arab-Islamism. This would place Palestine, and not Israel, at the origin of Christianity, making Israelis usurpers of the Islamic-Christian-Palestinian homeland. … Know that these archetype Amalekites are engaged in the ultimate identity theft so as to bring about the end of the Jewish state as we know it.

I can't help but see this as hysteria, however. American Christians are entirely, irreversibly wedded to the notion of a Jewish Jesus and of Israel as God's chosen people. Thus, the odds that any Palestinian theft of Jesus could affect America's stance in the Israel-Palestine conflict are, in my opinion, very long.

Posted by Becky at 11:30 AM |

Demise of Manufactured Home Parks a Looming Crisis

The Oregonian today highlights a very troubling housing trend that I have been concerned about for some time, as well. That is the loss of manufacturing home parks and the impact on their residents.

A number of these parks are located in urban areas where the value of the land has reached a high enough level that the owners have decided to put it to more lucrative use. Fair enough. As a major proponent of property rights I can't argue with their desire to cash in on their investments. But the problem is their choice is leading to some serious financial hits on people who can ill-afford it. Park residents have been invited by the owner to invest substantially in the property with the implication of permanency, and their ownership rights must also be taken into consideration.

The people who live in manufactured home parks own their homes and rent the sites on which the homes sit. In order to relocate, they must have a place to go and money on hand to pay for the move. Moving a double-wide manufactured home can easily cost $8,000, and that money must be paid up front. Worse, many of these homes are aging and a number of cities will not allow older manufactured homes to be moved to a new spot within their boundaries. This means the homeowners who must move their homes literally have nowhere to go.

I live in a manufactured home community myself. Many of the residents are retired, disabled, or low income and look to these communities as a way to have ownership at an affordable cost. They often invest heavily in their sites, planting beautiful yards, building decks, grading the land, etc. There is a real sense of ownership involved. When the owner of the land decides to sell it, the resident's investment is unrecoverable.

Fortunately, a number of people are concerned about this problem and are looking for ways to help residents and landowners work through it.

Last year, state lawmakers passed a tax break for park owners who sell to residents. And landlord and tenant advocates are developing a package of reforms to take to the 2007 Legislature… Among the legislative proposals that tenant advocates are discussing is the creation of a state-run fund to help residents buy the parks, modeled on a similar program in New Hampshire. They say a law sponsored by Krummel last year giving a tax break to owners who sell to residents and a tax credit to pay for residents' relocation costs doesn't go far enough…

Until the next Legislature convenes, state housing officials are sponsoring "housing fairs" to advise the residents of their options. For those who live in the Willamette Valley, that may mean hauling their homes to parks in Eastern Oregon -- far away from families and services that enable them to live independently.

All those who are concerned about affordable housing ought to keep an eye on this issue and contact their legislator about it. Manufactured housing is an important option for many Oregonians whose only other option for staying in the community would be apartment living without any ownership and little privacy.

Posted by Becky at 10:49 AM |

If it walks like a civil war and talks like a civil war

Not so much on the last throes thing:

A mob of gunmen went on a brazen daytime rampage through a predominantly Sunni Arab district of western Baghdad on Sunday, pulling people from their cars and homes and killing them in what officials and residents called a spasm of revenge by Shiite militias for the bombing of a Shiite mosque on Saturday. Hours later, two car bombs exploded beside a Shiite mosque in another Baghdad neighborhood in a deadly act of what appeared to be retaliation.

No word yet from rightwing blogs on why the New York Times should be burned to the ground (a la Coulter) for not reporting the good news in Iraq.

Posted by Carla at 08:54 AM |

July 09, 2006

Abramoff Scandal Bringing Out Norquist Enemies

If the Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman is to be believed, the Abramoff scandal is harming Grover Norquist's influence in Washington. Personally, I doubt any trouble he is having will last for long. But at least for now, it seems those who have not agreed with his politics or liked him personally are using the scandal to undermine his effectiveness on the Hill.

[I]n the aftermath of reports that Norquist served as a cash conduit for disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the irascible, combative activist is struggling to maintain his stature as some GOP lawmakers distance themselves and as enemies in the conservative movement seek to diminish his position.

"People were willing to cut him a lot of slack because he's done a lot of favors for a lot of people," said J. Michael Waller, a vice president of the right-leaning Center for Security Policy who for several years was an occasional participant at Norquist's Wednesday meetings. "But Grover's not that likable."

Norquist's response to his critics: they're dishonest and engaging in personal vendettas and political gamesmanship. And in response to John McCain's incriminating report on his involvement, Norquist says McCain is simply afraid he can't ever become president so long as Norquist is around.

Mark Salter, McCain's longtime aide, replied: "Obviously, Grover is not well. It would be cruel of us to respond in kind."

Ain't this stuff fun?

Unfortunately, however, many Republicans have been helped far too much by Norquist.

[T]he apparatus he has created for conservatives -- with fundraisers, social dinners and weekly meetings not just in Washington but in 43 states and even Europe -- has become too important to destroy. "Grover supplies grass-roots power, which is why lobbyists want him on their side," said John Feehery, executive vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America. He senses where he can get activists around the country riled. He's a master organizer on specific issues."

It saddens me that Republicans who have been helped by Norquist are sticking by him in spite of the overwhelming evidence he has broken the law and that only those who dislike him or disagree with him have the balls to now distance themselves from him. Norquist's power structure is very likely the reason his repeated money laundering troubles have always disappeared. It will be interesting to see whether this current scandal disappears, as well. In either case, however, my faith in the character of Republicans in Washington couldn't get any lower.

Posted by Becky at 08:49 PM |

Re: More comment issues

There are only two possible ways to have problems posting comments here.

1. If you did NOT try to post a link or a URL then whomever is your email provider is guilty of paying spammers to spam this blog and thereby ended up getting blacklisted on our spam filter.

The only exception to this would be if that domain also provides hosting of one sort or another and spammers have taken advantage of that service and are using that domain to spam this blog. We try pretty hard to only filter out the hosted link so that the entire domain doesn't get blacklisted. But sometimes one will get past us. Other times we get such a deluge of spam from a specific domain that we just blacklist the entire domain (FYI, blogspot.com is particularly bad!)

2. If you tried to post a link then try the comment without the link. If it goes through then you know that the link was to a domain which is paying spammers to spam this blog and thereby ended up getting blacklisted on our spam filter.

The same exception would apply here as above.

If you didn't try to post a link and had problems then I would strongly suggest that a highly appropriate response would be to fire off an angry email to your email provider threatening to quit their service, and explaining why. That will provide a counter weight to the attractiveness of paying spammers to get them wider exposure by spamming us and other blogs. Losing customers and/or getting a bad reputation for spam is something that I guarantee they will take seriously and if they don't then you know that they're making too much money from spamming and that should be your first clue to find another service provider. Because if it's not problems here then it's only a matter of time before you start having problems elsewhere for the exact same reason.

Carla is right. Signing up for and using a TypeKey account is the only sure way to guarantee that your comments will show up every single time. Sure it's a minor pain to have to deal with. But it doesn't cost anything at all and, as I say, it's guaranteed to get your comments past any filter on any participating blog. TypeKey exists for one purpose and one purpose only - to help combat spam while enabling the community to still participate and interact with we bloggers. The incentive for TypeKey is that their parent company sells blog software. The more effectively they combat spam the more money that their software is worth. So they have every incentive in the world to make TypeKey as effective and user-friendly as humanly possible, as well as free of charge of course.

Believe me... this is as frustrating for us as it is for you! We don't like having to deal with the dozens of spams that make it past our filter every single damn time that we come online and check it. Every time. Every day. Every week. Every month. It's constant!! And we sure as hell don't like having legit comments get blocked because of bastard spammers. So please help us by giving hell to your provider about not doing enough to deal with spammers!

That said... If you get a comment rejected by our filter then please make a note of what time it was (including time zone so that we can calculate the correct timeframe on our activity log) and your domain host and/or email provider and then email that info to either Carla or myself. That will enable us to track down and (likely, but not guaranteed) delete the offending blacklist entry so that you can post comments again. Without those details it's extremely time consuming to track down and hope that we've figured out which blacklist entry was the problem.

Keep in mind that we do this for free. Nobody is paying us to do this. There are newer, better spam filters out there, or so I've read. But, they cost money (as did the one we're using!) and... we're not getting paid to do this, nor are any of us wealthy enough that the money we spend here doesn't mean anything to us.

Posted by Kevin at 02:44 PM |

We're sorry we're not as heinous as the righties

I've been out of the blogging loop lately when it comes to national issues and blog rumor mongering because honestly, the weather has been too nice to sit inside and stew over this crap.

So I missed most of the brouhaha over some liberal blogger tossing nasty bullshit over at Protein Wisdom. Apparently the lefties haven't been in a big enough uproar over it, according to the always outraged righties.

In his own inimitable fashion, Skippy catches me up:

the hardly-ever-right wing is all a'twitter that the rest of us haven't risen up in an uncontrolled rage over the disgusting and evil child molesting that deb's comments invoke. most of the right wing have decided that deb is indicative of the left, and since we've not condemned her en masse, we, by default, agree with her.

* sigh * where to start, where to start?

firstly, let's point out that nobody apparently bothered to look at deb's site meter. if they had, they would have discovered that deb has been a blogger for less than a year (tho granted, her dust-up w/jeff has certainly boosted her traffic).

secondly, take a look at the technorati list of who links to deb. ignore all the blogs that have linked to her in the past two days, after which she posted the disgusting jon benet ramsey metaphors on protein wisdom.

you'll see that a total of 12, that's right, an even dozen, 12 blogs had linked to deb's site south(west)paw in the past year.

our point? well, it's not like deb was very active in the circle of progressives that we visit on a daily monthly basis. it's not like deb was ever one of the deeper thinkers, or even one of the snarkier pundits on the left. in other words, deb was pretty much not anybody.

so, we are sorry if somebody we didnt' know said something we didn't know about to somebody we don't read threatening his child we didn't even know he had.

The only reason the righties are pissed about this is because its a liberal who made the comment. They defend Ann Coulter (who gets massive attention from her outrageous death wishing crap on everyone just left of Barry Goldwater) as if she's some sort of martyr--but we're supposed to get all bent over some lefty dumbass who nobody knows and nobody reads.

Uh..okay. We're sorry we don't suck as bad as you guys do.

Better?

Posted by Carla at 12:13 PM |

July 08, 2006

Cheney's Vision for a Dictatorship

Andrew Greeley writes in an editorial entitled, "Cheney really wants U.S. dictator" that "the United States is caught up in a new campaign for a military dictatorship -- rule by a military chief with absolute power."

The White House, inspired by Vice President Dick Cheney, has argued that in time of great danger, the president has unlimited powers as commander in chief. If he cites "national security" he can do whatever he wants -- ignore Congress, disobey laws, disregard the courts, override the Constitution's Bill of Rights -- without being subject to any review. Separation of powers no longer exists. The president need not consult Congress or the courts. Moreover the rights of the commander in chief to act as a military dictator lasts as long as the national emergency persists, indefinitely that is and permanently.

Greeley says the notion that the President is being "tough on terrorists" and is a "godly man" is keeping many, if not most Americans from opposing this slide into dictatorship. The Supreme Court's recent slap-down will be played by campaigning Republicans this fall as proof that the Court is soft on terrorism.

Republicans who will seek re-election in November already suggest they will run against the court's decision. The court, they will tell the American people who want the detainees to be shot at sunrise tomorrow, is soft on terror, just like Democrats in Congress. They could probably get away with this nonsense because fear will cause the voters to forget that this is the Republican court that elected Bush.

Ultimately, Cheney and friends have been working to undermine the public' faith in two out of three branches of government – the Courts and Congress. What is left is the Executive branch. Most recall when President Bush told Congress back in 2000, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Just after he resigned in 2003, Army General Tommy Franks said that if the U.S. was hit with a WMD attack that inflicted a large number of casualties, the Constitution would likely be set aside and the country run by a military form of government.

The worst thing that can happen is, perhaps -- and this is my personal opinion -- two steps. The first step would be a nexus between weapons of mass destruction of any variety. It could be chemical, it could be biological, it could be some nuclear device; and terrorism. Terrorists or any human being who is committed to the proposition of terror, try to just create casualties, not for the purpose of annihilation, but to terrify a population. We see it in the Middle East today, in order to change the mannerisms, the behavior, the sociology, and, ultimately, the anthropology of a society.

That goes to step number two, which is that the western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy. Now, in a practical sense, what does that mean? It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the western world -- it may be in the United States of America -- that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.

This is all quite interesting in light of the fact that Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., the former head of the Star Wars program, said he believed Dick Cheney was the "prime suspect" as the architect of the September 11 attacks on America - the event that launched the subsequent attacks on America's civil rights via the Patriot Act and NSA spying scandals.

Posted by Becky at 12:14 PM |

Norquist Offers A Peek at Republican Strategy

Political buffs will find this speech and Q&A featuring Grover Norquist very interesting. In it, Norquist talks about Republican strategy and how he views Democrats, as well as touches on hot topics like Jack Abramoff, John McCain, the Christian right, global warming, and gay marriage.

Some interesting highlights:

Norquist is "writing a book on the structure of the modern Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the conservative movement, and the trends that I see over the next 25 years."
- The rationale behind his "Leave Us Alone Coalition," who doesn't get it, and how this central issue has worked to benefit President Bush.
- What does and doesn't move Republican votes.
- Why Democrats aren't getting enough political traction to pull ahead.
- Demographic trends that are impacting current and future politics.
- Who he thinks ought to run for President in 2008 - and why.

Posted by Becky at 11:55 AM |

July 07, 2006

Paul Jacob Is a Lying Asshole, Too

Why is Paul Jacob of US Term Limits using the same language to describe Oregon's spending limit ballot measure that the measure's proponents are using? In a column entitled "Open debate, not anti-democratic politics," Jacob calls Oregon's TABOR measure "The Rainy Day Amendment." It would seem that Paul Jacob, to borrow a term from Carla, is a lying asshole:

The Rainy Day Amendment would limit increases in state government spending to the growth rate of inflation plus population. Spending beyond that would be subject to voter approval. Surplus revenues would build a reserve, so there would be funds to draw on during the next economic downturn.

Did Jacob discover Oregon's TABOR initiative, get so excited about it he decided to give money from his two groups (US Term Limits and Americans for Limited Government) to put the measure on the ballot, and then unquestioningly adopt the initiative backers' own description of the measure? Or is the measure one of several TABOR initiatives Jacob and his friends are pushing around the country, and the "rainy day" name merely a political necessity?

After seeing what happened to Colorado, even proponents of TABOR recognize that the lack of surplus funds in times of economic downturn was a very real problem they would have to address. So they added rainy day fund language to their new model legislation and it has been included everywhere TABOR initiatives are in play or being planned except in Oregon (see, for example, Oklahoma, Arizona, Nevada, and Michigan).

Why was language specifically creating a rainy day amendment not included in Oregon's version? Because in Oregon our single subject rule for constitutional amendments is so rigidly interpreted that all excess detail had to be stripped out of the measure, and no provision for the actual creation of a rainy day fund could possibly have passed muster under the Oregon Supreme Court's interpretation of the single subject rule. Thus we are left with a bare bones measure containing a short list of exceptions to the "total spending" that is limited by the measure. The exceptions listed include "money to fund emergency or 'rainy day' funds," but that merely accommodates such "spending," should the Legislature ever designate it.

To say Oregon's TABOR initiative creates a rainy day fund simply because it provides an exception for it in the event such a fund is ever created is preposterous. It is the equivalent of saying that one of the measure's other exceptions to the limit on "total spending" – "proceeds from the sale of real property at real market value to non-governmental entities" – means that the measure creates a system of funding state government by selling off public lands.

We must ask, then, why didn't the measure's backers call it "The No More State Parks Amendment"? Obviously, because they know Oregonians disagree with right-wingers on the legitimacy of state-owned lands. However, as we've seen in the aftermath of the Colorado TABOR experience, the most overt fault and, therefore, greatest vulnerability of TABOR has been patched by incorporating rainy day provisions. Oregon's TABOR measure can't do that. The only solution to this problem was to claim the measure would create such a fund, even though it doesn't.

In other words, to lie.

Posted by Becky at 12:20 PM |

Your GOP: the nonsolution party

I've been sitting here in front of my TV watching Bush flap his gums at his Chicago press conference.

First of all, holding the event at the Museum of Science and Industry is such an ironic smack that its likely lost on the dullards who run Bush.

Second, the articulations over dealing with illegal immigration are an absolute joke. I'm not convinced that illegal immigration in the terms being discussed (economics over national security) is the massive problematic priority that its made out to be. But if are going to have a plan--why bother with it unless its actually going to SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

The transcript of the press conference isn't available yet because its still going on. So to paraphrase, Bush essentially said that those here illegally should have some sort of cursory penalty (he was almost dismissive of the slap-on-the-wrist he offered up) and then they can get in line to become citizens.

Exactly where is the incentive for people to stop coming here illegally?

I've yet to hear a single Republican talk about a real solution to illegal immigration. They're either ready to line them up to a firing squad or on the other side, pad their landing so that businesses keep their access to all that cheap labor.

Its all lip service. And the press is completely vacant when it comes to questioning him on it.

(sigh)

Posted by Carla at 08:29 AM |

July 06, 2006

Irresponsible?

Honestly, I enjoy watching a good conspiracy theory play itself out as much as the next fellow. I don't need to believe it; in fact it's usually more fun if I don't. I just find it interesting to watch how it takes root and puts out tendrils among people who might otherwise never consider themselves "conspiracy theorists." I'll even go so far to say that, as a "buff," I miss the Silver Age of conspiracy theory in the mid-1990s, when "The X-Files" was at the top of its game, and there were a half-dozen other TV series built around the idea of secret, panoptic government agencies directing our lives from behind walnut-paneled doors.

But there are limits.

Back before she had replaced Ronald Reagan with George W. Bush as the object of her Electra complex issues, GOP speechwriter-turned-GOP-hack Peggy Noonan once wrote the following, with respect to the activities of the Clinton administration on a particular issue:

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

(Bonus points to PK readers if they can correctly identify which absurd, over-hyped, and soon-forgotten incident the quote is in connection with.)

My attitude toward the current administration is rather the opposite. I don't feel a proud obligation to imagine the worst about the Bush White House and the GOP-controlled Congress; instead, I am sad and angry that imagining the worst about them takes so much less effort than assuming they are acting in good faith about anything.

As a case in point: Remember this scene from 'The Godfather, Part II," in which Tom Hagen, the Godfather's consigliere, visits Frank Pentangeli in federal prison after the latter recanted his testimony before the Senate organized crime hearings?

Tom Hagen: When a plot against the Emperor failed... the plotters were always given a chance... to let their families keep their fortunes. Right?

Frank Pentangeli: Yeah, but only the rich guys, Tom. The little guys got knocked off and all their estates went to the Emperors. Unless they went home and killed themselves, then nothing happened. And the families... the families were taken care of.

Tom Hagen: That was a good break. A nice deal.

Frank Pentangeli: Yeah... They went home... and sat in a hot bath... opened up their veins... and bled to death... and sometimes they had a little party before they did it. [They shake hands.]

Tom Hagen: Don't worry about anything, Frankie Five-Angels.

[A couple of scenes later, Frank Pentangeli is discovered by the federal agents assigned to protect him, dead in his bathtub, his wrists slashed.]

Now consider this item from this morning's New York Times:

In yet another bizarre twist to the Enron saga, the sudden death of Kenneth L. Lay on Wednesday may have spared his survivors financial ruin. Mr. Lay's death effectively voids the guilty verdict against him, temporarily thwarting the federal government's efforts to seize his remaining real estate and financial assets, legal experts say.

"The death of Mr. Lay in all likelihood will render the government's hard-fought victory null," said Christopher Bebel, a former federal prosecutor based here who specializes in securities fraud.

For the record, no--I don't believe that Lay killed himself (or was killed) in some kind of plot to silence him permanently in exchange for the protection of his family. And since Noonan only feels it's irresponsible not to speculate about the Clinton administration, we can comfortably assume that she won't be promoting this conspiracy theory either.

But what I resent--what I really resent--is that this bunch is so corrupt, so arrogant, so lawless, so cavalier with life when it's someone else's, that they make such a line of thinking come to mind effortlessly, unbeckoned, while the more sober thought that, no, on balance they probably didn't arrange the death of a former friend and ally for their short term political advantage is a realization that takes a certain effort of will to get to.

Posted by Nothstine at 02:28 PM |

Will Sizemore Let Another "Friend" Twist in the Wind?

Back in 2004 when a judge decided Bill Sizemore should be personally liable for the judgment leveled against his Oregon Taxpayers United in a civil racketeering lawsuit brought on by teachers' unions, he wrote, "if I had the money to put another measure on the ballot, I would be back in their faces tomorrow."

In that judge's ruling, Sizemore was ordered to refrain from the sort of activity that had facilitated his OTU escapades and his non-profit organization was shut down. Among the prohibitions Sizemore faced was this one:

Any organization in which Sizemore participates is prohibited from any future violations of Oregon laws covering political, charitable or ballot measure activities for five years.

Violating the injunction would, the judge said, land Sizemore in the middle of contempt of court proceedings and possibly jail time and fines. But that did not stop Sizemore from getting back in the unions' faces. In fact, Sizemore managed to raise some money and went right back out and filed a pile of ballot measures.

The interesting thing here is that Sizemore didn't really change his management pattern for the signature drives. Back before the racketeering trial, record-keeping and employment law were ignored, just as they are being ignored now. The structuring of the signature gathering effort has also stayed the same. He had set up a nifty subcontracting scheme (which allowed him to skim off money for himself, while avoiding taxes, and hide political contributions) that shifted Employment Division liabilities to those at the bottom. The Willamette Week described it like this:

The king of petition circulating, Bill Sizemore, steadfastly maintains that the OED rulings are wrong and that he has no intention of paying circulators as employees. … Sizemore has insulated OTU from liability by keeping himself removed from the process. He started a circulating company called I&R Petitions, which in turn subcontracts with a recently created company called Klein Campaigns, run by 27-year-old Saul Klein. If a circulator files an unemployment claim, it will be Klein, not Sizemore, who will be stuck with the bill. But Sizemore says if the OED audits Klein Campaigns, he will fight any sanctions as an attack on free speech.

Of course, when Saul Klein did get in trouble, Sizemore burned him by not only cutting him loose to deal with the problems himself, but also by lying in Court, blaming Klein for not having conducted a survey for which he was supposedly paid $25,000. The survey was never supposed to be done by Klein. Sizemore had asked me to dummy it up, saying, "We know what the public thinks." I never did it, and Klein was never instructed to do it, either. But Sizemore was caught having illegally plugged $25,000 of 501(c)3 money into a petition drive and had to make up the story to cover his own ass – at Klein's expense. Bear in mind that Klein was struggling to support his very young child and Sizemore's actions resulted in Klein spending a good deal of time on the run from the law.

Sizemore is still working his subcontracting scheme with petitioners. For this election season, Sizemore hired Republican activist Tim Trickey's company, Democracy Direct, which then sub-contracted the signature collection to B&P Campaign Management, owned by Brian Platt. Poor Platt did things the way petitioners always have in Oregon – no records, cash transactions, and casual relationships with signature gatherers. When Platt got in trouble for paying signature gatherers by the signature instead of by the hour, Sizemore let him twist in the wind, just as he had with Saul Klein.

Parker Bell, a consultant to B&P, has a long and rocky relationship with Sizemore which included a ton of paperwork problems. He was fined $2500 in 2005 for paying by the signature. Yet none of those involved learned their lesson. And now, Brian Platt is facing a judgment of more than $15,000 for breaking the same election law.

Was Sizemore's involvement with B&P sufficient to trigger punishment under the Judge's order that such violations of election law would amount to contempt of court? Or did he sufficiently separate himself from the petition drive through his clever subcontracting scheme?

Will Sizemore now file (and fund) a lawsuit to protect these poor petitioners from infringements on their free speech rights? Will he file (and fund) a lawsuit to overturn the ballot measure passed by the voters requiring hourly payments for signature gatherers? Or will he leave Brian Platt to deal with the consequences as he has so many others throughout his long history of taking advantage of people and screwing them over?

Sizemore has never mentored the people he hired to collect signatures, even though he supposedly is an expert in the initiative process. Of course, there is no man-made law requiring him to show any sort of regard or responsibility for his fellow man. And anyway, had he properly trained his subcontractors or expected them to follow the law, it would have cost him more money to put measures on the ballot. Leaving them to flail about in a system they don't understand, on the other hand, saves him money and leaves him without liability when things go wrong. And in his mind they're all scum anyway, so why does it matter? It's all for a good cause, right?

Posted by Becky at 12:23 PM |

Clergy Move to Block Out Partisan Politics

A rather interesting movement has begun in Christiandom: the launching of a campaign to protect Texas churches from politics. Calling itself "Respect Our Faith," the campaign is signing up members of the Texas clergy (nearly 100 already) who are pledging to "stop politicians from using our sacred spaces to divide people of faith for partisan political gain."

“Dragging churches into partisan politics endangers the integrity of our houses of worship and is disrespectful of the faith and beliefs of all congregants,” said Father Samuel Hose, pastor of St. John Vianney Catholic Church in Round Rock.

The campaign is encouraging civic engagement, but keeping partisan politics outside the walls of places of worship – ending the practice of turning pulpits into sites for press conferences and photo ops, and using pastors as campaign puppets.

The site lists some interesting efforts in recent years to "drag our churches into partisan politics to score political points."

* In 2004, the Republican National Committee asked churches to turn over their membership rolls.

* A pastor in North Carolina expelled congregants who supported John Kerry for President.

* A pastor in Florida, after hosting Democratic elected officials, saw nothing wrong with turning a worship service into a political rally.

* In 2005, Texas Governor Rick Perry used a Fort Worth church as a backdrop for a bill signing.

* A group called the “Texas Restoration Project” is using hundreds of thousands of dollars from secret sources to organize pastors to support selected Republican candidates.

Respect Our Faith also plans to serve in the capacity of a public watchdog, "shining a light on politicians or congregations that cross the line between religious congregation and political party." Sounds like a great idea.

Posted by Becky at 12:19 PM |

Why Did Norman Mineta Resign?

When Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta resigned a couple of weeks ago, the latest in a series of cabinet officials and other VIPs to submit resignations, I was curious why President Bush would have nudged him out the door. Despite being the only Democrat in Bush's cabinet, Mineta seemed to be doing a good job of supporting the President. When asked why Mineta resigned, Tony Snow replied simply, "because he wanted to." I looked and looked for an explanation and found none. Until today, when I came across this.

It all began on the evening of June 22, 2006, when "Hannity & Colmes" (on the FOX/RNC Channel) had a guest on by the name of Dr. James H. Fetzer ... Fetzer is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth. … Colmes asked Fetzer something to the effect, "So can you give us one piece of evidence that would tend to point toward 9/11 being an inside job by the Bush Administration?"

… He said (and I'm paraphrasing here again), "I point you to Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mineta said he had encountered Vice President Cheney in a bunker in Washington, DC, at 9:20 AM, on the day of the attacks [forty-three minutes earlier than Cheney said he had arrived]. Every few seconds a young man would come into the room and say, 'Sir, it's 50 miles out. Sir, it's 40 miles out. Sir, it's 30 miles out,' and so on. Finally the young man asked the Vice President, 'Sir, do the orders still stand?' Cheney replied gruffly, 'Of course, the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'

Fetzer went on to explain that only later did Mineta learn that the young man was referring to Flight 77 approaching Washington, DC, and the orders the young man was referring to were obviously orders NOT to shoot the plane down. That's why the young man had finally asked if the orders still stood, to which Cheney replied that they did. Shortly thereafter, Flight 77 (or a "reasonable" facsimile thereof) struck the Pentagon. …

The very next morning, less than twelve hours after his 9/11 testimony had been unexpectedly "exposed" to the FOX faithful, Norman Mineta resigned as Secretary of Transportation.

Coincidence? I don't know, but it does look a little suspicious, don't you think?

Posted by Becky at 08:25 AM |

July 05, 2006

It Hurts So Bad

Paul Craig Roberts nails Bush supporters to the wall once again in an article that discusses the recent murder of a young Iraqi woman and members of her family by American troops. The horror story underscores the necessity of a free press in Iraq – and of a people willing to hear the truth. In the telling, Roberts lifts the curtain to show us how deeply in trouble we are.

I have made it clear in my columns that Bush supporters are not true conservatives. They are brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters. And they are just as resistant to facts. …

Many Americans are so unsophisticated that they refuse to believe anything bad about their country. They regard acceptance of unpalatable truths as disloyalty. This failure of American character is why Bush has been able to get away with transgressions that scream out for his impeachment and trial as a war criminal. …

It is proof of the collapse of American morals and the fallen character of the American people that the American public and its elected representatives in Congress refuse to rein in the Bush regime and hold it responsible for its monstrous crimes.

America has become a land of evil. The rest of the world hates and despises us. And we are going to pay a terrible price for it. Bush's belief that our superpower status makes us immune to the opinion of others goes beyond hubris into insanity.

This is a damned hard message to hear. The patriot in me wants to scream out against it. There is a certain terror tied to the realization that our country has sunk to this level. But the facts are there, and things will only change if the American people step up to their role as the third branch of government and take responsibility for making this country what we all believe in our hearts it should be.

Posted by Becky at 06:58 PM |

Now I Know Prager is an Idiot

Dennis Prager, moral philosopher and Jewish radio talk show host who routinely sides with evangelical "born again" Christians and theocrats, says that because of "the left," people aren't as upset anymore about things like "oppression," "genocide," "racism," "torture" or "rape." He says "the left" has so broadened their meanings that people no longer "recoil" as they once did when they hear of such crimes.

For example, the liberal press' unending preoccupation with American abuses of Iraqi detainees had a number of deleterious consequences. One was a further undermining of Arab and Muslim support for America's liberation of Iraq. But the longest-lasting negative effect was probably the cheapening of the word "torture." … Labeling abuses as "torture" filled me with pity for all the people around the world who had experienced real torture

I don't know. Maybe Prager missed the whole sodomy-with-a-lightstick, rape-of-children, men-beaten-to-death, pouring-chemicals-on-skin thing. What we did perhaps wasn't as bad as the pulling-fingernails-out and burning tortures done by other regimes. But it was certainly torture.

A second example is "rape." … the feminist left has redefined the word "rape" to the point where, unless you know the specifics, you don't know if a woman was violently forced into sexual intercourse or had engaged in sex that she regretted the following morning.

Maybe he's right. Maybe we ought to keep looking the other way at all those women who wake up after having had too much to drink or having been slipped a mickey and find some pig doing his business on them. I guess if he didn't beat her up, it doesn't count, right?

No term is more often used by the left than "oppressed." American women are routinely described as "oppressed," as are America's blacks, Hispanics and all poor people. But if American women, the freest women in human history, are oppressed, what term is left to describe the treatment of women in Arab and some other Muslim countries?

Hmm. Something tells me Prager hasn't ever been black, Hispanic, poor, or female. I could be wrong about the poor thing, but I'm pretty sure I'm right about the rest. As a woman, I have come to believe that oppressors rarely realize the extent of their oppression. Yes, it's far better here than probably anywhere else in the world – but that doesn't mean people aren't still being oppressed by men who take advantage of those in a weaker position to advance their own interests. It happens every day.

The left regularly charges America's conservative Christians with wanting to make America a "theocracy," being "fascists" and/or being "anti-Semites." They are none of those things, and as a result, the battle against real theocrats (Muslim fundamentalists), real fascists and real anti-Semites is compromised.

I can only conclude that Prager is entirely ignorant of the theocratic dominionist Christian movement and the Christian Identity movement (overtly anti-Semitic and growing rapidly). This article lays out the characteristics of fascism and shows how, under the leadership of conservative Christians, we are most certainly stepping closer to that form of government.

The tragedy of all this is that when evils are defined down, good people are left verbally unarmed when the real evils present themselves. It is yet another way in which the left, intentionally or not, undermines the battle against evil.

I have to disagree. The fact that the evils we battle in this country are to some extent less overt or severe than those battled in other countries where our Constitution and Bill of Rights do not apply does not mean the evils perpetrated here are somehow less evil. And good Americans have a duty to continue to press for an improved society in which none of these evils can even flicker. What we are not duty-bound to do is pussy-foot around the evil that people do in this country by using nicer terminology that will allow those people to avoid consequences by pointing to others who are doing worse.

America is better than that.

Posted by Becky at 03:13 PM |

Did Big Oil Kick Neocon Butt in Iraq?

In a very intriquing article entitled, Was the Invasion of Iraq A Jewish Conspiracy? Did the Jews do it?, Greg Palast hypothesizes that Big Oil gave the "bookish, foolish, vainglorious" neocon clique a major ass-kicking in Iraq.

I would love to hear what others think about this piece.

Posted by Becky at 10:41 AM |

Truth-Tellers are Delusional, of Course!

What a big surprise. Grover Norquist is using the same term to describe John McCain that his apologists in Oregon have used to describe me for pointing out the facts about Norquist: "delusional." Bill Sizemore himself wrote to me not too long ago, " I believe you have lost it and need professional help." Those witty right wingers. The moment someone speaks out with any credibility against them, they accredit it to mental illness.

Remember the U.S. Army counterintelligence agent who accused fellow National Guardsmen of abusing Iraqi detainees and was diagnosed as "delusional"? Remember all the NSA whistleblowers who have stepped forward claiming the agency is retaliating against them by labeling them "paranoid," "delusional," or "psychotic"? And, of course, Al Gore has been repeatedly characterized as delusional for statements he never made or which were taken out of context. You name the inconvenient talker and you'll hear the response that the person is delusional.

But who is really the delusional one here?

E-mails from Abramoff cited in the report indicate that the disgraced lobbyist used ATR — for a fee — as a conduit for moving money from the Mississippi Choctaw American Indian tribe to anti-gambling grassroots activists who would have been uncomfortable receiving money from gambling profits. …

“If that was a personal attack they would have stuck more in there,” one McCain adviser said. “Grover’s fingerprints where all over this stuff. You would have to work hard to keep him out of it.

I would tend to agree that the report certainly could have attacked Norquist much harder had its authors been so inclined. For example, the illegal involvement of the Council for Republicans on Environmental Advocacy (CREA) in the Abramoff scandal is discussed at length in the report, but never is it mentioned that the group was founded by Norquist, that it has no physical location, and that it raised money as a non-profit and filed non-profit tax returns even though it wasn't ever granted non-profit status by the IRS. In fact, in typical Norquist style, the group simply served as a paper organization designed to funnel money to the appropriate conservative individuals and efforts. The group has Norquist's fingerprints all over it.

McCain’s chief of staff, Mark Salter, said of the report,“We didn’t invent this stuff. Grover’s got a hell of a lot more to rebut than what may or may not have been in the committee report.”

Here's another similarity between the Oregon situation and Norquist: Just as Sizemore apologists here have ignored all reality by claiming he was "cleared" of wrongdoing, so Norquist is saying, "The McCain committee reluctantly found that ATR did absolutely nothing wrong," when in fact the committee recommended an investigation to see whether the wrongdoing it believes occurred actually did occur, as the committee was merely tasked to gather the evidence and report back to Congress.

The bad feelings between McCain and Norquist are a result of McCain's campaign finance reform efforts – which would have rocked Norquist's money laundering boat pretty hard. As a result, Norquist worked with right-wing groups to smear McCain as a torture-traumatized, mentally ill man who should be pitied, but disregarded.

Posted by Becky at 10:19 AM |

Republicans: just like the Soviet Union, only with a chewy stars and stripes center!

The folks over at Fox and Friends are apparently ready to go all USSR on our asses:

The day after I launched my slogan, "Republicans: Scared to be Free", I saw a media report about Fox and Friends that chimed in with a perfect example, in reaction to the New York Times banking story. The co-host Kilmeade called for a government "Office of Censorship" to decide whether a story would hurt the country or is real news.

Maybe this headline should read Republicans: like just Red China in the Red States!

Office of Government Censorship? Jeez. Next they'll be asking to put up a guillotine in the town square to cut off the heads of the protesting peasants.

Posted by Carla at 09:38 AM |

But wait! Delaware breaks away -- and takes the lead!

This Tennessee embarassment was (mainly) light humor. This Delaware story is truly disturbing:

Jewish Family “Forced to Move” Over School Lawsuit

"Stop the ACLU Coalition" Publicised Home Address, Phone Number

-- from Bartholomew's, atrios, and Gen. JC Christian

Posted by Jeff at 06:04 AM |

July 04, 2006

Terry Schiavo Resurrected

With the release of a medical study on how the injured brain of a man in a coma for 19 years repaired itself, be prepared for the right-wing blogosphere to erupt in even more outrage over Terri Schiavo. Though the story has only just hit the wires today, already WorldNet Daily is working to whip up the true believers.

In an article entitled, "MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH: Brain rewired itself in coma miracle; New study of man who spent 19 years in 'vegetative state'," the right-wing Web news outlet writes:

In a new medical study sure to remind the world of the debate surrounding the forced dehydration death of Terri Schiavo, researchers found the injured brain of a man in a "vegetative state" for 19 years rewired itself, permitting him to renew communication with his loved ones.

The article concludes with "Be sure to get your copy of 'Terri's Story: The Court-Ordered Death of an American Woman.'"

So what gives here? One needs only read what the reliable press is writing to see how manipulative WorldNet Daily's report is. First, Terry Wallis, the man who awoke after a 19 year coma, was not in a vegetative state as Terry Schiavo was. He was in what is called a "minimally conscious state" – and unlike Schiavo, whose brain had turned to liquid, Wallis's brain was still alive and able to grow new connections to heal itself.

There are important distinctions between being in a coma and being in minimally conscious or vegetative states. While the term "coma" is loosely used by the public to describe any unresponsive state, in clinical terms it occurs early in brain injury. It is the stage in which a person is unresponsive and the eyes remain closed.

Once the eyes are open, it is no longer a coma. At that point a determination must be made as to whether one has passed into a minimally conscious state or a vegetative state.

"In a vegetative state, patients show no evidence of any response to their environment," Schiff said. "A vegetative state patient, like a coma patient, is completely unresponsive. They may have some reflex changes when they're pressed with very intense stimuli. & [They] have a period when the eyes open and the eyes close."

Nonetheless, to the mis-informed pro-lifers this story will fuel their belief that no matter what the expense or level of hopelessness, family members of brain-dead bodies should be forced to spend every penny for the rest of their lives to keep that body tissue alive, because only God should be allowed to take a life.

Unless, of course, you're talking about the death penalty.

Posted by Becky at 01:42 PM |

A sad 4th--here's hoping for better ones to come

Many of us are feeling our national pride someone what tarnished and bruised at the moment, given the mess created by the conservatives in Washington DC. But some on the other side have come to the same conclusion: their policies are a disaster.

Joe Guthrie writing for the American Conservative talks about his personal experiences as a soldier in Iraq. And what he discovered left him with a shattered faith in US policy in Iraq:

Within 48 hours of our boots touching Iraqi soil, my battalion was on the move to Mosul, which had historically enjoyed a reputation as a center of Mideast commerce, prized for its oilfields. But by the time we arrived, it teetered on the edge of collapse. Iraqi police had nearly all deserted their duties, and lawlessness reigned.

I was designated the Iraqi army liaison officer, an assignment I took seriously. From the outset of the war, both President Bush and my superior officers had emphasized that training the Iraqi army was key to our mission’s success.

But the longer I spent, the more I came to realize that this was not only a lie but an impossible strategy for achieving victory.

Army doctrine and training have not accounted for a unit in combat having both to fight an insurgency and train indigenous peoples to assist in the fight. I started out as a one-man operation that grew into a cell of 60 people who rotated in for a week to a couple of months at a time. That infusion of manpower would seem to bolster the notion that Iraqi training was a priority. In reality, our leadership sent soldiers with suicidal tendencies, weight problems, and disillusionment. In a year’s time, we received only one visit from the battalion commander, only one visit from our battalion’s operations officer, and only one visit from the battalion executive officer.

This isolation set us up for failure with the Iraqis. Meetings with the Iraqi colonel in our partner Iraqi army battalion were conducted by a master sergeant and me, and almost always a problem arose in these meetings beyond our authority to control. When asked to meet with our Iraqi army colonel, our battalion commander refused.

I began to wonder: if the highest-ranking officers in a battalion did not care to interact with the Iraqis, how were the generals in the Pentagon to know what was going on? How would the president know? I realized that they wouldn’t—and they didn’t care because training the Iraqis was of little real interest.

One of the main reasons Bush cites for not withdrawing is a lack of training by Iraqis to take over their own security. Obviously--that last statement carries a heavy meaning.

Today above all days is a time to reflect where our country has been and where its going. Right now, its not going anywhere positive. This soldier's brief memoir is a testament to a portion of that direction that a lot Americans don't know about.

So what to do? Are we to wait for the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party to shake loose their political ambitions and take a stand? That doesn't seem plausible. I think Hillary is in this for one reason and one reason only: Hillary. She and other Democrats who support this disaster want power, not principles.

This piece should make me feel satisfied knowing that my long term position on the Iraq invasion was correct and that those who called me a traitor and virtually spat on me were disgustingly wrong. But it doesn't. It only makes me feel sad and disheartened.

Posted by Carla at 10:38 AM |

Lightning Show at Blues Festival

Last evening was too glorious not to mention it here. We went downtown to the Portland Waterfront Blues Festival to hear Little Feat perform. Shaun Murphy has an amazing voice that thrills the soul.

So we're listening to this awesome music under a big sky filled with incredible clouds. The lights from the Burnside bridge were twinkling on the river and a soft warm breeze was blowing up the hill over the capacity crowd.

And then the real show began. I mean one of the most incredible lightning shows I have ever seen. It lasted probably 45 minutes, with huge, multiple bolts zig-zagging up, down, and across the sky. And with every flash the crowd cheered.

The concert alone was thrilling, but adding the breathtaking display of nature's power made it an evening I will always remember.

Posted by Becky at 10:27 AM |

July 03, 2006

This Alabamian thanks the great state of Tennessee...

For both of the following:

Some people in the community are eager for the $2.5 million statue's unveiling.

11-year-old Evelyn Douglass isn't one of them. She says the Statue of Liberty represents the United States and the cross represents a specific religion. In her words, "It's not right that they are mixing the two."

(no comment)

We 'preciate y'all taking the lead, as it were, in embarrassing the nation.

Posted by Jeff at 01:04 PM |

Nursing Moms Protesting Victoria's Secret

Nursing mothers are protesting Victoria's Secret because a mother was told she could not use one of the store's dressing rooms to nurse her baby and was directed to the public restroom. No doubt thinking they are being very clever, they're capitalizing on the notion that the store caters to the sexuality of breasts, but not the functionality of breasts.

I'm a huge fan of nursing babies and nursed both of mine. But I don't see why anyone needs to tie up a lingerie shop's dressing room to do it. Anyone who has had to wait in line for 45 minutes to try on a bra at Victoria's Secret knows that there already are not enough dressing rooms available. But even more important is the fact that the store supplies changing rooms for customers, not for the public.

Ladies' rooms often have lounge areas in them specifically for that purpose. Even if they don't, it is a very simple matter for a nursing mother to drape a blanket over her shoulder for privacy. You can sit right out in public and nurse your baby that way without causing any fuss at all. I used to nurse that way in public all the time and most people had no idea what was going on.

Personally, I think this is just a silly attack on the glorification of female sexuality (not to mention the property rights of the business owner). These women need to recognize the full spectrum of women out there. A place like Victoria's Secret would never make it in business if there weren't a lot of women who embrace their femininity and who are interested in glorifying the sexuality of their breasts. It's not a male conspiracy just because some women aren't into it.

Posted by Becky at 10:17 AM |

Fox News Going Liberal?

As I wrote yesterday, the group Accuracy in Media is about anything but accuracy. This article by Cliff Kincaid, editor for Accuracy in Media, proves the point. Kincaid argues that Fox News is losing viewers because it's going liberal.

I'd like to think the reason Fox News is losing viewers is because it's so obviously biased that people are just done with it, but I don't think that is the case. Maybe it's because righties are so disillusioned they can't handle watching any news. Or maybe it's because viewers have grown tired of the incessant coverage of tripe like Natalie Holoway's disappearance, or the runaway bride, or the many other annoyingly over-covered crime stories that Fox News seems to throw at its audience ad nauseum to distract them from real news.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Fox News viewers, narrow-minded as they are, agree with Kincaid that the network is drifting leftward. What they don't realize is that their beloved Republican President has gone so far astray that even Fox News has had to criticize him or risk losing whatever credibility it has left.

Kincaid focuses specifically on the network's disloyalty to the President:

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Senior Judicial Analyst for Fox News … delivered a speech accusing President Bush of imposing “a fascist-Nazi-Soviet style power grab” in America. … By staking out such a position, Napolitano has, of course, made common cause not only with libertarians but with the ACLU and others on the extreme left. […]

Despite the solid work of hosts like Sean Hannity and Brit Hume and correspondent Eric Shawn, who has been a thorn in the side of the United Nations, FNC seems to increasingly feature talking heads like former Democratic Party presidential candidate Wesley Clark, now a “Fox News military analyst,” who constantly attacks the Bush Administration’s approach to Iraq and the war on terrorism. […]

Last year’s FNC program featuring the man-made global warming theories of liberal activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was a tipping point for many. This program was so laughably one-sided that it’s doubtful that one of the traditional liberal networks would have dared to put it on the air.

One of my favorite people in the world, David Brock, takes a different view of Fox News on his website, Media Matters. He points out that Fox News has regularly supported the President and right-wingnuttery. For example, the network has falsely claimed liberals are waging a war on Christmas, criticized The New York Times for "revealing secrets" and "undermining our national security," called for a government Office of Censorship, adopted the President's talking points in defending his signing statements, and touted the discredited reports that WMDs had been found in Iraq, among numerous other biased reports.

You've really got to keep an eye on these wingnuts. They're playing a complex, manipulative game with their flock in order to keep them from recognizing what is happening to this country. Every thinking person in the country recognizes Fox News isn't going liberal. The only reason one would try to say so is to convince conservatives that all is still going well and that the news media is the least trustworthy source of information in the world. It's an excellent strategy for catapulting the propaganda.

Posted by Becky at 09:51 AM |

As you prepare for your Fourth of July barbecue

Sometime in the late summer of 1990--that would be after Saddam Hussein massed his army on the Kuwaiti border and before Operation Desert Storm drove him back to Baghdad--or, if you prefer, after US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie told Saddam "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts" and before President Bush (the one who got elected on his own; the "real" one, if you like) began comparing former American client Saddam to Hitler--somewhere in that interval, CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a Diane Sawyer interview with Saddam.

I'm still looking for a transcript or a clip, but there's one moment I remember very vividly. It played out pretty much exactly like this:

Sawyer pointed out that, in Iraq, to insult Saddam was illegal, and could be severely punished.

Saddam, evidently a little surprised at the question, said, Of course--don't you have a similar law in America?

Sawyer blinked at him for an incredulous moment, the internal process of rapidly considering and discarding possible replies playing across her face, and finally said, If we did, half of the people in America would be in jail.

And at that moment, remember, the first President Bush was still a couple of years from the point where his popularity numbers would go into a power dive; Sawyer's point was that poking fun at the president is as American as apple pie.

The plain fact is that, no matter how hard the purveyors of wedge politics work to wind up the hoople with alarums of threats--real or imagined--to this or that sacred aspect of the American way of life, idolatry just doesn't really sit comfortably with the American people.

To put it another way, "desecration" isn't part of our political vernacular. Never has been, never will be.

Our nation was founded on the principle of irreverence. It's in our blood. We made our bones by staring down a king.

You can spook Americans for a while, you can get away with lying to them for a lot longer than you might think, and you can distract them at a moment's notice. But, sooner or later, there's not a sacred cow--and that includes the flag and the president--that we won't wind up barbecuing for our Fourth of July cookout. The sacred-er, the better.

We are all of us Voltaire's children--satire is mother's milk to us.

Irreverence can't be licensed, it can be produced by unskilled labor with easily available materials, and even a seriously bruised First Amendment still protects it.

(Cartoon by Dana Summers of the Orlando Sentinel.)

[Cross-posted at p3.]

Posted by Nothstine at 06:16 AM |

July 02, 2006

What to read before you shuffle off the mortal coil

I don't read enough. Not for pleasure anyway. The simple fact is that I don't make the time to do it. I have a busy life and I don't go out of my way for books like I ought to. This is a sad confession from a woman who truly loves good literature and would definitely benefit from slowing down during the day (or evening).

Not that my life is void of reading. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm constantly steeping myself in articles and news pieces. But its not the same as the glorious insulation of a fascinating work of fiction.

Which brings me to Steve Duin's blog. Steve lists the books which British librarians say each person should read before they die:

1. To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee; 2. The Bible; 3. The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien; 4. 1984, George Orwell; 5. A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens.

6. Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte; 7. Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen; 8. All Quiet on the Western Front, E M Remarque; 9. His Dark Materials trilogy, Phillip Pullman; 10. Birdsong, Sebastian Faulks.

11. The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck; 12. The Lord of the Flies, William Golding; 13. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, Mark Haddon; 14. Tess of the D'urbevilles, Thomas Hardy; 15. Winnie the Pooh, A.A. Milne.

16. Wuthering Heights, Emily Bronte; 17. The Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Grahame; 18. Gone With the Wind, Margaret Mitchell; 19. Great Expectations, Charles Dickens; 20. The Time Traveller's Wife, Audrey Niffenegger.

21. The Lovely Bones, Alice Sebold; 22. The Prophet, Khalil Gibran; 23. David Copperfield, Charles Dickens; 24. The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho; 25. The Master and Margarita, Mikhail Bulgakov.

I've read the top 8 so its not all bad. But I do think this list is way too heavy on Dickens. Except for "A Christmas Carol" I find Dickens to be a slog. Maybe its a hat tip for British librarians to homage a British author.

I do think there are others that could be substituted. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald stands out in my mind as one that could replace one of the Dickens novels-perhaps David Copperfield. And nothing against "The Bible" per se, but its even more of a slog than Copperfield, especially if one chooses the King James Version. But even the New International Version can send the reader screaming to the Sunday comics for some light relief.

I also think something from John Updike would have been very appropriate for this list. Specifically Rabbit Run. The Bonfire of the Vanities (by Tom Wolfe) belongs on this list as well. As does The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne But I can't say for sure what they'd replace. I've not read #20, #24 or #25. So I'm tempted to go there.

I became a big fan of The Lovely Bones (#21) one summer as I sat on my deck each evening after a hard days work in the garden. Its a voyeuristic, seductive read that pulls you in and hooks you tight. It really is one of the best books I've read.

I was pleased to see "The Prophet" make the list. Its one I recommend as a gift. Its beautifully written and offers up the morality tale vignettes in a more ingestible way, as opposed to The Bible. And I'm grateful that they didn't smack some woeful Ayn Rand tome on the list as well. At least they managed that much.

Posted by Carla at 03:04 PM |

Agenda Drives Attacks on Times

FreeRepublic.com and Accuracy in Media are planning a demonstration Monday in front of the Washington, DC bureau of the New York Times in protest over the newspaper's report about the Administration's banking surveillance of US citizens without the required Congressional oversight. Of course, the two wacky right-wing media groups don't couch it in those terms.

In fact, they say Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., Executive Editor Bill Keller and reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau should be criminally prosecuted for treason (meaning executed) for "giving aid and comfort to al-Qaida."

FreeRepublic.com has a well-deserved reputation for brutal behavior in an effort to keep the public mis-informed so as to benefit the right wing. For example, when a restaurant owner notified authorities that Jenna Bush, while under age, had attempted to illegally purchase liquor, FreeRepublic.com published the restaurant owner's name, home address, date of birth, drivers' license number and registration, physical description, and even information about her baby on its site and advocated violence toward the restaurant's patrons and physical destruction of the restaurant.

Even worse, when Andy Stephenson (a Seattle voting activist who worked with Bev Harris of "Black Box" to uncover the election theft problem with voting machines) was dying of cancer, FreeRepublic.com went on the attack. They spread the rumor that he was faking his cancer to line his own pockets, interfered with efforts to raise funds to help with his treatment, delayed his treatment, interfered with his Medicaid benefits, filed complaints against him, and when he finally died accused him of faking his own death.

These two groups are headed up by some seriously wacky and even dangerous individuals. Accuracy in Media is particularly egregious in this regard. The group has been vigorously defensive of former Senator Joseph McCarthy, for example. Funding comes from Richard Mellon Scaife, Mobil Oil, Union Carbide, Adolph Coors Foundation, and Texaco.

It's Board of Directors includes a number of people with backgrounds in government intelligence, including the CIA. Many were involved in black ops activities in Nicaragua. Here is just a sampling from their resumes:

Bernard Yoh …is/was a professor of psychological warfare at the Air Force University in Montgomery, Alabama. He was a hitman for the Shanghai police during the Sino-Japanese war and organized the South Vietnamese counterinsurgency forces during the Vietnam War. …[He] contributes regularly to the Unification Church publication Rising Tide and is a strong supporter of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and the South Korean government. […]

Adm. Thomas H. Moorer was the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under president Richard Nixon. In that position he had Naval Intelligence agents tap Henry Kissinger's phone and remove documents from Nixon's desk. … Moorer is the vice president of the American Security Council.

Clare Booth Luce was … a member of Ronald Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. … [She] is a Dame of the Knights of Malta. She was a director of the Nicaraguan Freedom Fund, a fundraising group set up in 1985 by the Washington Times, a paper owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, to provide funds to the contras. Luce was on the Board of the Washington Times. […]

Ellen Garwood, heir to the Clayton Anderson fortune, donated much of the amount needed to buy a helicopter for the Nicaraguan contras. She has also donated a large amount of money to their cause. […]

Midge Decter is a Heritage Foundation trustee, was also on the Board of Directors of the now defunct Nicaraguan Freedom Fund. […]

William Simon was … the chair of the Nicaraguan Freedom Fund and is a member of the Knights of Malta.

Dr. Edward Teller created the HBomb.

Eugene Wigner, a physicist, recieved a $200,000 "Founders Award" from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Shelby Cullom Davis is a trustee of the Heritage Foundation.

[Accuracy in Media] has been a prominent supporter of the Chilean Lobby in the past. The Chilean Lobby supported the military government under Augusto Pinochet that came into power through a coup in 1973. […]

Why are these people organizing a protest of The New York Times? Because the information the paper continues to reveal is interfering with their agenda. And their agenda is not one the American public would likely embrace.

Posted by Becky at 01:26 PM |

July 01, 2006

Radioactive man

Yep... that'd be me at the moment.

Yesterday afternoon I received the treatment dose of I-131, a form of radioactive iodine used to treat hyperthyroidism, particularly for the Graves Disease type of hyperthyroidism which is what I've got. My insurance company informs me that I-131 treatment is considered a form of chemotherapy. Which makes sense really because I-131 is used to treat thyroid cancer.

So far I seem to have avoided the worst of the lovely side effects... specifically the nausea and vomiting associated with radiation exposure. From what I've read online those symptoms normally manifest themselves in the 24 hours following treatment and as of right now I'm just under an hour shy of exactly 24 hours since treatment.

I'm sequestered in my room trying to avoid too much contact with my kids because I'm apparently kicking off Gamma Rays at a pretty good clip and will continue to do so for several days. Only about 20% of the I-131 will be absorbed by my thyroid gland with the rest being passed out of my body in the two or three days following treatment. So I only have to be sequestered for that period of time. And some really fun personal hygiene procedures have to be adhered to because all of my fluids are quite radioactive at the moment. But those really aren't much of a problem because I found out years ago that accepting personal domestication vis-a-vis bathroom hygiene was just the easiest way to go and it has long been second nature for me, which undoubtedly my daughters would appreciate if they had ever had to live in close quarters with a non-domesticated male. But alas they take it for granted. Spoiled kids... LOL

Anyway, due to the remaining I-131 in my thyroid the nuclear medicine physician says that I should avoid physical intimacy for two to three weeks - for the same basic reasons that they advise not sleeping with a lump of Uranium. So... no hookers for me. Haha... as if. But seriously, that'll be a major inconvenience for my Significant Other and I. But, it's a small price to pay for my physical health. Besides, I'm betting on make-up sex after medically dictated abstenence being even better than make-up sex after a fight. :::big grin:::

Oh... the endocrinologist thought he detected a nodule on my thyroid and that always raises the specter of thyroid cancer. But the nuclear medicine physician gave me the same manual examination that the endocrinologist had and that examination coupled with the results of the scans (more radioative iodine but at a significantly lower dose) from two weeks ago left him convinced that there not only is no cancer but he intimated that the endocrinologist mistook some cartilage for a thyroid nodule... which, if correct, automatically renders any talk of possible malignancy entirely moot since it's quite impossible for cancer to develop in cartilage. Of course if the endo still insists on doing a biopsy at some future date I'll agree to it just to be on the safe side. But, for now I'm just relieved. The specter of cancer worried me more than anything else.

Graves Disease is most commonly associated with the bugged out eyes of Barbara Bush. And it's interesting that the nuke Dr. gave me a more comprehensive physical examination than the endo Dr. did. But, long story short he said that while my thyroid scan clearly proves that I have Graves Disease, I have zero sympoms (there are several...) associated with later stage GD which is where the bugged out eyes become an issue. So, That's a relief too. My rugged good looks won't be compromised... by this at any rate.

Anyway that's how I'm doing right now. The prognosis looks good. I'll know more when they test me again in three to six months to determine whether this dose of I-131 did the trick and if so to what extent. If it didn't (it does for 90%) then a second dose will be administered and that apparently does work for almost all of those for whom the initial dose didn't work - reportedly 90% of the unfortunate 10% for whom the first one didn't work. So the only remaining issue will be whether the nuclear medicine Dr. guessed close enough so that I won't be left hyp0thyroid... at least not for the short term. Apparently even with good guesses (it's a very inexact science, of necessity) hypothyroidism often develops five to ten years down the road. But, in the meantime the patient got five to ten years of normality and that's no small thing. They're by far the best odds available to me so I've got no complaints, win lose or draw.

Cheers!

Posted by Kevin at 02:47 PM |