« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »

August 31, 2006

Hidden Messages: They're Back(ward)!

Anyone who was active in the fundamentalist Christian movement during the 1970s will remember the hype about "backward masking" – the supposedly intentional demonic messages that one could only hear by playing popular songs backwards. I remember listening to "Stairway to Heaven" backward on a reel-to-reel and hearing, "Here's to my sweet Satan." Christian teens everywhere burned their Led Zeppelin tapes and records.

Did you ever wonder what became of the whole "backward masking" nonsense? Believe it or not, it appears to be making a comeback. Today it is called "reverse speech" and people with apparently nothing better to do than listen to recordings played backward are finding all sorts of what they believe are secret messages.

Before the Desert Storm was officially announced American troops were conducting operations in the gulf, entitled operation Desert Shield. During the time I was analysing public statements on President Bush and Defence Secretary Cheney. I kept on finding one word that appeared several times. The word was “Simoon.” It appeared in a complete phrase on President Bush saying, “Simoon, Simoon in the sands.” I later found that this was Arabic word meaning a “dust storm in the desert” or Desert Storm. I went public with this information in several radio interviews and was stunned when “Operation Desert Storm” was eventually announced. Reverse Speech had found the name of the operation before it was officially announced.

We had another success in finding the names of military operations in reverse several years later while Bill Clinton was in office. I found a reversal on weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, that said “Our wrath won’t shake the fox”, referencing Saddam Hussein. Shortly afterwards President Clinton announced fresh missions in the gulf and Iraq, entitled Operation Desert Fox.

On the subject of Bill Clinton, I began finding reversals of a sexual nature on Bill Clinton halfway into his Presidency. One phrase in particular said, “Had sex with an Oregon Madam.” I played this and other reversals on several media outlets and was accused of bias by some commentators. Imagine my surprise when the eventual sex scandals went public and it came to light that Monica Lewinski had gone to college in Oregon. Reverse Speech had got it right again!

The most recent triumph of reverse speech is their amazing discovery that confessed child-killer John Karr was faking it. They figured it out before investigators did, if you can believe that. Because, of course, the rest of us didn't have a clue.

I'd just like to know how those secret messages get in all those public statements. Is there a band of evil techies who work in television stations all over the country and slap the messages on before broadcasting them? Have all these people figured out how to talk backwards and forwards at the same time? Is it some sort of display of unconscious extra sensory ability? Are demons toying with their evil prey by sneaking incriminating messages into their statements as they speak, so they will unwittingly give themselves away?

Or could it be that many people have the potential to be complete nut cases even while appearing sane and are able to convince themselves of all manner of ridiculous things, including that random coincidences of sound actually have meaning?

Posted by Becky at 10:23 AM |

Paul Craig Roberts Slams the "Five Morons"

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and Contributing Editor of National Review, has just ripped the Bush Administration a new one. In an article entitled, "They're Even Dumber Than We Thought: The Five Morons Revisited," Roberts writes:

When the neocons launched the Bush administration's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and announced plans for invading Syria and Iran, I labeled Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice "the five Morons." With the passage of time I see that I over-estimated their mental capabilities.

Roberts calls the war in Afghanistan and Iraq "pointless," and says it has "achieved nothing but death, destruction, and hatred of America." He shakes his head at the effort to start a war with Iran and Syria. And with wonderful sarcasm, Roberts chides Rumsfeld for his complaint that the success of terrorists at "manipulating the media" is keeping him up at night.

Now I get it. When Fox News' Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilley assured us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that would be used against us if we didn't strike first, they were being manipulated by Osama bin Laden, who used America to get rid of the secular Saddam Hussein and to create a new training and recruitment ground for al Qaeda and fundamentalist fanatics.

When the New York Times let Judith Miller serve as a propagandist for war with Iraq, the Times was being manipulated by Muslim terrorists, not by neocons.

When CNN, the networks and columnists like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin reassure us that we will win the war unless we pull out prematurely, they are being manipulated by terrorists. Finally I understand what the Weekly Standard, National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, AEI, and the online site Frontpage are all about.

The terrorists are so clever at manipulation that Americans cannot perceive that we have been sucked deep into a war that is creating the Islamic fundamentalism that we so desperately fear.

Obviously, I misjudged Rumsfeld's intelligence. Anyone who can figure out the Muslim conspiracy is off the charts. What I can't figure is why Rumsfeld is willing for America to continue to be sucked in. Don't tell me that terrorists are manipulating Rumsfeld, too!

I keep waiting for the money appeal from AIPAC. I already know what it is going to say: "Although AIPAC is undisputedly the most powerful lobby in America and can determine with impunity the fate of every elected official, we cannot match the terrorists' ability to manipulate the media. Polls show that terrorists' manipulation of the US media is causing American support for the war to dwindle away. Please send more millions to counter the terrorists' control of the American media. We are winning in the Middle East but losing at home."

The rest is far more biting criticism about Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and the mess they have made in the Middle East. And as Americans are increasingly recognizing, and Roberts so eloquently states, "[t]he only hope is that Bush and Olmert miraculously turn into grown men." Considering the consequences of owning up to their mistakes and the fact that Bush is a moron, however, I think the ending of this madness will only come about when we the people put an end to it.

Posted by Becky at 06:24 AM |

August 30, 2006

Katie Couric Gets Photoshopped

Why is it that CBS thinks Katie Couric, at age 49, must have the body of a 20-year-old?

Posted by Becky at 12:51 PM |

Theocracy Proponents Prepare Fall Campaign Push

If you have never heard of the Family Resource Council or its non-profit, tax-exempt legislative action arm, FRC Action, you might want to start paying attention now. The "education and lobbying organization" is feverishly working to legislate Christian morality and stack the bench with biased judges who will further impose Christian views on such matters as abortion, gay rights, school prayer, and more. This is part of a concerted, partisan effort to move the country toward a Republican-controlled theocracy, and the movement is taking important steps in preparation for the Fall campaign season.

FRC Action has just announced that Sean Hannity, co-host of "Hannity & Colmes" and host of "The Sean Hannity Show," (and demonstrable idiot) will speak at its first annual Values Voter Summit in September. Other speakers will include FRC Action President Tony Perkins, Dr. James Dobson (who founded the FRC), Gary Bauer (who now runs the FRC), Don Wildmon (head of the American Family Association), Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. George Allen (recently exposes racist), Sen. Sam Brownback, and Gov. Mike Huckabee, among others. FRC Action also plans a series of "Stand for the Family" rallies throughout the Fall to activate voters who will support like-minded candidates. Additionally, the group is actively working with churches to frame the issues and affect voter decisions.

If you are a conservative Christian, you may wonder why people are concerned about this so-called "family values" agenda. You should recognize that while you would likely feel perfectly comfortable under theocratic rule, many Americans would find the imposition of Bible-based laws oppressive and authoritarian. They value their freedom to choose their own belief system and, so long as others are not harmed, to live their lives as they see fit. They look to rational thought and science for guidance rather than to faith or dogma. And often, the very values that Christians hold dear are undermined when imposed legally on an unbelieving society.

The abortion issue provides an excellent example of this reality. Under pro-choice President Clinton, education about birth control and safe sex was emphasized and abortion rates declined because unwanted pregnancies were more effectively prevented. Under pro-life President Bush, Bible-based morality guided public policy, and education about birth control and safe sex was replaced with abstinence instruction. People still had sex, but either because their reliance on abstinence left them unprotected in a moment of passion or they did not know how to obtain and use contraception, unwanted pregnancies have increased and so has the rate of abortions.

As I stated above, the Values Voters Summit is part of a partisan effort to move the country toward a Republican-controlled theocracy. If the list of speakers is not enough to convince you of the partisan bias, then look at the organizers.

Connie Mackey, who has of late been extremely focused on the matter of putting the "right" judges on the bench, has a lengthy career as a political insider. She was a consultant to John Ashcroft's Senate campaign, the Senior Deputy Campaign Manager for Gary Bauer's 2000 presidential campaign, Director of Finance for Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign, a Bush Sr. appointee at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and President Reagan's White House Director of Student Correspondence.

Tony Perkins has been the primary organizer of Justice Sunday I & II, and has convened high-level Republican strategy meetings attended by Tom Delay and Bill Frist. His Pastors' Outreach program is very effectively turning the pulpit into a political arm for the Republican party. His focus, like Mackey's, is on taking over the Judicial Branch with Christians who will legislate according to the Bible.

More disturbing is his apparent support for white supremacists. He has addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is the successor of the anti-integration White Citizen's Council. He also purchased former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's mailing list.

I recommend reading this article as a beginning step toward understanding this movement.

Posted by Becky at 11:43 AM |

August 29, 2006

Nazi Baiter Rumsfeld

Just when you think that they've crossed every line that can be crossed, Rumsfeld opens his fat trap.

Take your Nazi references and your myopic murdering of our American soldiers and kiss my lilly white liberal ass, Rummy. Your twisted "morality" and lack of conscience are an offense to all clear-thinking citizens.

Maybe there aren't any lines. Maybe we've become so jaded to Republican messages that the lines don't exist..or maybe they never did. Like the Spoon Boy in The Matrix,
its not the line that bends. It is only ourselves..

I hate that.

Posted by Carla at 07:33 PM |

TABOR Debate Soap Opera

I'm really flabbergasted at the misplaced arrogance of the proponents of Measure 48 today. In response to yesterday's challenge by Gov. Kulongoski of Howard Rich, and Rich's subsequent refusal to debate, Don McIntire is now challenging Tim Nesbitt, who McIntire says is the real governor of Oregon, to debate the measure.

I've seen Tim Nesbitt debate, and the man is good at it. He's smart, he doesn't resort to juvenile tactics, and he knows his facts. And I've seen Don McIntire debate, at a time when I was rooting for him, and he is really out of his depth in that sort of situation. That is not to say he isn't entertaining or that he can't come up with some witty statements – quite the contrary. He does a good job of that. But when it comes to appealing to the intellect, understanding the key points that must be emphasized, and responding to tough questions, he just doesn't cut it. Tim Nesbitt would clean his clock.

If a formal debate is necessary, let me make the outrageous assertion that the proponents of Measure 48 would do much better to put Bill Sizemore at the podium. There's a man who can put forth the bullshit like nobody's business and make you believe it. I've never seen anyone so quick on his feet or so capable of recognizing what is blocking someone from accepting his position and cutting straight to that point.

To see the complete inability of McIntire to understand the issues being brought forward by the measure's opponents, one must only take a cursory read of his letter to Nesbitt:

Thank you for your letter, which offers yet another reason for Oregon voters to support the Rainy Day Amendment. It reveals, after all, the fact that Oregon's Governor has no clue as to what's going on in his own state.

I think the Governor has actually hit the nail square on the head with this one. Whether he continues to do so is something I am anxiously waiting to see.

McIntire continues his letter by offering some "facts" to the Governor. One of these facts is the smoke and mirrors statement that over 300 local donors have given to the campaign, implying that Howard Rich isn't really responsible for the measure. What is interesting is that even though Rich went to great lengths to disguise his involvement, and even though you will not find his name on the contribution list for this measure, now that the cat is out of the bag McIntire says, "We're thankful to Howard Rich for helping us get our campaign off the ground." You know, it was all our idea, just like term limits and eminent domain, and it's purely a coincidence that a dozen other states are running the same batch of ballot measures at the same time and all are funded by Howard Rich.

Another "fact" McIntire points to is that Colorado's TABOR measure "was a smashing success." As I explained in a previous post, the measure had both positive and negative results, but in the end, the negatives outweighed the positives. State government debt per capita rose dramatically, schools were beginning to suffer, and the poor were paying a bitter price. Colorado voters decided to put the measure on hold for awhile to help stop the bleeding.

The next "fact" McIntire cites is this doozy:

The Rainy Day Amendment won't cut a single penny of government spending. It allows spending to grow every year - by at least $2.6 billion in the first two years alone. Look it up, Governor. And, no offense, but if you can't understand simple math, why should the voters trust you with a $45 billion budget?

First, the notion that the state budget is "simple math" is ridiculous. That sort of simplistic thinking is very telling. It's the sort of thinking that leads McIntire to state, "You don't care about the future of Oregon--you care about your own, taxpayer-funded paycheck and your kickbacks."

As to the statement that the measure "won't cut a single penny of government spending," McIntire is playing a game of semantics. An analysis published by the Oregon Center for Public Policy demonstrates very clearly that this is not true. Their figures show that if the measure had passed in 1990, state spending today would be 25% lower. That's a pretty sizeable cut in spending – a cut equal to eliminating all state funding for K-12 education, Oregon Health Plan payments, the Department of Corrections, (including prisons), and services provided by the Department of Agriculture, the State Plice, and DEQ – combined!

I strongly urge you to go read the piece at the OCPP website and to download the full report so you know the real facts about this measure. In the mean time, try to enjoy the ongoing idiocy from the pro-"Rainy Day Amendment" crowd.

Posted by Becky at 10:20 AM |

Poking a Stick at Saddam

Am I the only one who is offended that US Marines are forcing Saddam Hussein to repeatedly watch the South Park episode that featured him as Satan's gay lover? No doubt people are going to snigger over this one, but is it really alright?

If someone is in prison and is a bad person, does it follow that it is acceptable to torment them? Isn't there enough misery in the world without us piling it on even more? Isn't it enough that the man is safely locked away where he can't hurt anyone ever again, and that he will likely be put to death for his crimes? Do we really need to be cruel, to poke through the bars at the captive dog with a stick? That some find this behavior acceptable says something very disturbing about our culture, in my opinion.

Posted by Becky at 09:01 AM |

HypoChristians in the midst of us (1 year ago today)

Actual office conversation, Monday morning, August 29th, 2005:

Jeff: "Somebody reminded me about Hurricane Georges -- remember that one? They had opened the Superdome as a shelter, but a bunch of people in there thought they would be not only sheltered but fed, and entertained -- "

Lee: "Georges?"

Trish (raised eyebrows, bemused look): "Entertained?!? and fed?"

Jeff: "-- so there was a lot of damage, furniture stolen out of offices and so on..."

Randy: "Well maybe -- if the Superdome got washed away, it wouldn't be any great loss..."

Lee: "Yeah, they could just turn on the gas, y'know...!"

(laughter; then, as I walked out)

Lee: "Jeff had to leave on that one -- !"

Jeff, over his shoulder: "Lightning might strike, y'know, not takin' any chances!"

Lee was joking, I know that; he said as much later. Randy's comment -- not too sure. And he was the one gushing about W's "compassionate" hug-the-9/11-girl photo-op. Libertarian, you say? HypoChristian, I say. [This guy's last day working here is Thursday -- hurry up and GTFO, I say.]

Reported yesterday 8/28/05 on CNN:

Dozens of families have returned to what is left of their homes and found, lying amidst the mold and the wreckage, a body, forgotten, abandoned. Maybe it's their mother or their grandmother, sometimes even their missing child. The state called off searching house to house in New Orleans well over a month ago. They said they completed the job.

(snip)

There was no joy for Paul Murphy in this homecoming. When he walked into his house in New Orleans' Ninth Ward last month for the first time since Katrina, it was shock and anger.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, I'm thinking that, OK, I was going to come and salvage a few pictures or something. And I walk in here. I found my grandma on the floor dead.

(snip)

It is a disgrace that this is happening in America. This is the country that took great pains to recover every little bit of human remains at Ground Zero after 9/11. Now we won't even bother to search homes in which we know bodies remain. This is not a matter of time or resources. The authorities simply chose not to take the time or allocate the resources to Do the Right Thing.

Well maybe, if Jesus were here, he'd remind you:

On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"

And there's this: "For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land." Deuteronomy 15:11 (KJV)

Today, Frank Rich tells us about W's return to the scene of the crime:

Douglas Brinkley, the Tulane University historian who wrote the best-selling account of Katrina, “The Great Deluge,” is worried that even now the White House is escaping questioning about what it is up to (and not) in the Gulf. “I don’t think anybody’s getting the Bush strategy,” he said when we talked last week. “The crucial point is that the inaction is deliberate — the inaction is the action.” As he sees it, the administration, tacitly abetted by New Orleans’s opportunistic mayor, Ray Nagin, is encouraging selective inertia, whether in the rebuilding of the levees (“Only Band-Aids have been put on them”), the rebuilding of the Lower Ninth Ward or the restoration of the wetlands. The destination: a smaller city, with a large portion of its former black population permanently dispersed.

Forgive? Maybe. Forget? Never. Thanks to Ben Greenberg for his updates on the Gulf Coast's vital signs.

Posted by Jeff at 07:44 AM |

Poor Rumsfeld Can't Sleep Because of Terrorist Propaganda

Donald Rumsfeld, whose Secret Pentagon "roadmap" on war propaganda was publicly revealed in January, said yesterday he is kept awake at night by terrorist groups' successes at "manipulating the media" to influence Westerners.

"What bothers me the most is how clever the enemy is," he continued, launching an extensive broadside at Islamic extremist groups which he said are trying to undermine Western support for the war on terror.

"They are actively manipulating the media in this country" by, for example, falsely blaming U.S. troops for civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.

"They can lie with impunity," he said, while U.S. troops are held to a high standard of conduct.

Well, isn't that interesting. Because, of course, Rumsfeld has never lied with impunity.

The pot didn't call the kettle black just once yesterday. He gave the same sorry excuse for a speech again later to another group, and this time the whining was downright embarrassing.

"The enemy is so much better at communicating," he added. "I wish we were better at countering that because the constant drumbeat of things they say - all of which are not true - is harmful. It's cumulative. And it does weaken people's will and lessen their determination, and raise questions in their minds as to whether the cost is worth it," he said alluding to Americans and other Westerners.

You see, the biggest problem Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush Administration are facing right now is that even though the media has been uncommonly good to them, the truth still seems to get out to the American people and we are increasingly angry at our leaders over what has gone on. Instead of changing course in service to this country's desires and interests, the Bush Administration has responded to criticism by engaging in a war on the media and doing everything possible to undermine people's faith in what they read about the war.

And there is just one reason for it: the media is the last hope for freedom in this country. If they do their job and keep the people informed, the people will respond appropriately and the government will be held accountable. That is an intolerable state of affairs for an authoritarian like Donald Rumsfeld.

Posted by Becky at 06:33 AM |

August 28, 2006

Oregon GOP Shuts Out Hispanics

Wow, this is interesting. Apparently, the Oregon GOP, after passing a resolution back in July calling for English to be the official language of the Oregon Republican Party, removed the Spanish language portion of its Website.

Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman just last year proudly announced the national Republican Party had a new Spanish language website. A GOP news release at the time stated, "GOP en Español is another mechanism that encourages more Latinos to get involved, expands the party’s reach, and attracts new Hispanic faces and voices."

“Since becoming RNC Chairman in January, I have traveled across the country, speaking with Hispanic audiences,” said Chairman Mehlman. “I have asked Hispanics to ‘give us a chance and we’ll give you a choice.’ This is part of a genuine commitment to offer real opportunity to all Americans through a Republican agenda that is working to create jobs, ensuring our country has a strong national defense, demanding accountability in the classroom, and offering equal opportunity to everyone.”

So what's up with the GOP here Oregon? Much of the activist culture on the right in Oregon is of the extreme right variety, and the state party is well-known for bashing "RINOs." The party platform reads like a theocrat's wish list. It all seems very odd in a state known for its secular and liberal views, particularly when much of our economy relies on migrant labor. One would expect the Ken Mehlman view to be rather popular here. I, for one, am baffled.

Posted by Becky at 03:13 PM |

You Weren't Supposed to Hear That

Katherine Harris, who last week gave an interview in which she said the separation of church and state was "a lie" because "God is the one who chooses our rulers" has clarified her comments. After being criticized for her statements to the Florida Baptist Witness, she explained she had been "speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government."

Oh, I see. She didn't frame her message for secular ears; that frank talk was only meant for fellow believers. I guess we have nothing to be concerned about, then, do we?

Posted by Becky at 02:07 PM |

The Ballot Measure Funding Saga Continues

For those who have been following the saga of libertarian funding for spending limit, term limit and eminent domain ballot measures and their relationship to Rick Berman's Union "Facts" advertising campaign, the following new chapters have been added:

Sandlapper's entry at Daily Kos: Rick Berman's ads `in short grass with bad camouflage'.

Ed Waldo's most recent addition to his running expose: Unlimited Terms of Endearment Part XIV: The Hoop Snake.

Of particular interest to me is the disclosure that the efforts have been partially funded by a Chicago gentleman named Barre Seid, whose generous giving totaled nearly $18 million to conservative groups between 1998 and 2003, and is still running strong. Recipients included $839,689 to the Heartland Institute, $740,000 to U.S. Term Limits, $422,618 to the Cato Institute, $170,000 to the Illinois Taxpayer Education Foundation, $165,000 to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, $150,000 to LEAD Foundation, and much more. He has also given $2,212,000 to the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which is focused on dergulation, particularly in the area of the environment, and was founded by Rich Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries (no surprise here) – which itself, of course, is linked through the Koch brothers to a vast libertarian network that includes Cato, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and all of Howard Rich's groups. In other words, Seid is a heretofore unexamined player in this underground libertarian coup attempt, and one to whom a bit more attention should be directed.

UPDATE: Carla at Loaded Orygun has broken the news that Governor Kulongoski has issued a challenge to Howard Rich to debate him on the merits of Measure 48. I would be surprised if the challenge was accepted, but it is a great move on the part of the Governor.

Posted by Becky at 09:02 AM |

Carla steeps herself in liberal Hollywood excess and gets all pruney

I watched last night's Emmy telecast in a rather half assed manner. Usually for an event such as the Oscars or Golden Globes or Emmys, I'll have mixed a pitcher of an adult beverage and demand that my household keep things down to a dull roar.

But I was still doing dishes and running loads of laundry at 7PM Pacific Time when the damn thing came on. This domestic thing is the pits. And so far I haven't won the lottery so the lifestyle to which I'd like to become accustomed is eluding me.

The first hour wasn't the real Emmys anyway. It was the arrival show. And it was awful.

Nancy O'Dell and Billy Bush are adequate if not annoying suckups to the freeflowing ego mass pouring itself from the line of limos. But that Maria Canudos (or whatever it is) and Tim Gunn of Project Runway were really, really terrible. If I hear "make it work" one more time I'm going to literally reach through my television and throttle that man.

Apparently there's also a tempest in a teapot brewing over host Conan O'Brien's opening skit. The skit included a plane crash segment a la Lost which some folks considered insensitive given the plane crash in Kentucky.

I watched it and didn't find it insensitive at all. It was obviously an homage to Lost and nothing more. Would that this same group get up in arms over being lied to about war or the government's ongoing inept response to Hurricane Katrina. But I digress.

Other than that..it was a pretty standard show, as awards shows go. Calista Flockhart is still way too thin. Ellen Pompeo is right there with her. Jeremy Piven looks ridiculous in an ascot..as does everyone who wasn't born before 1782. Purple shouldn't be the new black even if a stylist says it is. And there is such a thing as too much bling and somebody needs to tell that to Cheryl Hines.

Posted by Carla at 08:25 AM |

Literally Over The Edge

Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald writes a wonderful piece today about the dangers of taking the bible literally.

First Baptist Church of Watertown, N.Y., fired Mary Lambert for being a woman. They say the Bible told them to do it.

Nothing against women, says the Rev. Timothy LaBouf. The church is just trying to obey 1 Timothy 2:11-14, which says, in part, ``A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.''

It's not my business as to whom the First Baptist Church has teaching its Sunday School classes. I just find it interesting that, after 54 years of this woman teaching this class, they finally discover this passage. Is it new? Didn't they know about it before? Or is it just that they wanted to get rid of her, and searched their Bible for a "Godly" reason?

But wait, there's more

Allow me to share by way of example an e-mail I received last week from a gentleman named Al who took exception to a column I wrote condemning capital punishment. Said Al, ``When one criticizes the death penalty one criticizes God's judgment in the matter, as scripture ordains death for numerous crimes. It is not wise to criticize God.''

I shot back a note pointing out that among the crimes for which scripture ordains death are cursing your parents (Lev. 20:9) or committing adultery (Lev. 20:10). Did Al really believe those misdeeds should be treated as capital offenses?

''Only if one wishes to accomplish God's will in the matter,'' said Al.

So this is the type of thinking if we continue to go down the path of "bringing God into our government" - or schools - or wherever else the fundamentalists want to push their power.

Mr. Pitts sums it up well.

Or has no one else noticed how literally some Christians interpret those Scriptures that give them license to condemn, yet how elastic and liberal their readings are when dealing with Scriptures that convict their personal behaviors? Meaning that it's always a little more difficult to catch people being literal about turn the other cheek, do not store up treasures on earth, do not turn away the borrower, love your enemy.

I'd be interested to find a fundamentalist Church that takes the whole Bible to heart, and how they explain away the contradictions. But I'm not counting on it. The reality is that they just want to control their parishoners. It's not about God at all.

Posted by Alan at 05:01 AM |

August 27, 2006

Catholic Charities Defies Vatican

Catholic Charities of San Francisco has found a way around the Vatican's call to keep foster childern out of same sex households.

In an adroit end-run against a Vatican ban on granting adoptions to same-sex couples, Catholic Charities of San Francisco will launch a new project in coming weeks that experts say will lead to the placement of hundreds of foster children around the state every year.

While the agency will no longer directly place children in homes, it will provide staff and financial resources to connect needy children to adoptive parents, expanding from 25 placements a year to assisting in the adoptions of as many as 800 children annually, say those involved in the program.

Good for them for finding a way to do what is right without embarassing their church. But it makes me wonder, just how long will American Catholics stick with a church leadership that is so far out of step with their spiritual beliefs?

Posted by Alan at 01:06 PM |

August 26, 2006

18 years ago today...

... I entered an inpatient drug rehab program a cocaine and methamphetamine addict. It was a blistering hot spell of Oregon weather and nobody bothered to tell me that the blistering hot coffee I kept sucking down for the first three days in the sweltering heat was decaf! The bastards... LOL

I am pleased to report that by the grace of a loving God as I understand him that I have now gone 18 years without using cocaine or meth.

I'll share one story from rehab, just to illustrate the insidious nature of addiction.

Everyone quickly became accustomed to seeing the odd person slowly suffling down the hallways from time to time. We called it doing the "Lithium Shuffle" because they were invariably either extreme alcoholics or heroin addicts who for very real medical reasons had to go thru detox before they could enter the actual program. As they slowly got weaned off their drug of choice they were pumped full of alternate drugs such as lithium and once they were able to do so they were allowed to go pace the halls. Which was about all they were capable of doing in that state.

Anyway, I remember this huge Native American guy doing the Lithium Shuffle from time to time. Like everyone who did the Lithium Shuffle, he could look at you but it was immediately apparent that there was really only enough brain function to do that. So nobody ever talked to them because they never talked back...

Before the detox patients were released into the general population they were weaned off of the intermediate drugs. Usually the alcoholics didn't have much of a problem with this because alcohol was their drug of choice, not perscription pills. Heroin addicts on the other hand sometimes resisted being weaned off the drugs.

There was a recreation room in the rehab facility (which was located in the corner of a small local hospital) with TV and chairs and a ping-pong table which was very popular because one of the patients happened to be the son of a former Tiawanese female ping-pong champion and everyone wanted to try to best him. Off to the side was a closet with board games and some barbell weights and other assorted things with which patients could spend off time engaging themselves with.

One day we were all gathered around the ping-pong table and in walks this Native American guy, obviously much more lucid. He didn't say a word to anyone. He just walked in, went straight to the closet and grabbed the heaviest barbell weight he could find. He comes out of the closet with this weight in one hand and walks up to a lightstand table, lays one thumb on the table and proceeded to obliterate his thumb with the weight, knowing full well that they'd give him pain meds if he did enough damage.

We never saw him again. But several years later I was watching the local news and they ran a segment on some Christian-based drug and alcohol recovery group modeled along the lines of Alcoholics Anonymous but being much more explicitly centered on Biblical Christianity and the guy who had built it up. I was genuinely surprised when the camera footage panned over to this guy and it was that same Native American guy. But this time it was readily apparent that he was clean and had been clean for sometime. Truly a testament to the power of the 12-step program.

Posted by Kevin at 12:07 PM |

Bishop To Be Prosecuted For Cover Up

Sonoma County, CA is considering pressing charges against a Catholic Bishop who covered up sexual abuse by a priest who has since fled the country.

The Sonoma County Sheriff's Office has recommended criminal charges be filed against Santa Rosa Bishop Daniel Walsh for failing to timely report evidence of sexual abuse by a Sonoma priest who has since fled the country.

"Based upon our investigation, the evidence indicates that this case is worthy of district attorney review," Lt. Dave Edmonds said in a written statement released Friday. It is up to the Sonoma County district attorney's office to decide whether it can prove Walsh broke the law and whether there is "sufficient evidence and circumstances to sustain a conviction," Edmonds said.

I, for one, hope they are able to go through with it. It's about time the heiarchy of the Catholic Church had to face up to its responsibility for their actions.

Posted by Alan at 07:20 AM |

Will Cantwell Bore Her Way To Re-Election?

The Seattle P-I does a write up today about Maria Cantwell and the lack of, well, snap in her campaign.

When Cantwell finally staged a whirlwind multi-city campaign kickoff tour during her August recess, it turned out to be rather subdued and anticlimactic. Rather than a traditional rah-rah fly-around or marathon series of flashy events to stir the troops and get the attention of the sleepy electorate, this down-tempo tour had the wonky feel of Senate field hearings.

Apparently, the writer thinks that this should be cause for concern. The reason he's so worried? Because she's discussing issues like Social Security, Medicare, Energy, and Health Care. And she's not bashing Bush or talking up Iraq. The horror.

But later in his article he gives a number of reasons why she should be fine against Mike! McGavick.

It's true that she's a Democrat, a woman and an incumbent in a state that tends to vote for all three.

She leads in the polls and unless retired insurance executive McGavick dumps millions more of his personal wealth into his campaign coffers, Cantwell should have the upper hand in the money department.

She's been up on television for several weeks with breezy blue-collar ads, including one that portrays the high-tech millionaire as a former waitress who supports tax cuts. She will air commercials until Election Day. She has a snazzy campaign Web site, is advertising on newspaper Web sites and in the blogosphere, and has papered the state with placards.

Sounds to me like her campaign is on pretty solid footing. I guess the question is - can a candidate win re-election when they aren't running the type of campaign that the press thinks they should?

Posted by Alan at 06:50 AM |

August 25, 2006

Moral relativity and the "war on terrorism"

Last night Nancy Pelosi told David Letterman that "(s)tay the course is not a strategy–it’s a slogan..." And she's absolutely right. Likewise, the oft repeated Bushite explanation that "they hate our freedom" is about as reality based as the whole "stay the course" psychobabble meme. Only it's more of an Orwellian meme because the exact opposite has been true too often.

Lebanese recover from Kafkaesque trip to Israel is a piece about five alleged Hezbollah members taken into custody by Israeli troops three and a half weeks ago, which was reported by media outlets worldwide. Only it turns out that not a single one of them were Hezbollah members.

The Israelis dumped all five on the Lebanese border this past Monday after twenty days of imprisonment, interrogation and minus a few teeth (but don't call it torture...). No apology. No explanation. Nothing.

Tortured And Innocent is a piece about an innocent Turkish man imprisoned and tortured by American forces in Gitmo for four years before being released.

Since none of these individuals had any demonstrable connection to any terrorist organization a reasonable person could argue that they at least did not "hate our freedom" so much that they were willing to associate with or join a terrorist organization. But how many reasonable people could survive false imprisonment and torture and then be released with zero apology from their torturers and not come away from the whole experience with some pretty darn good new reasons to hate the perpetrators of such a travesty of justice?

Rightwing freaks like Neal Boortz insisted that Rep. Cynthia McKinney should apologize to the Capital Hill police officer she'd had an altercation with earlier this year. And why? Because she'd slapped him.

Apparently in the twisted world of rightwing freaks slapping someone requires an apology but busting out the teeth of a perfectly innocent Lebanese or torturing an innocent Turk, not to mention their imprisonment, is something that those particular victims ought to just suck it up over, be glad that they eventually regained their freedom and to hell with apologizing to them.

But hey... ignore the man behind the curtain. Just forget that the king is stark naked. Accept the proffered trite pacifiers and go on about your business believing that staying the course and that terrorist hate us because of our freedoms actually mean something and were spoken by honest men. Send your sons and daughters off to die in strange lands while Dick Cheney's continued severence installments are guaranteed by the massive profits Halliburton has made scamming both American taxpayors and Iraqi civilians.

If our government can imprison and torture an innocent man for four years and not offer explanation nor apology, what makes you think you'll get anything more out of this government?

Posted by Kevin at 01:24 PM |

Matt Drudge: Neocon Propagandist

Matt Drudge today is showing his true colors as a propagandist for the neocons by headlining a story that clearly implies in its title that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he would sacrifice half of Iran's population to destroy Israel. The problem is, the headline doesn't fit the article. It is simply intended to reinforce the growing conviction among the American public that we must attack Iran immediately before they manage to secure a nuclear weapon.

The article in question, published in the Jerusalem Post (which certainly could not be biased against Iran, could it?) actually discusses a statement made by Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser. It wasn't Ahmadinejad who said he would sacrifice half his country's population to destroy Israel. It was Eiland who said it. It was just his opinion.

Eiland spells out three options available to the U.S. in response to Iran. The first two won't do any good, he says, and the third – a military option which would have to be undertaken within months – lacks the support of the American people. What better way to win that "necessary" support than to imply Ahmadinejad wants to utterly destroy our ally Israel at any cost?

Posted by Becky at 10:22 AM |

Kathryn Harris Wants a Theocracy

A new interview with Kathryn Harris confirms the fears of many who fear a coming theocracy. Harris, a member of Calvary Chapel in Sarasota, believes that Christians must impose their faith on the country through the passage of biblical-based laws. She says it herself:

What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?

The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or a lawyer, but in government and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected than we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended. So it’s really important that members of the church know people’s stands. It’s really important that they get involved in campaigns. … [W]e need the faithful and we need to take back this country. It’s time that the churches get involved. Pastors, from the pulpit, can invite people to speak, not on politics, but of their faith. But they can discern, they can ask those people running for election, in the pulpit, what is your position on gay marriage? What is your position on abortion? That is totally permissible in 5013C organizations. They simply cannot endorse from the pulpit. And that’s why I’ve gone to churches and I’ve spoken in four churches, five churches a day on Sunday and people line up afterwards because it’s so important that they know. And if we don’t get involved as Christians then how could we possibly take this back?

In response to a later question as to why Baptists and other people should care who is elected in Florida, she states that Florida sets the tone for the rest of the country, and continues:

If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong. ...

I think someone needs to sit this poor dear down and set her straight on what the Founding Fathers actually intended for this country. She's taking her beliefs about what applies to the family and the church and applying them to the entire country, which was never what was intended. Thankfully, she's a marginalized candidate who is highly unlikely to win; however, she is clearly spreading her views to a willing audience and the danger in the future that Christendom will endorse and accept theocratic rule in the United States should cause grave concern.

Posted by Becky at 10:13 AM |

Make Your Brain Happy

Daniel Levitin, a former rock and roll music producer, has spent the past 16 years working in academia and studying music and the brain and is now seen as one of the foremost experts in the field. His new book, "This Is Your Brain on Music," looks at how brains process and react to a variety of music and why music makes us feel good. And it sounds absolutely fascinating.

For example, did you know that people with musical talent do not have something different in their brains from other people? Rather, a combination of a lot of different traits seems to predispose people to better understand music. Levitin points to traits like patience, eye-hand coordination, the ability to predict what comes next in a sequence, rhythm, pitch, etc. Levin says:

I think of the brain as a computational device: It has a bunch of little components that perform calculations on some small aspect of the problem, and another part of the brain has to stitch it all together, like a tapestry or a quilt.

And have you ever wondered why rock stars, no matter how ugly or rude they are, always seem to get the hottest girlfriends? Levin describes the various theories:

One theory is that music is an evolutionary accident, piggybacking on language: We exploited language to create music just for our own pleasure. A competing view, one that Darwin held, is that music was selected by evolution because it signals certain kinds of intellectual, physical and sexual fitness to a potential mate….

(Research has shown that) if women could choose who they'd like to be impregnated by, they'd choose a rock star. There's something about the rock star's genes that is signaling creativity, flexibility of thinking, flexibility of mind and body, an ability to express and process emotions -- not to mention that (musical talent) signals that if you can waste your time on something that has no immediate impact on food-gathering and shelter, you’ve got your food-gathering and shelter taken care of.

And perhaps most interesting, though not surprising to those who love music, is the fact that music has a physical effect on the brain that makes it happy:

Music activates the same parts of the brain and causes the same neurochemical cocktail as a lot of other pleasurable activities like orgasms or eating chocolate -- or if you're a gambler winning a bet or using drugs if you're a drug user. Serotonin and dopamine are both involved.

People have long suspected that music can have a powerful effect on the mind. Levitin's research would appear to not only confirm that suspicion, but also explain why. Another book to add to my future reading list …

Posted by Becky at 10:11 AM |

The Personal Side Of The Episcopalian Split

Its easy for us to watch the train wreck that is the split up of the Episcopalian Church from afar. But the reality is that this is effecting communities around the nation.

As a moderate Episcopalian in the conservative Diocese of Dallas, Dixie Hutchinson doesn't find her strength in numbers.

Soon, she may find herself even more isolated.

Dallas Bishop James M. Stanton is among the leaders of seven Episcopal dioceses who have rejected the authority of the denomination's incoming national leader, Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, as the debate over the Bible and gay relationships tears at the church.

But its not all Southern fire and brimstone groupthink going on in Dallas. It seems very apparent that there is a lot of anxiety about the upcoming split - especially because so many people will be asked to leave a church that they have worshipped in for years.

And even though the Diocese of Dallas is overwhelmingly conservative, anxiety about what's ahead is apparent throughout its 77 churches.

Via Media Dallas, which represents liberals and moderates including Hutchinson who want to remain part of the denomination, issued a statement from 15 local priests who say they will not participate in any "disassociation" from the actions and leadership of the church.

Splitting from the national leaders would create spiritual orphans throughout the region — moderates and liberals who may have to leave the churches where they worshipped for years.

This isn't the first time that a denomination has split up. The Lutherans have done it, the Baptists have done it, right on down the line.

And it will continue to happen as "church leaders" fight over the "one true word of God", and the power that leading that church brings.

Best of luck to those that are caught in the middle.

Posted by Alan at 06:10 AM |

August 24, 2006

Daniel is Wrong

An interesting discussion is going on over at the Portland Mercury about the harassment of Mexican laborers by a group called Oregonians for Immigration Reform. Featured in the discussion is one Daniel Miglavs, whose apparent split personality is confounding the people who are posting on the subject.

The so-called "split personality" has to do with the fact that he is married to a Latina woman and is rabidly anti-illegal immigration. He also has a history of involvement in the 18th Street gang. And people say I've done a philosophical 180. Perhaps if Daniel didn't look like a skinhead, this argument wouldn't be given any credibility - after all, it is possible to be against illegal immigration without being a racist.

Daniel is a blogger, mostly writing about illegal immigration these days, but he has for some time been an active, outspoken right-wing Republican. I can't say I have ever read anything he wrote that I agreed with. But then, I don't read his posts that often. He just strikes me as an extremist and that sort of thinking annoys me to no end. But I do find it fascinating that one of his more outspoken critics at the Mercury accuses Daniel of being a hater and then calls him a "fucktard," all in the same breath. We're all blind to our own faults, I suppose.

As I've written before, the immigration issue is fracturing the Republican party power structure. But in what I would consider a big but unreported story, it seems Democrats are fractured by this issue, as well. I've talked with Democrats who think Pat Buchanan, as odd as he is, makes a lot of sense on immigration (he makes a lot of sense to me, too). On the other hand, no small number of Democrats see those who want to enforce immigration laws as barely closeted racists (I think in some cases that is true). And if you really want to have your brain twist up, consider this: The founder of Oregonians for Immigration Reform is an environmental activist. The point is, this issue is damned complicated and the usual categories don't apply here.

Here's where I part ways from Daniel and Oregonians for Immigration Reform. I would never get in the faces of these laborers and try to intimidate them because if I was Mexican, I'd be coming here, too. People pursuing freedom and a better life are not at fault for taking advantage of the situation that currently exists. We might think they could come legally, but the facts contradict that. I actually know well an illegal Mexican immigrant family who are truly assets to this country and who love the United States.

A lot of our political leaders would have us believe we have two choices - either enforce existing laws or come up with new laws, and they have succeeded in convincing too many activists to march in the streets for one view or the other. As I see it, however, such things as NAFTA, tax policies, and anti-worker policies have us so badly mired in muck that no easy solution exists.

In other words, Daniel is wrong.

Daniel's goals would probably much better served if the generous donors funding Oregonians for Immigration Reform paid for him and the other picketers to fly to Washington, DC and protest in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. where they could get in the face of George W. Bush. From there, they could head over to the Capitol with their video cameras and, a la Michael Moore, ask members of Congress what they plan to do, rather than using their camera to document police harrassment and accusatory counter-protestors.

Instead, their protests, whether motivated by hate for brown people or love of country or both (or neither), are succeeding only in bringing out more hate and distracting people from a very serious issue, one that I personally find very internally conflicting and would like to rationally discuss a lot more with thinking people.

Posted by Becky at 08:25 PM |

The GOP and what Army?

Apparently the press isn't doing a good enough job of fear mongering the American people into a whipped up frenzy over Iran:

Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.

Some policy makers have accused intelligence agencies of playing down Iran’s role in Hezbollah’s recent attacks against Israel and overestimating the time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

The complaints, expressed privately in recent weeks, surfaced in a Congressional report about Iran released Wednesday. They echo the tensions that divided the administration and the Central Intelligence Agency during the prelude to the war in Iraq.

The criticisms reflect the views of some officials inside the White House and the Pentagon who advocated going to war with Iraq and now are pressing for confronting Iran directly over its nuclear program and ties to terrorism, say officials with knowledge of the debate.

It would seem that the learning curve for the "Iraq has WMD and are a bunch of terrorist loving-America haters" crowd is pretty steep. And while the intelligence community seemed more than willing to be cowed into trumping up bullshit on Iraq to appease the GOP--they don't appear to be so accomodating with Iran.

Some dude known only to NY Times readers as a "senior United States official" even goes all Clinton on us:

Some policy makers also said they were displeased that American spy agencies were playing down intelligence reports — including some from the Israeli government — of extensive contacts recently between Hezbollah and members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. “The people in the community are unwilling to make judgment calls and don’t know how to link anything together,” one senior United States official said.

“We’re not in a court of law,” he said. “When they say there is ‘no evidence,’ you have to ask them what they mean, what is the meaning of the term ‘evidence’?”

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd imagine the word "evidence" means the same to the intelligence folks as it means to me and Webster's:

Main Entry: ev·i·dence

Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&ns, -"dens

Function: noun

Etymology: Medieval Latin evidentia, from Latin, that which is obvious, from evident- evidens clear, obvious, from e- out of, from + videns, present participle of videre to see

: something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof; especially : something (as testimony, writings, or objects) presented at a judicial or administrative proceeding for the purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of an alleged matter of fact —

I'm thinking its that whole "fact" thing that's throwing them off. It sure must suck when people start holding politicians to them.

For the politicians, that is.

Posted by Carla at 10:13 AM |

Norquist Takes Dirty Money to Local Politics

It looks like we have another crooked Republican hiding behind a Christian label. This time it's Maryland State Sen. Alexander X. Mooney. Mooney has accepted more than $18,000 in contributions from Jack Abramoff and his associates since 1998, and refused to return any of it. Two of Abramoff's associates, Grover Norquist and Edwin Buckham (former Chief of Staff for Tom DeLay), even held fundraisers for Mooney in their homes. Which prompts the question, why would these gentlemen have an interest in a state senator?

Norquist has said his support of TABOR ballot measures is part of his effort to make government spending a vote-moving issue. Additionally, Norquist is increasingly focusing on building state coalitions that will rile up the grassroots and get them to the polls. Clearly, his support for Mooney, who is outspoken on known vote-moving issues, is part of this plan, and likely Mooney isn't the only recipient of his largesse.

Mooney's acceptance of dirty money is bad enough, but surely his Christian constituents would be interested to know that he is also taking a lot of money from sources that I doubt very much they would approve of. Though Mooney has been very outspoken on gay marriage, abortion, gun control and gambling, he has accepted $10,000 from gambling interests, $1,550 from tobacco companies, $3,250 from liquor companies, and significant sums from companies that favor unions and gay rights (some of which was laundered first through Tom DeLay's ARM PAC).

Mooney's predictable response: "What does it matter where the money comes from? What matters is how you vote." Sounds familiar. Like what the TABOR ballot measure backers are saying now that DeLay associate Howard Rich's funding scheme has come out into the open.

Posted by Becky at 09:31 AM |

Christian Coalition Losing State Affiliates

The Alabama, Iowa, and Ohio chapters of the Christian Coalition of America have become so disgusted with the focus of the organization under its post-Ralph Reed leadership that they have severed their ties with the organization. These former state affiliates are not upset with the national group for what you might expect, however, that being the scandalous behavior in which its leadership has engaged. Rather, they are upset at the lack of attention being paid to abortion and same-sex marriage, the focusing of too much attention on lobbying for "net neutrality" and, in the case of Alabama, the campaigning in favor of a tax increase.

This underscores for me the reality that the Christian Coalition is merely another arm of the corrupt modern Republican Party machine. Like the machine's hub, Grover Norquist, the local affiliates are only concerned about vote-moving issues like abortion and gay marriage and have abandoned any interest in promoting Christian values.

Posted by Becky at 09:21 AM |

August 23, 2006

RFID to Replace Soldiers' Dog Tags?

Americans instinctively recoil in horror at the thought of the government having the ability to track the movements of every citizen. There was initially outrage over the notion of Social Security numbers for that very reason. Now we're talking about the science fiction possibility of a required radio frequency identification chip implanted in every citizen. If you try to explain the aversion to the idea, you sound like a paranoid conspiracy nut. But we just know it is a bad idea.

Unfortunately, it looks as if our 1.4 million servicemen and women might well become guinea pigs in the first stages of a grand social experiment. VeriChip Corp. wants to replace dog tags with RFID chips and is lobbying the Pentagon to make that transition.

The company, which the Examiner notes has powerful political connections, is "in discussions” with the Pentagon, VeriChip spokeswoman Nicole Philbin told the Examiner. "The potential for this technology doesn’t just stop at the civilian level,” Philbin said. Company officials have touted the chips as versatile, able to be used in a variety of situations such as helping track illegal immigrants or giving doctors immediate access to patient’s medical records.

How does this feel to you? And how does it feel to know that former secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, sits on the board of directors of VeriChip? Are there any "checks, balances, and safeguards" that could possibly be put into place sufficient to ease your concerns?

After watching the Bush Administration abuse its power to access personal data, and knowing what I do about Hitler's use of IBM databases to sort out his victims, my answer is a resounding NO. And if that means I have to wear a tin foil hat, then so be it.

Posted by Becky at 12:05 PM |

On-Line Community Easing Pedophiles' Guilt

Every parent should take some time to read this article about the growing influence of the on-line pedophile community.

What started online almost two decades ago as a means of swapping child pornography has transformed in recent years into a more complex and diversified community that uses the virtual world to advance its interests in the real one. Today, pedophiles go online to seek tips for getting near children - at camps, through foster care, at community gatherings and at countless other events. They swap stories about day-to-day encounters with minors. And they make use of technology to help take their arguments to others, like sharing online a printable booklet to be distributed to children that extols the benefits of sex with adults.

The article goes on to say that the catharsis of belonging to the on-line community is easing pedophiles' guilt over having sex with children. This story offers a chilling example of the sort of mental gymnastics the human mind is capable of performing in an effort to justify whatever a person desires to do. The ability to justify harmful behavior is precisely why society must not allow itself to be too sympathetic with criminals. Our sympathies more rightly should be placed with their victims, and punishment meted out accordingly.

Posted by Becky at 11:50 AM |

To Stay or Not to Stay? That is NOT the Question

Like most Americans, I have arrived at the conclusion that I do not trust either the Republicans or the Democrats to handle the war situation in Iraq. But unlike most Americans, I'm not ambivalent about what I believe the solution is.

Republicans are saying we should "stay the course." Democrats are calling for immediate withdrawal. Both are wrong.

We cannot withdraw now or we will leave a horrid mess behind that will be worse for us than if we had never begun. But staying the course is only working to increase the country's internal strife, embolden terrorists, increase hatred of the U.S., and bankrupt our country.

Now maybe I've got my head up my ass, but I think it's time to withdraw the independent contractors, put the Iraqi people to work rebuilding their own country, and use their oil revenues to pay for it. This will get the Iraqi people personally invested in their country's success and remove their incentive to fight each other and us. Our forces should remain only to train them to police their own country and to provide security for the rebuilding effort. When that job is done, then we should get the hell out and let them enjoy the freedom and democracy we promised them when we toppled Saddam's regime three years ago.

Posted by Becky at 11:23 AM |

August 22, 2006

Forgive me Father for I have sinned...

Lust, to be specific.

Price tag? The Steed Sintaur will set you back a paltry $40k

Check it out... no guages!. They're the LED displays you see in the rear-view mirrors.

No, it's not a Harley Davidson. Not even the motor is. It's a Steed and is American made.

Posted by Kevin at 07:31 PM |

Union Facts Campaign Relying on Caricatures

A couple of days ago, I wrote about the connection between the Union "Facts" campaign and TABOR advocates. Today, the Eugene Register Guard has an article addressing the connection, as well.

The Center for Union Facts, based in Washington, D.C., is spending about $1 million to place print, radio and TV ads in Oregon and three other states: Michigan, Montana and Nevada. All four states have initiative measures on their November ballots that resemble the TABOR, or Taxpayer Bill of Rights, law enacted and later suspended by Colorado voters.

Those ballot measures "were a factor but not the controlling factor" in deciding which states to place the new ads in, said businessman and lobbyist Richard Berman, the Center for Union Facts' executive director.

"It seemed more attractive to do public education in a state where the public has a hand in voting" on such matters, Berman said.

So we're supposed to believe this is an independent effort, not a coordinated one? Should we ignore the fact that the ads were screened at this past weekend's Americans for Limited Government Action Conference in a session entitled "Understanding the Opposition" and moderated by Paul Jacob? Independent, my ass.

If you want a glimpse at how the right views public employee union members, just look at the stereotypical caricatures this campaign is presenting:

An initial ad in today's Register-Guard depicts a scowling bureaucrat in a Department of Motor Vehicles office, beneath the words " `Service' like this doesn't come cheap."

Or download this lovely flyer called "The Inquisitor" from the ALG website.

In Montana, the group's media ads claim that "union chiefs have greased the system".

One TV ad … suggests that public employees are lazy clock-watchers who waste away the day chatting to each other about their generous vacation and sick-time benefits, while a frustrated line of people waits to license vehicles.

It makes me wonder whether Montana voters will ever have the opportunity to find out what this million-dollar campaign is NOT telling them - that most of the people who work in Montana's vehicle registration offices make about $19,000 a year, and a few make $23,000.

The Nevada version of the media campaign has run into some trouble over pronunciation of the state's name:

No sooner did we have the "Club for Growth" exposed as a conservative PAC, now we have "Nevada Union Facts" dissing the Nevada "educational unions." Gee, how do we know it's not from Nevada? Because every time they have it on TV, the gal says "NeVAHda." You'd think those people would learn.

I suppose we can always hope they screw up at some point and say "OryGONE" in their ads here.

Posted by Becky at 12:50 PM |

Ridiculous Righty Response to TABOR Concerns

Daily Kos contributor "sandlapper” has been working hard to chronicle Howard Rich’s “reach into our states and into our lives,” something which I have also been following closely, as has Ed Waldo at Boregasm.

But not everyone appreciates his work. He has raised the ire of "Save the GOP" (which erroneously sees Rich, et al as conservatives rather than libertarians) and now is in their "Daily Kos Stupidity" file. How charming.

The first thing that struck me was: “Holy cow, you mean national Democratic activists have an issue with a conservative policy activist mounting a nationwide effort, yet the DKos involvement in Connecticut, et al is somehow ok with them?”

Typical conservative response when they're nabbed doing something shady: "But they did it first!"

If you've read all the posts about this issue, you will readily see how this person seeking to "save the GOP" is mischaracterizing the many concerns that have been raised by responding to a very small quote from Sandlapper's post regarding Rich's nation-wide effort:

Nation-wide efforts of Daily Kos? Who cares! MoveOn.org? George Soros? Hey, as long as they are progressives they can pour their money into any issue whatsoever! Sandlapper also imitates Emeril (Bam!) for added theatric effects and describe the effort to do the sinister act of protecting taxpayer revenues as “Conspiracy, not coincidence. Agenda, not mere generosity.” …

Markos Moulitsas (the man who said “screw ‘em” when several American workers in Iraq died) must not be questioned, but Howard Rich is an eeeevil conservative activist who must be stopped at all accounts. Moreover, allowing voters to have some control over their state’s purse strings will bring about chaos, liberal betwetting, and the injury of puppies.

He then goes on to describe what the "conspiracy" really is by merely explaining the Colorado TABOR law, which incidentally nearly everyone involved in this year's crop of ballot measures is desperately trying to run away from.

Never mind the layers of obfuscating astroturf organizations laundering money to hide its source. Never mind the illegal petitioning practices. Never mind the heavy-handed forcing of an agenda on local activists and pushing aside of local concerns. Never mind the unwanted LIBERTARIAN agenda being foisted on unwitting voters. Because those awful liberals engage in national, coordinated efforts, it's apparently no holds barred for everyone else.

This is precisely the sort of uninformed, closed-minded thinking that is getting Republicans in trouble right now. And it is precisely the reason why I remain a registered Independent. I simply will not be associated with people who tolerate illegal and unethical behavior, refuse to use the brains God gave them, and act like children.

Posted by Becky at 11:59 AM |

American-Supplied Cluster Bombs Wreaking Havoc on Civilians

Israel and Lebanon may have gone into a temporary cease-fire mode after 33 days of fighting, but that doesn't mean an end to war-related injuries. This story explains how unexploded bombs are still injuring and killing Lebanese civilians, including some heartbreaking stories of children and an elderly woman who were simply going about their daily business.

The south is carpeted with unexploded cluster bombs, innocuous looking black canisters, barely larger than a torch battery, which pose a deadly threat to villagers stumbling back to their homes. Mine-clearing teams scrambling across the region have logged 89 cluster bomb sites so far, and expect to find about 110 more. Meanwhile, casualties are being taken into hospital — four dead and 21 injured so far. Officials fear the toll could eventually stretch into the thousands…

The bombs are ejected from artillery shells in mid-flight, showering a wide area with explosions that can kill within 10 metres. But up to a quarter fail to explode, creating minefields that kill civilians once the war is over. … In Tibnin, 210 bombs were found around the town hospital.

Unfortunately, these cluster bombs were provided to Israel by the U.S. Americans may not realize our country is responsible for this sort of weaponry, but the victims know it.

Posted by Becky at 09:44 AM |

It's all about the ideology

The National Pro-Life Action Center is angry with Bush over his implied support for Plan B as an over-the-counter drug. But their rationale fails the most basic test of logic.

Stephen G. Peroutka, Esq., NPLAC chairman, stated:

"President Bush’s implied support of OTC status for the abortion-causing drug Plan B is a betrayal of the pro-life principles he claims to support. If this dangerous drug is made available over-the-counter, it will give adult male predators another weapon in their arsenal against young women.

"I agree wholeheartedly with Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics, Inc., when he states: 'Granting Plan B over-the-counter status will usher in a golden age for those who seek to sexually exploit young girls. If sales of Plan B were tracked for the first five years of OTC sales, I guarantee that the #1 purchaser will be adult men. The pro-choice agenda is now becoming a get-out-of-jail-free card for men who prey upon underage children for sex.'"

Essentially what they are saying is that there are legions of men just waiting for Plan B to be made available OTC so that they can then start preying on young girls. Implied in their argument is that Plan B not being available OTC is preventing child rape, which is absurd.

Posted by Kevin at 07:12 AM |

August 21, 2006

I ask you, which one best reflects Christianity?

Chucrallah Nabil Hage, the Maronite Christian archbishop of Tyre: "The Christian message is the same everywhere: a message of peace, a message of love and a message of tolerance," he said. "Even if we have different beliefs, it doesn't mean it should lead to conflict."

American Evangelical rightwing freak: The people of Lebanon and all other Arab countries are against America and have repeatedly said they want to kill us. Why do we need to be so concerned about their civilians and why do we have to consider them to be innocent when they help hide the terrorists from us?

Jesus: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” John 18:36

Posted by Kevin at 02:50 PM |

Minister's Stance on Women Not the Public's Business

A Watertown, NY fundamentalist minister's decision to relieve a Sunday School teacher of her position because she is female is threatening to spill over into his public life as a member of the town's City Council after the offended woman refused to follow the church's grievance process and instead took her story to the media.

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on Aug. 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.

The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

The Rev. Timothy LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city's day-to-day operations is a woman.

"I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to" outside of the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday.

Mayor Jeffrey Graham, however, was bothered by the reasons given Lambert's dismissal.

"If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age," Graham said. "Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now."

Labouf has released a statement to the public about the matter. In it, he speaks directly to the concerns of the public at large as to how the matter relates to his role as a member of the City Council:

I am fully aware that not everyone ascribes to my view of the scriptures but I would never vilify them for having a different religious view and I would hope that if you do hold a different view that you would extend to me the same courtesy. I want you to know that my desire is to not hurt anyone or to belittle anyone but only to ensure that the scripture is upheld in our church and not compromised. … Many have drawn conclusions as to how this issue applies to my role as a Watertown City Councilmember. My belief is that the qualifications for both men and women teaching spiritual matters in a church setting end at the church door, period. Now let me explain my position of the role of women in society especially because that is where many of the discussions have centered and some false accusations have been made that need correction. I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to. …

Now I know it's a lot of fun to poke at antiquated fundamentalist beliefs, especially if you feel like I do about sexism, but I think this man ought to be left alone. Transitions with churches are always difficult. I once belonged to a church that had been an older, dying traditional church that was sort of taken over by a younger, more charismatic crowd. A lot of the older members left. Such matters are things the members must work out between themselves. Lamberton does not have to continue to be a member of that church, seeing as she is unhappy with the changes the new minister has brought. She has the right of free association, as do all the members.

The public should be concerned with what happens in the public realm, not start being thought police. This minister has not applied his belief that women should not have authority over men in the public square; therefore, it is none of the public's business. Disapproval of his religious beliefs, where those beliefs are not being imposed on the public, is not sufficient to justify the public's interference with his service on the City Council.

Posted by Becky at 12:24 PM |

Scandal in Oklahoma Reveals Much

Heather Wilhelm, Director of Communications for Americans for Limited Government and US Term Limits, has created quite a stir, especially with Christians, with her story of how eminent domain is being used to take a church in Oklahoma so that the evil city can have the property used for something that generates taxes. In her piece, she pumps the great work of a group called "Protect Our Homes Oklahoma," which is working to pass a measure that would ban the use of eminent domain for economic development (and impose just compensation laws far more strict than Oregon's Measure 37, though proponents conveniently don't mention that).

Fortunately for the people of Oklahoma, in May, the Oklahoma Supreme Court outlawed the use of eminent domain for economic development. That decision didn't touch the compensation portion of ALG's (oops, I mean Protect Our Homes Oklahoma's) ballot measure, however. And as someone who supports Measure 37, I'm offended both by the dishonest use of the eminent domain cover and by the extreme nature of the compensation portion. Rumor has it that Oregon's own Dave Hunnicut was hired to write all of ALG's eminent domain ballot measures this year. He is very familiar with Oregon's single subject rule, so he should also be well aware that despite Wilhelm's claims that the two are "really a comprehensive initiative that will protect private property," they are really two separate subjects and ought to be considered separately.

Wilhelm's op-ed about the dangers faced by churches in the climate of heartless greed that fills city halls neglects to inform readers that it is her own group that is funding and managing the efforts of Protect Our Homes Oklahoma. In fact, back in September of 2005, when asked about her group's involvement she said, "From what I understand, that is a local issue." And she has repeatedly said her group just wants to lend a helping hand to local grassroots efforts all over the country. "[W]e have people from around the country e-mailing us for help," she says. "We're definitely happy to help any group that is doing this great work in any state." "[I]t's in our mission statement to help grass-roots groups get it on the ballot."

"Stop Overspending Oklahoma" is another group working on a ballot measure – this one a Colorado TABOR spin-off. Of course, this group, too, is home-grown and not at all part of any national effort, just like "Stop Over Spending Montana," "Stop Overspending Nebraska," "Stop Overspending Missouri," and "Stop Overspending Michigan", all of which are also receiving funding from Americans for Limited Government. Which, of course, is always happy to help grassroots efforts.

For those who have been following this story, none of this is news. We've known for several weeks now about Howard Rich, Paul Jacob, Eric O'Keefe, and their paid mouthpiece, Heather Wilhelm and the group's efforts to pass extreme property compensation, TABOR, and term limits in about a dozen states. But I do have a bit of new information that further undermines Heather Wilhelm's assertions that the group is just trying to help all these independent grassroots groups who have been emailing ALG asking for money. In fact, I have in my hot little hand proof that this group actually managed the signature drives in Oklahoma, a smoking gun that they did the same in the other states, as well.

In Oklahoma, the signature collection process for both Protect Our Homes Oklahoma and Stop Overspending Oklahoma (both of which are being run by Oklahomans in Action) were contracted out to National Voter Outreach, whose President is Susan Johnson. One would expect that if this truly was a grassroots initiative campaign, it would be the local Chief Petitioners or the head of Oklahomans in Action who would be the point-persons in these signature gathering campaigns. But that is not what happened. Instead, Susan Johnson reported signature counts, gave updates, and issued funding increase requests to Paul Jacob.

In case you have forgotten, Paul Jacob is not only the head of US Term Limits and a Senior Fellow at Americans for Limited Government, he is also Howard Rich's brother-in-law. It's all very cozy.

So about those emails. I'll give you a few excerpts so you know what I mean.

On September 12, 2005 Susan Johnson sent an email to Paul Jacob.

The delays have put us in a difficult position. A 90-day, 293,000-signature campaign at the "regular" rate was possible, we stated, because of our ability to take advantage of Election-Day recruiting (two weeks prior to the election) and working the Fair season. The first opportunity has passed and it seems less likely each day that the committee will form, deposit & contract will be executed, lawyers will agree on the wording, the petition format will be checked by myself and the state, and that we will have paper in time to recruit and train and be in force at the State Fair by the 15th (3 days).

This is not a complaint. Flexibility is a necessity and so frequently coordinating all the elements is like shooting at a moving target. But there also has to be an understanding of how this may effect [sic] the budget. Please be prepared to deal with this issue once we are into the first few weeks of the drive. We will be better able to determine our signature-growth momentum at weeks three and four. As it stands, I think that the budget may require an additional [redacted] if start-up recruitment doesn't happen quickly enough.

Big Ads broke in the paper on Sunday; our offices and phones are secured. Management is waiting for the paper. The printer is on standby. I'm still looking for the contract, draft petition & final deposit. Please keep me posted on the time frame as you get a handle on it. I need to coordinate two dates with Kathy Jekel [of the Secretary of State's office]. My people are calling me a couple times a day for updates.

Note that at the time this coordination is taking place, Susan says they are still looking to form a committee, so obviously the local grassroots group that supposedly generated this campaign that ALG was so happy to help achieve their local goals had not even formed yet.

In a memorandum to Paul Jacob on October 4, 2005, Susan reports that she has collected 14,272 signatures. Her October 11 field report to Paul Jacob provides a signature update, expresses concern at the rate of growth in momentum, and discusses the advertising efforts to draw in petitioners, including outreach to "the fast-food industry workers."

On November 11, Jacob emails Johnson and asks her, "Can you get me a total on what OIA has paid in OK? I'm trying to decipher what's in Rick Carpenter's bank account." Johnson replies, "Is there any word about the Missouri project? Inquiring minds want to know …"

At this point, her email gets very interesting. Oklahoma law absolutely prohibits the circulation of petitions by non-residents. Organizers for National Voter Outreach knowingly brought in "pros" – people who circulate all over the country. Susan writes:

We have 7 pro's [sic] coming in thus far. We have three pros in town leaving for 10 days. We are still actively recruiting. However there are two petitions paying a total of $2.25 in CA. Which has wide open access. Don't know how far this will take us, but we will bill you as we get them and as they produce. You can expect a pro report with your regular weekly update.

I will bill you for pro expenses as they are billed to me. I want to switch over the team bonuses to bringing in pros if we can. If we get enough of them it will cost less money in the long run. So pro's [sic] coming in earn [redacted] for expenses on [redacted] signatures a week and an additional [redacted] from NVO on the other bonus program for [redacted] a week. We hope that will keep the pay inspiring as we try and work out the Access problems. …

Look forward to seeing you on Tuesday. Get me your flight schedule and I'll pick you up.

Her November 29 field report to Paul Jacob complains about how the holiday (Thanksgiving) hit the effort hard and that blockers were out interfering with signature gathering at parades and other events by distributing leaflets asking people not to sign the petition. This, she said, caused her crew to collect half as many signatures as expected. "I am thinking there may be a mobilized union effort," she wrote.

Our pros are also having trouble with access. Our Missouri crew of 6 (one dropped) that arrived on Wednesday has collected just 1500 signatures over their first 4 days circulating. That is an average of 62 signatures per day each. These are people who are used to collecting 150-200 per day. …

We have just three weeks left. I have 12 pro's [sic] confirmed still in town today. Three of those were not here over the weekend and not one has reached bonus numbers. … We need to discuss our next move. I think it's time to consider a rate increase across the board and leave in place production bonuses. I will continue to try and bring in additional pro's [sic] using the recruiting bonus plan instituted last week.

Paul Jacob's reply is interesting: "This is shaping up to be a disaster where we pay for 250,000 signatures and fail to make the ballot. Should we pull the plug on SOS?"

December 2, Jacob writes to Johnson about a contract they have put together to hire Michael Rhodes to recruit petitioners to produce 10,000 signatures by December 18:

Here is the Michael Rhodes agreement. He let me keep my socks, that's about it. Obviously, we're agreeing to pay NVO this amount for hiring Michael according to this agreement. There is still time if I left something out. Let me know.

For those concerned about the illegal use of non-resident petitioners in Oklahoma, Johnson's December 8 email to Jacob is perhaps the most indicting:

We have commitments from 62 pro's [sic] to be in the state by Friday. I am continuing to encourage others to come. Reports are that California ends tomorrow. Many are already here and working.

These are discussions a contractor has with the person who has hired them. Obviously, that person was not the head of Oklahomans in Action. It was Paul Jacob of Americans for Limited Government, the group that is providing funding for similar measures across the country. Perhaps that is why ALG's recent Action Conference program listed a Friday, 8/18/06 agenda item at 8:00 pm entitled The impact of our initiatives across the country by Eric O'Keefe, also of ALG. Just to be sure you are clear as to these individuals' association with ALG, the next day, Saturday, the Action Conference featured a Q&A session with an "ALG panel" that included John Tillman, Paul Jacob, Eric O'Keefe, and Bob Costello.

One final bit of interesting information as to the motivations of these individuals behind the TABOR ballot measure is found on the agenda for the 33rd Annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2006:

CPAC06-22: Reining in Spending: Starving the Beast: John Berthoud, PhD., Tom Schatz, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, John Tillman, Moderator: John Fund

Now let's all watch as Howard Rich's and Paul Jacob's local puppets swear up and down that it was all their idea, all their locally-initiated effort, and it really truly is grassroots, but it doesn't really matter where the money came from anyway, and those union thugs are so awful, and [stomping feet on the floor] why won't we just debate the issues!

Posted by Becky at 09:34 AM |

August 20, 2006

Siding with Goliath

Long-time conservative attorney Kelly Clark has filed an elections complaint asking the Oregon Secretary of State to kick Constitution Party Mary Starrett off the ballot. The reason: he cannot find any evidence that the Constitution Party filed the required legal notice of its June 3 nominating convention in a general circulation newspaper. That's his story, and he's sticking to it.

Clark swears it has nothing to do with anyone's fears that Starrett will be a spoiler and take votes away from the Republicans' lukewarm candidate, Ron Saxton. No, of course not. And it was not done in conjunction with the Saxton campaign. A few voters who just happened to support Saxton were so terribly concerned about the potential that the little ol' Constitution Party might be violating election law that they were compelled to fork over the dough to hire Mr. Clark to do something about it.

Starrett isn't buying it. She is accusing the Saxton campaign of "reenacting the Tanya Harding saga – with Starrett as Nancy Kerrigan – while Kelly Clark plays the goon!" And apparently she also, somewhere that I have been unable to locate, brought up the poor man's status as a sex offender. For which some are calling for Starrett to apologize for saying something that is "just plain mean."

For a long time now, Clark has been cultivating the image that he's helping little David's take on big bad Goliaths. Doing things that matter in the big picture of life. I've just got to ask, how can Clark reconcile that image with his current picking on Mary? Could it be that when this former gay-rights advocate decided to work to stop gay marriage he wasn't displaying "disgust with the misuse of power," as he claimed, but rather a willingness to take up a cause that came with a paycheck? Could that be why he's siding with Goliath now?

Posted by Becky at 08:33 PM |

Liquid Bomb Plot Impossible

Next time you have to stand in line at the airport for two hours waiting to have your toothpaste, shampoo, and bottled water confiscated, remember this.

Posted by Becky at 04:34 PM |

August 19, 2006

Gitmo: a shameful part of our nation's history

Over at Mahablog, Barbara informs about a new piece in this month's Harper's magazine by Eliza Griswold. Rather than excerpt it here, I encourage you to click over and read it over at Maha's place.

The piece entitled "American Gulag: Prisoner's Tales from the War on Terror" cites information taken from those once held at Guantanamo Bay, their attorneys and their family members.

Apparently the article is not yet available online. But the details are shocking and if true, are perhaps among the worst things ever done by an American government.

The details are seriously horrible. Its a reminder that its incumbent upon us as Americans to take charge of our government and demand oversight.

More importantly, we must demand accountability.

Posted by Carla at 07:11 PM |

Immigration Issue Fracturing the Right

I saw an article a couple weeks ago on how the immigration debate has split conservatives. I knew there were internal conflicts on the right over immigration and I knew it was important, but didn't know quite what to make of it. Tom Barry is writing about it today, and it has reminded me again that this is a most curious thing. Because the thing is, it would appear that the immigration issue is splitting apart coalitions that one might never have thought would split apart. I mean, you have former fellows fiercely at odds all of a sudden.

On the one side are those who call for a hard line on enforcement of immigration law because of the war on terror. They believe that until we enforce existing law we have no business debating other solutions to illegal immigration. On this side are Newt Gingrich, William Bennett, Thomas Sowell, Robert Bork, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Ward Connerly, William F Buckley, Rich Lowry, Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, Peter Collier, David Frum, Michael Ledeen, John O’Sullivan, Kathryn Lopez, and Jonah Goldberg, among others.

On the other side are 33 pro-immigration conservatives who believe other solutions must be explored because enforcement isn't enough. These conservatives include Jack Kemp, George Schultz, Grover Norquist, William Kristol, Jeff Bell, Linda Chavez, Steve Forbes, and Max Boot.

Tom Barry thinks this split on the right is a battle over how to best position the party at election time.

In part, it's a battle over contending right-wing ideologies. It's also a high-stakes race to determine which approach to the immigration crisis will win the most votes for Republicans.

Perhaps he's right, but somehow I don't think so. The first group seems to me to be true believers who, though perhaps a bit nutty and extreme, are patriots nonetheless, while the second group seems more to be more the just-plain-evil, snake-oil salesman, secret-society, world-domination types. You know, members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Skull and Bones, or the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

One exception to this is Frank Gaffney, one of those who has sided with the enforcement-first group, but who also is a PNAC signatory. But I can't help but like the man because he is also the person who revealed Grover Norquist's dangerous ties to Islamic terrorists. Maybe that is why he has sided as he has - Norquist is with the more open borders group. Or maybe it's the true patriot thing that has pushed him to that position.

It is all very curious. I'll be pondering it for quite awhile, I think.

Posted by Becky at 01:52 PM |

Libertarian Movement Not Dead Yet

Considering how many states are currently facing multiple ballot measures written and funded by libertarians hell-bent on circumventing the legislative process by scamming the public into passing self-destructive laws, I am flabbergasted at Michael Lind's declaration that the libertarian movement is dead.

The most epochal event in world politics since the cold war has occurred – and few people have noticed. I am not referring to the conflict in Iraq or Lebanon or the campaign against terrorism. It is the utter and final defeat of the movement that has shaped the politics of the US and other western democracies for several decades: the libertarian counter-revolution.

His thesis is based on the libertarians' unsuccessful efforts to sell the American public or our lawmakers on their belief in eliminating the "welfare state." That much is true – Americans have rejected the libertarian philosophy. We have rejected the privatization of Social Security. We have rejected the dismantling of public education. We have rejected the abolition of the minimum wage.

But I believe Lind has underestimated the financial resources and the wily tactics of the proponents of libertarian philosophy. Howard Rich and his cohorts are small potatoes compared to the puppet masters at the Cato Institute. They still have their eye on Social Security privatization, privatization of education, and the removal of hard-fought protections for workers. And they have discovered how to use things Americans do support - low taxes and property rights - to achieve their more extreme goals. This year's crop of ballot measures will strip legislatures of experienced individuals, strip away all ability of government to regulate the use of private property, and limit government revenues so severely that states will have no choice but to dismantle social programs and education altogether. Meanwhile, they are launching an anti-union disinformation campaign to undermine people's trust in both their government and the unions working to protect their rights.

Are libertarians playing out their last gasp right now, or are they on the verge of a major coup? In my opinion, that depends entirely on whether adequate resources can be brought to bear to educate the public about the dangers to our way of life should these underhanded libertarian efforts be successful.

Posted by Becky at 10:49 AM |

August 18, 2006

Union "Facts" Campaign Linked to TABOR

As usual, Mr. Piccolo at NW Republican is off on an ignorant rant about "union thuggery." This time, he's breathlessly calling attention to an organization that tells all about union corruption – the Center for Union Facts. I actually heard about this group's planned advertising attack on unions yesterday and decided to check them out.

Their website is actually very unusual. It lists no history on the group, no Board of Directors, no staff (aside from Sarah Longwell), no street address, and no information about what type of organization it is (PAC? Non-profit? Foundation?). Fortunately, this is not the first anti-union attack launched by the Center for Union Facts, and others have already figured out who the group is.

Sourcewatch offers a fair run-down on the basics of the group. It is – gasp – an industry front group, headed by libertarian anti-environmental, anti-consumer, anti-worker lobbyist Rick Berman. He has a few other front groups, as well. Like Howard Rich and the rest of that nest of snakes involved in Cato, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, etc. Helps them more effectively launder money and create the illusion of massive support for something that is really only supported by a few people with an ungodly amount of wealth.

David Sirota wrote a nice little overview of the group back in February.

Townhall.com - the official headquarters of the fringe right - sent out an alert today telling folks about the new so-called "Center for Union Facts." The site is so skewed, so over the top, so dishonest, I just had to check out who is behind it. Though UPI notes that the group is refusing to disclose who its donors are (shocker!), its executive director is none other than Rick Berman - one of the biggest corporate shills working in politics today.

Want to know a little bit about Mr. Berman? Here, chew on this:

HEAD OF NEW UNION BASHING GROUP IS LONGTIME ANTI-UNION CORPORATE LOBBYIST: "Berman has a history of representing tobacco firms, restaurant chains or beer distributors in fights against labor unions, consumer-health groups and efforts to raise the minimum wage." [Source: Detroit Free Press, 2/24/05]

HEAD OF NEW UNION BASHING GROUP FOUGHT AGAINST ANTI-DRUNK DRIVING LAWS: "A national campaign -- called MADDatGM -- has been launched with the backing of 17,000 bars, taverns and liquor stores to attack the automaker and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, mostly for their efforts to lower legal blood-alcohol levels...'We want to stop GM from contributing to MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). We have a problem with GM money going to criminalize social drinkers. GM needs to recognize it is attacking legitimate businesses,' said Rick Berman, the high-powered Washington D.C. lobbyist running the MADDatGM campaign." [Source: Detroit Free Press, 2/24/05]

HEAD OF NEW UNION BASHING GROUP WAS CORPORATE UNION BUSTER: "Bensinger even received a handwritten note from Rick Berman, a powerful Washington lobbyist who used to plan union avoidance strategies at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce." [Fortune, 9/28/98]

So basically, the head of this new group is a corporate lobbyist so bought off he's willing to go out and attack Mothers Against Drunk Driving on behalf of his corporate clients. That's the kind of wild-eyed right-wing lunatic the conservative movement is breeding - people solely focused on using the nexus of money and politics to cash in, no matter how extreme and distasteful they have to behave in public. With American workers having highly-paid extremist enemies like this roaming the nation's capital, it is no doubt that ordinary citizens' economic interests are regularly steamrolled in Washington, D.C.

Berman is behind several groups, such as ActivistCash.com (a website that works to smear consumer protection activists and protect companies who are producing unhealthy products), the Center for Consumer Freedom (another anti-consumer protection site that scoffs at "the Nanny Culture" that calls attention to health concerns associated with big corporate-produced foods), The Employment Policies Institute (which opposes any increases in the minimum wage), and the American Beverage Institute (whose arch-enemy is Mothers Against Drunk Driving).

Researching Berman is like opening a can of worms. So rather than going into all the myriad of issues related to his lobbying history and scandal history and connections, I decided instead to see whether I could find any connections between this sudden advertising campaign against unions and the fact that unions are the primary opponent of the TABOR measure.

One common denominator in the two seemingly disconnected networks (Berman's groups and the Cato Institute) is the Phillip Morris Company. Berman and numerous Cato Board members have both been heavily involved in trying to undermine arguments about the dangers of tobacco, and have received large amounts of money in return. Phillip Morris and Koch Industries (Koch founded and funds Cato) also have worked together to fight environmental regulations. The so-called "Cooler Heads Coalition" and the National Center for Public Policy show clear links in the anti-environmental, pro-corporate joint efforts of these major financial backers. Not coincidentally, Ron Berman's biased studies "debunking" assertions of environmentalists and consumer advocates are often quoted by these groups, as well as Cato.

But that doesn't really show anything more than some shared philosophical beliefs. I was still suspicious, however, that there was coordination occurring. Finally, this morning I found the links I was looking for.

Yesterday, three press releases were sent out by the Center for Union Facts:

This one said, "Today, the Center for Union Facts (CUF) unleashed the newest wave of its high-profile campaign to expose bad union leadership and the pain it causes Oregon taxpayers."

This one said, "Today, the Center for Union Facts (CUF) unleashed the newest wave of its high-profile campaign to expose bad union leadership and the pain it causes Michigan taxpayers."

And this one said, "Today, the Center for Union Facts (CUF) unleashed the newest wave of its high-profile campaign to expose bad union leadership and the pain it causes Montana taxpayers."

How interesting. Three press releases – and only three press releases – went out yesterday from the group announcing the launching of anti-union advertisements in three states – Oregon, Michigan, and Montana. Coincidentally (?), all three states are facing TABOR ballot measures this Fall. But what about Nevada and Missouri, which are also facing TABOR measures this year?

A little hint from Ed Waldo clears that up for us. Americans for Limited Government is holding an ALG Action Conference starting today in Chicago. You can find the detailed agenda for the meeting at the Heartland website. A very interesting session will begin this afternoon at 3:00 pm:

Understanding the opposition
Moderator: Paul Jacob (yes, that Term Limits guy and good pal of Howard Rich of TABOR fame)
Panelists: Mike Flynn, Union Facts
Union Facts Ads presentation
Patrick Tuohey, Missourians in Charge
Bob Adney, Take Back Nevada

There's your Missouri and Nevada link. Yes, the only anti-union efforts by this group right now are being launched simultaneously in five states where TABOR is on the ballot, and the target is the primary opponents of TABOR: unions.

As I am finding with all of these groups and individuals, there is so much to know that you really cannot write a simple blog post and even hope to pull it all together. But with Sandlapper's awesome work at the Daily Kos and Ed Waldo's fascinating research at Boregasm, bit-by-bit the picture is being filled out. So keep reading, do some research, and if you find something interesting, by all means let us know!

Posted by Becky at 10:05 AM |

Tigard Gas Tax: The Sky Is Falling!

It seems almost every radio station in town yesterday and this morning was talking about Tigard's proposal for a 3 cent a gallon gas tax to fund improvements on 99W in response to constant complaints from locals about how badly those improvements are needed. Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth. All over a mere 40 cents more for a fill-up.

To listen to these whiners, you would think no other city in Oregon has a local gas tax. Such a thing is unheard of! They'll never buy gas in Tigard again! Oh - My - God!

Thank goodness we have people who keep track of such things. The League of Oregon Cities informs us that Cottage Grove, Oakridge, Springfield, The Dalles, and Veneta all have 3 cent per gallon local gas taxes. Dundee has a 2 cent gas tax. You pay one cent per gallon more in Sandy and Woodburn, 1.5 cents more in Tillamook, and a whole 5 cents more in Eugene.

So you want better roads, people? Pony up the 40 frickin' cents. Geez.

Posted by Becky at 09:19 AM |

Dems Helping Schwartzenegger?

Jon Carroll at the San Francisco Chronicle has a pretty interesting take on the Democratic strategy for defeating Schwartzenegger.

Apparently some Democratic strategists have been attacking Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for avoiding Republicans and pretending that he's a Democrat. They say that as if it's a bad thing. But hey, if I have a Republican governor, I want him to dissociate himself from the White House. I want him to be pro-choice and pro-gay rights. The more I like his politics, the more I like him. It's not as if he gets to appoint Supreme Court justices or anything.

Once again, Democrats may be going down the wrong path in the nation's largest state - and one of the bluest.

Things like this happen there because the politics are consultant and lobbyist driven and controlled, and there is little input from the people in the party or even the campaign staffmembers as to how to do things.

It reminds me of the way Democrats run Presidential campaigns. Layer upon layer of consultants, all getting their payday, while the staff that is working on the ground is left to implement a DC/Sacto dream that doesn't match their reality.

I hope the California Democrats wake up before it's too late.

Posted by Alan at 05:46 AM |

Another Republican Walks The Ethical Line

Chris Cannon (R-UT) has sought to be seen as an above board Congressman, going so far as to put down a rule in his office that his wife and children cannot lobby him on other's behalf.

Well, apparently that rule doesn't go to other family members. Like, say, older brothers.

But sibling Joseph Cannon leads a team of 10 professional lobbyists in Washington, and he has personally sought help from his brother the lawmaker on behalf of his own clients and got it. Some experts believe the practice is fraught with ethical risks.

As with most Republican ethical issues, there's more to the story than meets the eye.

Christopher Cannon, a Utah Republican who has been elected five times, has a financial stake in his brother's success. The lobbyist owes the congressman more than $250,000 to cover debts from his own unsuccessful campaign for the Senate 14 years ago, according to Joseph Cannon and Christopher Cannon's financial disclosure reports to Congress.

I help out your clients. You get paid. You can pay me back.

I don't know where this is going, but I'm not liking the smell coming out of this office right now.

Posted by Alan at 05:36 AM |

Conservatives Look For Acceptance

Poor traditionalist Episcopalians are feeling the need for a little acceptance and understanding.

Episcopal parish priest Bill Murdoch watched the developing split in his denomination over homosexuality and thought about the future.

In a denomination where the majority of seminaries are liberal, conservatives need to look for a way to move forward on their own, he thought.

So he approached the country's two most conservative Episcopal seminaries with a proposal _ an academic partnership with Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Hamilton, about 20 miles north of Boston, even though he hadn't asked Gordon-Conwell yet.

What this lead to was a new concentration in traditional church teachings at the seminary.

Well done. Let's do what we can to further the split, shall we?

And I don't buy for a minute that this is happening because traditionalists aren't "feeling the love". They have their own agenda.

"We're at the edge of the knife," said Murdoch, a Gordon-Conwell alumnus from West Newbury. "If the church divides, there will be a need for courageous, well-trained young leadership.

"Conservative orthodox seminaries will birth, if you will, conservative folks to serve in parish life and ministry."

If the gays and the women get their way - they have to be prepared. Good lesson in working together for the young people.

Posted by Alan at 05:28 AM |

Bush Signs A Law

Just like in School House Rock, every now and a again a good bill gets signed into law, and we all cheer.

President Bush signed into law yesterday a bill that reforms our nation's pension laws and shores up retirement accounts.

The new law will force most private employers that provide traditional pensions to their workers to pump tens of billions of dollars more into those systems over seven years while making it easier to expand 401(k) and IRA retirement plans. But the law cuts a break to the financially troubled airline industry, where the pensions of tens of thousands of workers have been endangered.

Okay, I'm concerned about the break for the airline industry, but overall this is a strong bill and one that we should be happy made it through the process.

It even strengthens the rollover of retirement plans to non-spouses.

How bout that? The Do Nothing Congress actually did something. Took them years to get it done, but hey, I'm going to be pollyannish about this.

Considering how bad everything else is with this administration, I'll take the crumbs I can get.

Posted by Alan at 05:19 AM |

August 17, 2006

Grave and present danger - Bush's incompetence

Why does it seem like everyone gets it except for the Bush administration?

Washington: The Bush administration is scrambling to assemble a plan to help rebuild Lebanon, hoping that by competing with Hezbollah for the public's favour it can undo the damage the war has inflicted on its image and goals for the Mideast region.

Administration officials fear that unless they move quickly to demonstrate US commitment, the Lebanese will turn more fully to the group, which has begun rolling out an ambitious reconstruction programme that US officials believe is bankrolled by Iran.

Why in the name of (insert name of favorite deity) is the Bush administration scrambling at this late point in the crisis?

"People have been seized by the need to do more, in a tangible way, and they're working feverishly on this," said a senior administration official who asked to remain unidentified because he was speaking about plans still in development. "They know we're in a race against time to turn around these perceptions."

Holy effing shit! It's August 17th 2006 and the Bush administration is suddenly in a race against time to turn around these perceptions???

WTF?

Posted by Kevin at 06:42 PM |

Fake Terrorism

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is considering running for president, said yesterday that we can't win the war on terror without a Republican majority in the House. Meanwhile, previously undisclosed 9/11 victims' 911 calls have miraculously just been found and released, though all were supposed to all have been released last August. All this at the same time as a 9/11-style terrorist plot is foiled, a suspicious Seattle container from Pakistan is searched, and the arrest of a crazy lady on a plane launches wild stories across the main stream media. It's terror everywhere. What a great way to kick off the Republican campaign season!

Not to be left out of the fun, President Bush warned yesterday that pulling out of Iraq would "create a terrorist network" that could use oil as an economic weapon against beleaguered American drivers. Terorrists would, he said, "be willing to use [oil] to extract economic pain from those of us who believe in freedom." He went on, "If we leave before the mission is complete, if we withdraw, the enemy will follow us home."

Be afraid! Not only will they cost you money, they might try to blow you up, too! The solution offered by the President?

"And so we've got to use new tactics, new efforts, new assets to protect ourselves against an enemy that will strike us at any moment. This war on terror is more than just chasing down people hiding in caves or preventing people from getting on airplanes to blow them up."

Alberto Gonzales yesterday gave some indication of the sort of "new tactics, new efforts, new assets" to which the President was referring. We must closely monitor "extremist Web sites, prisons and other venues that have been used to recruit radicals. Academic settings, mosques and community centers could also be potential hubs for radicals." So colleges, universities, places of worship, and community centers must be closely monitored. How terrifying!

An, of course, we must do a better job of screening airline passengers. Stealing their shampoo just isn't going to cut it. A new method, called Screening Passengers by Observation Technique, or SPOT is being tried out in several airports. Rather than looking for weapons or bombs, experts are looking for behavior that betrays "evil intent." Of course, these experts can be counted on not to have any sort of vindictive, anti-Arab evil intent of their own that might result in harassment, right?

In the UK, the government is considering the kind of profiling that would never be allowed here (unless we're too terrified to follow the Constitution anymore). In addition to heavily screening those who are acting strange or whose travel patterns are "unusual," authorities are hoping to begin screening passengers based on a certain ethnic or religious background. Which begs the question, can you spot a Muslim? What does a Muslim look like? Well, they're mostly non-white, but not always.

So is all this terror real, or is it Memorex? Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, has some serious doubts, and I tend to agree with him. In a nutshell, he doesn't believe we were in any danger from this latest busted-up terrorist plot to blow up planes. He believes it's all about politics – and the slow elimination of civil rights.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time. …

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. … Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.

Murray concludes his interesting piece with some facts that really ought to see the light of day.

Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do with terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.

Will the real terrorists please stand up?

Posted by Becky at 08:58 AM |

De-Fense! (Clap, Clap)

It seems the GOP is getting to a point where they're admitting they have some serious problems going into the fall elections.

Republicans will play defense in this fall's state legislative races to avoid a "tsunami" that could alter the political landscape in statehouses around the country, the head of the GOP's legislative campaign committee said Wednesday.

"Some years you play offense, and some years you play defense," said Alex Johnson, executive director of the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee. "And this is a year when we play a bit of defense and hope to steal a few."

Mr. Johnson is right from a political view. But be warned - playing defense for the GOP usually involves buckets of mud, made up issues, and perhaps a security alert or three.

I guess I'm a bit concerned that we are seeing the GOP put back on its heels (by its own doing), and that they will go to what they know - lies and sleaze - to make it through November.

Posted by Alan at 04:36 AM |

August 16, 2006

Blue Collar Conservative Democrats

What are we as progressive Democrats to do when faced with a choice between a anti-choice, pro-gun Democrat and a neo-conservative Republican?

Well, we're finding out in the Pennsylvania Senate Race.

Mifflin County is not the kind of place that many statewide Democratic candidates visit, but Casey is hardly your standard-issue Democrat. A devout, Jesuit-educated Catholic, Casey is anti-abortion and pro-gun, and when he is asked about national security, he begins by stating his desire to double the size of our Special Forces (Army Rangers, Green Berets, Delta Force, Navy SEALs).

Before we all go agog and say we're electing "another Lieberman", let's look at this statement, which makes the moderate in me happy.

No intellectual sleight-of-hand is required to link Santorum to Bush. "Rick Santorum has voted with George W. Bush 98 percent of the time," Casey tells his listeners at every campaign stop. "When two politicians agree 98 percent of the time, one of them is not necessary."

My question is - how hard do progressives work to elect Bob Casey to the Senate and why? Discuss amongst yourselves...

Posted by Alan at 03:31 PM |

Bush Bubble Alive And Well

Dan Froomkin writes that Bush's invitation to academics to hear opposing points of view may have been -- wait for it -- for show.

The White House made a big to-do about President Bush's meeting Monday with four outside experts on Iraq. Spokesman Tony Snow held the meeting up as proof that the president is interested in -- and consistently exposed to -- different points of view, and even dissent.

But the only thing that meeting demonstrated is that true dissent is still not welcome at the White House, unless you define dissenters as anyone who doesn't agree with the president on absolutely everything.

I think the most frightening thing about this administration is that they, in particular our President, refuse to hear anything that might say that they need to change something that they had previously said would work.

To be honest, it reminds me of the Soviet "Five Year Plans". Make to goals happen, even if you have to destroy everything around you.

Posted by Alan at 03:25 PM |

Mr. Olmert, the Lebanese love their children too

Israeli war damages are being estimated at about $1 billion for actual damage as well as lost tourism and lost economic productivity due to lost work days. By contrast the Lebanese damages are $7 billion just for physical damages alone, thus making the comparison somewhat less than even.

But that's not the most insane part.

From the NYT piece:

Israel will also pay about $11 million to compensate the injured and the families of those killed in the attacks, according to Yediot Aharonot. The government has also allocated about $1.4 million to repair damaged schools before the school year begins in two weeks.

The special budget includes money for psychological counseling of children suffering symptoms of stress from the 34 days of fighting. Some children spent much of that time in crowded bomb shelters.

I wonder how many Israelis have stopped to ask themselves if Lebanese schools will be similarly reimbursed and repaired... whether Lebanese children will be similarly counseled.

Surely no rational being can glibly go thru life thinking that uneducated, psychologically damaged children being raised in the aftermath of a war over which they nor their parents had any real control will somehow magically grow up to be productive, well-adjusted adults who are equipped with the mental strength to reject extremist recruiters... Can they?

Seriously. This strikes me as something to be filed under Stunningly Obvious, no? Yet how many of you sincerely believe that those Lebanese children will be similarly taken care of? Or that any of their parents were similarly taken care of after the 1982 invasion and ensuing death and destruction?

Ironically, the circumstantial evidence seems to indicate that Hezbollah most likely came far and away closer to fulfilling these types of needs among afflicted Lebanese civilians after the 1982 Israeli war in Lebanon. And now the Lebanese people are supposed to do "the smart thing" and turn their backs on Hezbollah?

The Lebanese love their children too, Mr. Olmert. Instead of demagoguing why don't you try being realistic for a change?

Posted by Kevin at 12:44 PM |

With disclaimer in hand: Jesus never existed

My shingles are finally beginning to heal. I'm definitely feeling my piss and vinegar renewal.

Just in time to celebrate my return to oneriness, a special little tidbit made its way into my email box.

Disclaimer: I haven't researched anything on this website so I don't know the fact from fiction. But its interesting.

Jesusneverexisted.com

Posted by Carla at 10:29 AM |

Undermining Our Trust

Two recurrent themes have undermined the public's trust in the veracity of the Bush Administration: one, the amazingly coincidental instances of bogus terror alerts seemingly timed for political purposes; and two, the never-ending "nobody could have anticipated …" excuses from the Bush Administration. Both are the subject of some very interesting articles today.

In Olbermann Exposes Nexus Of Politics And Terror, Paul Joseph Watson links to a video clip of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann listing ten examples of politically-timed terror alerts that turned out to be less-than-credible.

Something not covered in the Olbermann segment is that - allied to the timing of terror alerts - in every major terror bust case any evidence that supposedly proves a plot actually existed quickly evaporates into thin air with police, government and security officials unapologetic as to the rash implementation and consequences of their actions.

Oh, really? explores the Administration's "disheartening habit of being astonished by the arrival of disasters they didn't see coming but others did." Included here are the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans, and the potential for civil war in Iraq.

The price is yet to be paid for the most flagrant example of ignoring risk, but the bill will start coming due in about a decade when Social Security and Medicare face insolvency because of today's shortsighted policies. Perhaps those in power at that time will attempt to say the crisis couldn't have been anticipated. But they'll be wrong, just as those bemoaning the calamities of 9/11, New Orleans and Iraq are today.

These assertions are not new, but it is good to see more people are talking about them.

Posted by Becky at 09:56 AM |

Contradictions from Parental Notification Camp

Like most people, I see abortion as a horror and something to be prevented as much as possible. Unlike "pro-lifers," however, I don't see the solution as being outlawing abortion. Rather, I see the solution as promoting self-esteem in women, respect for women as human beings by men, proper use of birth control, and responsible sex. When unwanted pregnancies are reduced, so are abortions. Being a realistic person, however, I also believe early-term abortions ought to be safe and legal.

For quite awhile I donated regularly to a group that offered free pregnancy testing, pro-life counseling, and free ultrasounds to pregnant women in crisis because I believe women should not just jump into a decision to have an abortion. I have also contributed to Planned Parenthood because of their pregnancy-prevention and anti-STD efforts. I have never, however, supported Oregon Right to Life because the group's approach is a legislative approach, rather than an approach of the heart.

Nonetheless, my giving history to a pro-life group has ensured my name is on Oregon Right to Life's mailing list. Yesterday I received a mailing from them regarding the Parental Notification measure that will be on the ballot in November. The letter calls for letters to the editor, and says:

"We are very excited at the prospect of passing Oregon's first pro-life law in over 30 years, and we know you are too!! However, we will not be successful in November without the help of every pro-life person in Oregon. And we need your help for a very important aspect of our campaign.

Clearly, the campaign views itself as pro-life. When it is speaking to its members, that is. Because enclosed in the same mailing is a brochure for the general public on the measure entitled, "7 Important Facts You Need to Know." Inside, it says:

Just Common Sense

Parental Notification is not a Pro-Choice or a Pro-Life issue; it is a Common Sense issue.

Setting aside the campaign's obvious contradictions, the thing about this measure is that like banning abortion, it offers a legislated blanket approach to an issue that is so intensely personal and unique for every woman that it will undoubtedly impose nightmarish results on some young women who have already been victimized more than enough. That is why, even though I am pro-life (like most people who support abortion rights, by the way), I cannot support this measure.

Posted by Becky at 09:51 AM |

A Wink And A Nod

Dan Stein is all in a tither over Washington State and their 'lax policies' toward illegal immigrants.

According to Dan, Washington - and especially big, bad liberal Seattle, are willing accomplices in allowing in a virtual flood of illegal immigrants!

Run for the hills! Run for the hills!

What causes the President of FAIR nightmares about Seattle? Why the police aren't acting as border patrol agents, naturally.

As recently as June 2002, the Seattle Police Department reaffirmed a policy directive that instructs officers not to inquire about the immigration status of people they encounter in the normal course of doing their jobs. There are, of course, circumstances when it is necessary for police to turn a blind eye, but Seattle has gone well beyond that point and has adopted a blanket sanctuary policy toward illegal immigranats.

Dan - its not their job to check for visas, green cards, and passports. That's why we have a border patrol.

And speaking of being complacent - I'd suggest that you look beyond the liberals in Seattle and start looking at some of the larger companies in our country that depend on immigrants to keep their businesses afloat - not to mention our agricultural needs.

Dan, take a breath. Somehow or another, America has survived and gotten stronger with each new wave of immigrants - all of whom were feared and loathed (to borrow a phrase) at the beginning.

Posted by Alan at 05:48 AM |

August 15, 2006

Clueless

Rabbi Gellman, mystified as to why Jews in Connecticut (and other states, judging by campaign contributions to Lamont) abandoned Lieberman in the Democratic primary:

Joe Lieberman did not lose the Democratic primary because of his support for the war in Iraq. He lost because of his lack of support from Jews. Joe got the support of black Baptists (except of course for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who stood so conspicuously behind challenger Ned Lamont on election night). He got the support of Catholic Union guys. He got the support of all the Connecticut papers, and he got the support of most Jews, but not at all an overwhelming number of Jews and that is why he lost. He lost because Barbra Streisand's highly publicized contribution to Lamont and because of the number of Jews who hated Bush and the war more than they loved Joe. That's why he lost, and I don't get it.

Please understand, this is not a political rant. Yes, I support the war and yes I support and admire President George W. Bush, but I understand and respect those who have come to another conclusion about how best to fight the war on terror. My disappointment is with my people. I simply do not understand why so many Jews bailed on Joe.

I couldn't get passed that part I put in bold above.

As long as Rabbi Gellman can still support the Iraq War and still support/admire Bush, he'll never be able to wrap his brain around why Lieberman's constituents abandoned him.

Myopia isn't a pretty thing, even for a Rabbi.

Posted by Carla at 07:12 PM |

GOP=Gutless Old Pricks

Let me see if I have this straight:

1.Joe Lieberman loses to Ted Lamont in the Democratic primary.

2.Lieberman leaves the Dems and declares himself an Independent.

3.GOP blasts Lamont.

4. GOP backs Lieberman and won't back a Republican in the race.

And its the Dems who are the messed up party?

LOL

Posted by Carla at 04:21 PM |

Karol Sheinin is a Beeyatch

You just never know what outrages you'll find on Michelle Malkin's website. I don't visit there often, but today my hat is off to Karol Sheinin who has so boldly stepped across the line of decency that I'm awestruck at the woman's balls.

In Them or us, she points out that without the torture that prompted a Pakistani to squeal on his partners in crime, the terrorist plane attacks out of London might not have been foiled. (Someone better tell Fox News, who reported, "The plot was foiled when an undercover British agent infiltrated the UK-based group, and passed information to authorities.") Sheinin says she has no qualms about this, and torture that saves the lives of innocent people is fine. Unfortunately, in the real world government agents aren't always as well-intentioned or well-informed as Jack Bauer.

In Sheinin's next post, Culture of corruption, she writes about Harry Reid's having to return a contribution of $3000 to a lobbyist who, it turns out, has apparently been found to be a liar. This is the "culture of corruption" she disdains? Ah-hem. Remember Jack Abramoff, anyone? Ralph Reed? Cuddly Grover Norquist? Tom Delay? Shall I continue?

The last of her posts today that I could stomach was I don't know what it means, but I know I don't like it, in which she chides those who are offended by Senator George Allen's use of the pejorative term "macaca" – twice – to describe a campaign aide of Indian descent. Allen's campaign claims "macaca" is a variation of "Mohawk." Steve Mukherjee, a spokesman for the Washington chapter of the Association of Indians in America, was offended but did not know what the term meant. Sheinin writes:

When in doubt about a word's meaning, children, don't look it up in the dictionary or google it, instead become indignant and let your ignorance overpower all rational thought. Only then can you reach the upper echelon of the professional outrage circuit. Good luck.

Okay, so I Googled it. A macaca is a monkey. I think I'm not liking Karol Sheinin very much.

Posted by Becky at 03:17 PM |

I Don't Get It, Either

Ed Waldo, over at Boregasm, writes that he doesn't "get that people don't get it." The "it" being that the backers of term limits and TABOR ballot measures are "snake oil salesmen, slithering unctuously into the various states, using the electoral process for grand social experiments, and nobody seems to be upset."

I don't get it either. Just like I don't get how the Oregon Christian Coalition could allow confessed child molester Lou Beres to continue to hold the position of Executive Director, or how Bill Sizemore continues to be given any credibility or be able to raise money despite his obviously shady dealings, to put it mildly.

What is this inability on the right to recognize bad apples and toss them out? In particular, I am amazed at the Christian right for failing to take to heart the admonition Jesus gave his disciples: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (Matthew 10:16 KJV). The continued arrogance and blind defensiveness displayed by so many on the far right is extremely disturbing. I really don't get it.

Posted by Becky at 10:15 AM |

Here It Comes

Buckle up, because it looks like the predictions of war with Iran and Syria are coming ever closer to reality. President Bush has said Iran and Syria's support for Hezbollah must be stopped. And the way to do it is to go into Lebanon and "help" them get rid of Hezbollah.

"Responsibility for the suffering of the Lebanese people also lies with Hezbollah's state sponsors: Iran and Syria. The regime in Iran provides Hezbollah with financial support, weapons and training. The [U.N.] resolution calls for a robust international force to deploy to the southern part of the country to help Lebanon's legitimate armed forces restore the sovereignty of its democratic government all Lebanese territory. … [T]he world must now recognize that it's Iranian sponsorship of Hezbollah that exacerbated the situation in the Middle East. Iran has made clear that it seeks the destruction of Israel. We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran attained the nuclear weapons it seeks."

You might say, but the U.N. is sending 15,000 troops in there to secure the border. There's nothing in there about U.S. action. But the U.N. isn't exactly proficient at achieving hawkish objectives, now, is it? It's been two years since the U.N. ordered Hezbollah to disarm and look what's happening now. Iran is openly feeding them weapons, celebrating victory over Israel and accusing Israel and the U.S. of "pulling the trigger" for world war.

Of course, we're going to take action at a point. It's inevitable.

Posted by Becky at 06:26 AM |

It's Just Too Much For Bob

Bob Ney (R - OH18) has asked for his name to be taken off the ballot in his race for reelection, citing the 'strain from the ongoing corruption investigation'.

Apparently actually being corrupt isn't a strain, just being investigated for it. Poor Bob.

That will set up a special election in this Eastern Ohio District. The Democrats had put up neophyte trial attorney Zack Space as their candidate, whose lack of understanding of how a campaign works had worried me earlier this cycle.

This special election is worth watching as a bellweather of how the nation is looking to vote in November.

Another plus for the Democrats - the DCCC has shown itself quite adept at overperforming in Special Elections the last few years.

I'll be watching to see what the special election rules specify. Perhaps the Democrats can even bring in a better candidate to take on this campaign.

More to follow in the coming days, to be sure.

Posted by Alan at 04:43 AM |

August 14, 2006

And they all lived happily ever ignorant

And we all live happy never after
For we just put the castle up for sale
But I guess that I will always be a dreamer
'Cause I still believe in fairy tales.

As the US continues to lag behind the rest of the world in teaching math and science, the results of that poor education are catching up to us:

A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.

Keep em bahrfoot and ignerunt.

From my observation, less American history and civics are taught than science. Given that the results of crappy science education yields people who completely ignore common scientific theory, imagine how many believe the US was founded on the Bible and Christianity.

I don't think this has that much to do with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I think it has to do with people being told this shit over and over and over with nothing to counter it.

Given that the seven dwarves of Snow White fame are more well known that the justices on the US Supreme Court, its not terribly surprising that Americans would believe fairy tales over science.

Hell, they elected George W Bush twice. If that isn't proof that they believe in fairy tales, nothing is.

Posted by Carla at 03:43 PM |

You've Been Eating Bugs

I'll bet you didn't know that any time you eat strawberry Yoplait yogurt, Good & Plenty candy, or Tropicana grapefruit juice you are eating crushed beetles. Yes, it's true. That lovely pink food coloring comes from the female cochineal beetles and their eggs. The food industry doesn't call it "crushed beetles," however. No, in industry-speak, it's known as "carmine" or "cochineal extract."

Food activists are trying to change disclosure requirements. The Food & Drug Administration has received numerous complaints over the issue and is now in the process of considering a proposal to require color additives like the cochineal extract to be disclosed on the labels of all foods that use them. … [C]onsumers want to know what they're eating. Some are allergic to bug extract; others are vegetarians.

It's not just pink bug juice that people don't know they are eating. In fact, farmers can pick from a pallet of food-enhancing pigments to feed to chickens to make their flesh look more appetizing in the store and their eggs more yellow-orange. Farm-raised salmon, who can't get their pink color from eating wild shrimp, instead are fed coloring chemicals that may negatively affect people's vision.

A walk down the grocery aisle for processed food is an eye opener—the bacon and ham get their red tint from sodium ascorbate, an antioxidant and color stabilizer, and the Betty Crocker icing gets its bright white color not from natural cream and egg whites but from titanium dioxide, a mineral that is also used in house paints.

For some time now, I've been exceptionally grateful that my mother brought me up on home cooking, made from scratch, rather than pre-packaged, processed food. Whenever possible, I've had a big garden and grown my own produce, and we almost exclusively eat fish we catch and meat we hunt. Not being fond of eating bugs, I think I'll perhaps be even more careful now.

Posted by Becky at 10:29 AM |

Ravens and Crows

A girlfriend of mine is over in France working on a photography project and wrote me a note the other day that turned into what I thought was an interesting exchange regarding stereotypes of liberals and conservatives. Maybe you'll find it interesting, too.

She wrote:

"I think that the thing that truly makes America great and fills it with potential is the inventive, independent spirit of its citizens. For all our backbiting and greed, we put ourselves out more for each other and take bigger risks than people here do. I think that's why there's still more opportunity in America than there seems to be in Europe. If we don't like our jobs or situation, we do what we can to change it. Here people just go along with it and never think of making a change. Speaking generally, of course."

This reminded me of a conundrum I've pondered for some time, and I replied:

"I'm not surprised that Americans are more adventuresome. We're the descendants of adventurers, and here out West, we are decendants of the most adventuresome of the adventurers. What I find curious is that conservatism is something we usually associate with someone not liking change, and liberalism is something we think describes a person who is open to new things. So how is it Europe is more liberal than the U.S.? And how is it that the remaining cowboys in the world and many of the more adventuresome entrepreneurs are so conservative? That's what I don't get. I wonder if it is a matter of discipline?"

Her reply showed not only how obvious that stereotype is, but also how two-dimensional it is; in fact, other factors are also at play:

"Man, THAT is an interesting and true point. What the heck is up with that? It's weird. I think it depends wholly on your view of the world more than discipline, whether or not you're conservative or liberal, but you really would have thought it would be the other way.

"I liken people to ravens and crows. A raven, when it finds food, will go back and get the rest of the ravens, and then all the birds eat from the find. Raven society is structured on the premise that the more eyes you have out looking for food, the greater the chance everyone will get to eat and have their needs met. Crows, on the other hand, do NOT go back and get the rest of the crows. When a crow finds something, it totally snacks down and then takes what's left back for itself for later. Crows are premised on every bird for himself.

"I think if you see yourself as a person who helps others and can get help when you need it yourself, you tend to be a liberal, regardless of your other views. If you tend to see yourself as out there on your own, then you're a conservative, regardless of your other views. It also doesn't really matter how accurate your perception of yourself is. I find most of the time perception is truth, whether it's true or not. So maybe cowboys see themselves as out there on their own, battling the elements and wolves all by their lonesomes, so despite their adventurous spirits, they see themselves as alone, hence the conservative 'I did it so everyone else should, too' point of view. Maybe?"

I think she's onto something here. What do you think?

Posted by Becky at 09:22 AM |

August 13, 2006

Keep To The Center

At least one pundit thinks that we are misreading Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman last Tuesday.

Lieberman may have lost because of his identification with the war policies of President Bush, but he lost among Democrats and not in a general election. At least one poll shows that as an independent, Lieberman can beat both his Republican and Democratic opponents in November.

Interestingly, he seems to think that we are going to have to go centrist to win the White House in 2008, and uses history as a guide to make his point.

Since the 1972 presidential election, when the George McGovern left wing took control of the party and led the Democrats to a crushing defeat by Richard Nixon, strategists have been trying to patch the basic and enduring schism between those who want the party to be more liberal and those who are moderate centrists -- those who believe the party cannot win a presidential election if it tilts too far to the left.

They succeeded when the party united around centrist Democrats Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992, both of whom were elected president. But, more frequently, the liberal left (and, for Republicans, the conservative far right) have dominated the debate over who should set the party's political direction, often seeming bent on alienating or punishing those who stand in their way.

A fundamental political reality the Democrats cannot escape is that a large majority of Americans are just center-left or center-right in their voting habits and sentiments. An increasing number of voters feels disenfranchised by the tyranny of extremes that has too often paralyzed our politics, largely due to the gerrymandering of voting districts that keep incumbents in office.

This is a point that is worth remembering as the liberal wing gets some victories in the next couple of months. I know that during my time as a political hack, my eyes were opened wide when I went outside the beltway and the big cities.

It's places like Evansville, Indiana and Napoleonville, Louisiana - not to mention the Chicago suburbs - where we are going to make gains, and they are, if anything, practical people. They don't want to go to far in any direction when it comes to social issues.

I do believe, though, that the war in Iraq has taken a different turn. As thousands of our kids are coming home without hands, arms, or legs - or in caskets - and people don't believe what we are being told about why we are there, being in favor of pulling out has become the centrist position.

I do think its important to be aware of the center. But it's just as important to know where the center is moving as times change.

Posted by Alan at 07:15 AM |

August 12, 2006

What's Good For The Goose

Are we seeing the beginning of the end of the "Northeast Moderate"?

Last cycle Arlen Specter barely held off a challenge from Pat Toomey, and this cycle we've already seen Joe Lieberman defeated in a primary to Ned Lamont and his millions.

Now the right wing Club For Growth, fresh off a primary victory in a Michigan Congressional race, has it's focus on Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

This year, the group's top priority is defeating Chafee, who angered many Republicans by voting against President Bush's tax cuts and then casting a write-in vote for the president's father in the last election. The Club has helped Cranston, R.I., Mayor Stephen Laffey raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat Chafee, and polls show the two Republicans running even a month before the Sept. 12 primary.

This may be good news for Democrats, as Laffey is unlikely to be able to hold this seat in a general election in this overwhelmingly Democratic state. And Club For Growth doesn't seem to mind.

The prospect of a Laffey win worries national Republicans, who consider Chafee the party's best bet for holding the seat in a heavily Democratic state. Polls show Laffey trailing far behind the leading Democratic candidate, former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse.

The Club's Web site says that's fine: "It wouldn't be much of a loss if a new Democrat senator were elected, as he would vote much the same as Chafee does now."

But the larger question I'm asking myself is, if we are losing our moderates, who is going to step up and keep the Congress from spinning to the outer reaches of political thought?

Posted by Alan at 08:16 AM |

The Disintegration Of Congress

The Washington Post reviewed a new book by Capitol Hill talking heads Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein about the sad state of Congress today.

Over more than two centuries of American history, the founders' intention to create a strong legislature has repeatedly been tested -- and sometimes evaded, as in recent years. Until now, the pendulum has always swung back toward the Capitol after periods of unusually strong White House influence. Mann and Ornstein fervently want this to happen again; their book explains why they consider this so important and provides some ideas for how it might happen. But fundamental change will not come from tinkering reforms, they argue; only angry voters can force the House and Senate to correct themselves.

They're right. Only a pitchfork lead group of angry voters are going to bring our country back to where we need to be. I hope that Americans are angry enough come November.

In the meantime, it looks like I've found yet another book to add to my Summer reading list.

Posted by Alan at 07:05 AM |

August 11, 2006

Today, on Flashback!

Ah, those misty water-color memories of... April 2006:

Home, around dinner time Tuesday night; kids talking all at once, hungry, want to EAT NOW; Dana trying to satisfy them; and me, hurrying to cover up my broken rear windshield before the rain started. NBC news is on, and I overhear bits: "Zarqawi... new tape... why show his face now?"

I laughed out loud, and immediately thought of this.

Why now? Digby's answer.

Why now? Nothing to take your mind off $4.00/gallon gas like the relief that today you weren't killed in a terr'ist attack, huh?

Why now? $100?!? Woohoo, maybe I'll drive to WalMart and spend the couple dollars left over on duct tape and plastic sheeting. It'll keep my mind off Exxon's stock dropping 2%; I get so depressed worrying about those folks. But at least we can all feel safe and secure, knowing our ports and tank parts plants are all in good trustworthy hands.

Flashbacks are unpredictable and may occur without warning. Fear-mongering for profit, however, goes on constantly:

Give the Republican National Committee $500 or Terrorists Will Attack You.

Posted by Jeff at 06:27 AM |

August 10, 2006

British terror arrests: update

[This was going to be a comment to my previous post, and should be read in that context, but for some reason the system's rejecting comments again. Go fig.]

FWIW: On Keith Olbermann tonight (just went off, so no clips or transcripts available online yet), KO interviewed former NSC director Roger Cressey. Two interesting points: Cressey was more inclined to think the technology of the household-liquid bomb is do-able, and KO mentioned that timing of the British arrests was moved up when US intelligence passed on information that the plotters were near to taking action.

Later on the show, in an interview with Eric Alterman, it came out that the White House had been tipped by the Brits about the forthcoming arrests on Sunday, meaning that they knew an al Qaida-spinnable story was on its way and already had their "appeasing al-Qaida" talking points prepped and ready to go before the polls closed in Connecticut Tuesday night.

Preliminary conclusions:

1. The question of the timing of the arests (for political purposes) is still open.

2. There's reason to think that the threat this time might be more threatening than some the White House has called press conferences for in the last couple of years.

3. Regardless of how the facts on 1 & 2, above, finally play out, there's no question the Rove machine was ready and willing to push the "Democrats soft on terrorism" line because--let's face it--it's all they've got.

Posted by Nothstine at 06:04 PM |

Elevated terror alert: I didn't get it exactly right, but I was close

I'm not a conspiracy junkie--sweartogod I'm not. I watched "The X-Files," but only because I thought Gillian Anderson was hot.

But thinking that people will usually continue behaving as they've clearly been behaving up to now--well, yeah, I'll cop to that.

So when I woke up this morning to this this news:

An alleged scheme to blow up transatlantic passenger jets in mid-air using liquid explosives was in the final stages of planning and bore some of the hallmarks of an al-Qaida plot, US officials said today.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the would-be terrorists planned to carry the explosive material and detonating devices on to planes disguised as drinks and electronic devices.

He suggested they could have used liquids that were innocuous on their own but could be potentially deadly when mixed.

“This operation is in some respects suggestive of an al-Qaida plot,” Mr Chertoff told a press conference in Washington DC.

He said the plan was “well advanced” and “really quite close to the execution phase“.

“They had accumulated and assembled the capabilities that they needed and they were in the final stages of planning for execution,” Mr Chertoff added.

FBI director Robert Mueller also pointed to a possible al-Qaida link. “This had the earmarks of an al-Qaida plot,” he said.

US air marshals are being sent to the UK to provide increased security on flights bound for America.

Officials in the US said the airlines targeted were United, American and Continental, which make flights to major airports in New York, Washington and California.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the operation could potentially have killed “hundreds of innocent people“.

He said those arrested overnight were “extremists” who had “gone beyond just stating a desire to kill Americans“.

“Their plotting turned to action as they took several steps to carry out their deadly plan,” Mr Gonzales said.

…I confess I thought to myself, "Hm. Right on schedule."

Actually, strictly speaking, it's a few days later than what I predicted, which was an elevated terror alert a few days before the Connecticut primary on Tuesday, rather than a day and a half after.

But the markers are all there: interrupting the plotters "in the planning stage," the obligatory vague references to al Qaida, the full-court media press by Chertoff, Mueller, and Gonzales--and, above all, the politically-useful timing.

Even the nice touch of making sure the same language--"extremists"--was used to describe the plotters that Lieberman supporters are using to describe his political opponents.

(Speaking of the general timing: If this is true to form, in a week or two the word will come out that these plotters were known to the Brits weeks or months ago, and that there was no obvious reason why they'd pick now to roll them up. Could be a coincidence. Could be more post hoc ergo propter hoc. But the chain of coincidences keeps getting longer and longer.)

I hate this--that my own government makes me routinely assume the worst. But it's a distinction they've earned through five years of diligent effort.

Posted by Nothstine at 11:52 AM |

Politicians Asked to Sign TABOR Pledges

You don't want to miss today's commentary by Sandlapper at the Daily Kos on Saturday's exposé by Dave Hogan and Betsy Hammond in The Oregonian.

Sandlapper links to a story I hadn't seen yet, which reveals that Rich's "Americans for Prosperity" is borrowing a play from the book of Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform by asking candidates to sign TABOR spending limit pledges. The same group is well-known for its "no new taxes" pledges. And don't forget another Rich group, US Term Limits, has also asked candidates to sign strict term limits pledges, even going so far as to blackball term limits supporters who disagreed on the number of years and instead fund their anti-term limits opponents.

How long will the right allow these freaks to pull their strings, I wonder?

Posted by Becky at 09:52 AM |

Powerful Conservative Group Flies Under the Radar

In "Secret Society: Just who is the Council for National Policy, and why aren't they paying taxes?" Sarah Posner lifts the veil of secrecy surrounding yet another secretive, crooked Republican group - this one focused on turning America into a theocracy.

Most Americans – even many self-professed political junkies – probably have never heard of CNP or would confuse it with countless other groups with similarly unremarkable names (including the Center for National Policy, a liberal group). But conservative activists would know what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has referred to as "the heart of a great conservative movement that helped to make America strong and prosperous in the 20th century – and is now helping to ensure she remains free and secure in the 21st century," or what Indiana Republican Congressman Mike Pence has called "the most influential gathering of conservatives in America." But because CNP has been so successful at maintaining its secrecy – flouting the law for more than two decades – it has managed to obscure the depth of its reach in conservative political organizations, political fundraising, the conservative media, and even the Bush Administration itself.

Founded by Tim LaHaye, author of the "Left Behind" books about those who didn't make it to Heaven on Rapture day and whose wife is the founder of Concerned Women for America, CNP's original directors also included long-time conservative activist Howard Phillips and Bob Perry (who donated $4.5 million to the slanderous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and has also donated millions to the effort to privatize Social Security – a pet project of Howard Rich and Grover Norquist).

Today, CNP's Board and roster of known members is a who's who of the radical right, and a sampling includes former Reagan cabinet member Donald Hodel, also President of James Dobson's Focus on the Family; Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner, who has served on CNP's board, as have Grover Norquist, President of the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform and Paul Weyrich, President of the Free Congress Foundation; Holly Coors; T. Kenneth Cribb, President of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute; and Brent Bozell, President of the Media Research Council, which provides a media network through which it disseminates radical conservative ideology and propaganda.

The article also traces this group's tentacles into a powerful network of theocrat activists. So now that we know who CNP is, where does the crookedness come in?

The IRS, which had granted CNP permission to operate as a tax-exempt educational organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code in 1981, revoked CNP's tax exemption in early 1992. CNP then sued the IRS in the United States Tax Court to gain reinstatement of its tax-exempt status. Shortly before the 1992 presidential election, the IRS settled the case with CNP and gave it back its tax shelter. Since that time, however, CNP has changed nothing about its operations. But the IRS has continued to give it a free ride.

CNP operated since its inception – and continues to operate today – in direct contravention of these legal requirements. CNP's membership is by invitation only. Unlike most other tax-exempt educational organizations, an ordinary person cannot just write a check and join, attend a forum, or purchase a publication. Its meetings – which consist of speeches, panel discussions, workshops and meals – are open only to members and special invited guests. CNP prohibits attendees from discussing the content of meetings publicly. The media are prohibited from attending. CNP does not disseminate any written materials to non-members. In other words, you won't see one of its meetings televised, and you can't order a book, journal or pamphlet from CNP. The IRS cited all these reasons when it revoked CNP's tax-exempt status in 1992.

The article shows the great lengths to which CNP has gone to actually avoid public detection. Several prominent Republicans have given speeches to secretive CNP meetings and refused to release those speeches to the public (this despite the group's 501(c)(3) status and the fact that all the powerful people who pay dues to the group can deduct that money as charitable contributions). Speeches have been given by George W. Bush, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison Timothy Goeglein, Rush Limbaugh, and "several high-ranking officials in the Bush administration." High-level attendees at these meetings have included "Under Secretary of State John Bolton, Assistant Attorney General R. Alexander Acosta, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and …Vice-President Dick Cheney." Karl Rove has also attended.

Conservative media, including the Media Research Center, Salem Communications Company (owner of 100 Christian broadcast radio stations), and Truth Talk Live, disseminate CNP's propaganda while the mainstream media is blocked from meetings and ignorant of the group's activities. And these media groups have, in turn, donated cash to many Republicans and Republican committees.

Reports of meetings reveal that secret speeches and discussions at CNP meetings long prior to the President's formal decision to depose Saddam Hussein concluded that it must be done. A susequent speech by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to the CNP was released by a Defense Department freedom of information official. In that speech "to the group whose members' bedrock belief is that America is a Christian nation" Rumsfeld said, "Jefferson and the founders firmly believed that ours was a nation set here by Providence to serve as a beacon of freedom for the world."

Better keep an eye on these folks.

Posted by Becky at 09:44 AM |

More NAFTA-Induced Job Losses Coming

For some time, I've been hearing people complain about how NAFTA has sucked away American jobs. So it really is surprising how little attention has been paid to the development of a 400- mile long, 1200 feet wide $183 billion NAFTA Super Highway connecting Mexico to Canada, one that will even more dramatically turn America from a manufacturing economy into a consumer economy. This editorial, "Coming Through! The NAFTA Super Highway (by Kelly Taylor)," explains the project and its potential to change "not only the physical landscape of these United States, but our political and economic landscapes as well."

It is no secret that state governments don't have the billions needed to construct this huge project. So how will we pay for this? According to Jerome Corsi at Human Events, investment bankers and worldwide capital market funds intend to construct the highway network as a private toll system. And Corsi points out some other very serious concerns:

The goal is to open ports in Mexico, such as Lazaro Cardenas, which can receive containers with goods manufactured by cheap labor in China and the Far East, to be transported into the heart of America by using Mexican trucks and NAFTA railroads originating in Mexico. A key feature of the plan is to bypass and undercut U.S. labor unions, including the Longshoremen’s Union, the railroad United Transportation Union and the Teamsters. This is more than a Bush Administration globalist plan to advance open borders and open skies in the name of free trade….

What is objectionable is the plan to form a European Union-style North American Super-Highway system whose primary goal is to establish trilateral links for the open passage of freight transportation and the virtually unrestrained “migration” of people among the three countries. Building NAFTA Super-Highways that effectively erase the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada is a concern, especially if the NAFTA Super-Highways contribute to accomplishing in a de facto manner the integration of the United States into a North American Union, thereby threatening the currently established sovereignty of the United States.

These are things the American people should be talking about. Kelly Taylor's article, offers some disturbing observations.

Of course, these corridors will not be secured, and the result - as intended - would be the de facto merger of immigration and Customs enforcement and the obliteration of the current national borders within the planned North American Union. That is precisely what one of the main architects of the [Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America], Professor Robert Pastor of American University and the Council on Foreign Relations, has repeatedly advocated in his writings, speeches, and congressional testimony. ...

If the NAFTA Super Highway goes through as planned, millions of Americans can expect to pay with their jobs as well. Just as the NAFTA trade policies have driven millions of jobs out of the United States, the NAFTA Super Highway will accelerate the job exodus. Although the Super Highway corridors are being sold locally as projects to ease congestion and facilitate U.S. economic competitiveness, their main purpose, very clearly, is to create an arterial network for speeding the delivery of manufactured products into the United States through Canada and Mexico. …

This planned wedding of Mexico's cheap labor force with brand new infrastructure would make Mexico an irresistible magnet for all manufacturers now remaining in the United States. Even those companies who wanted to keep their operations here would likely be forced by cheaper competitors to join the exodus. The United States, until very recently the manufacturing capital of the world, will continue its downward spiral into increasingly dangerous dependence on foreign manufacturers for almost everything, even as burgeoning inflation makes everything more expensive, devastating much of our middle class. …"

I urge you to read these articles in full and to look for any more information you can find on the matter. Then speak out to your representatives in Congress.

Posted by Becky at 06:33 AM |

August 09, 2006

Anti-War Must Not Become Anti-Women

I don't quite know how to read all the press coverage of the trial of U.S. soldiers accused of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and murdering her and her family. I mean, I hope in our anti-war zeal we're not ready to forgive this heinous crime just because we understand that the soldiers were overly-stressed and doped up.

I'm not dismissing the importance of taking note of the very severe problem we MUST address with regards to over-taxing the capacity of our human soldiers to handle the stress of daily fear for their lives; so much so that some are resorting to a cocktail of drugs and alcohol that sends them into a tailspin. But at the same time, we're talking about unthinkable brutality to an innocent little girl and the murder of her whole family, including her 5-year old little sister. My God.

It is criminal that our soldiers are being left to sink into a pit of despair, that their needs for warm food and sufficient water and sleep and security are not being met. These murders fall squarely on the heads of all who have failed to give our boys what they need to do the job we are asking them to do. HOWEVER. We cannot look the other way at what happened or we are no better than those who would stone their own daughter for being raped.

Posted by Becky at 02:00 PM |

BP = Big Pigs

By now we've all heard about the leaky Alaska pipeline that supplies Oregon with 20% of our gasoline. When I went to fill up yesterday, I groaned at the overnight increase of14 cent a gallon. And now they're talking like it's going to go on for months. That's why I'm pretty P.O.'d today by this: "BRITISH PETROLEUM'S "SMART PIG": The Brilliantly Profitable Timing of the Alaska Oil Pipeline Shutdown," by Greg Palast.

Palast tells us how clear back in 1989 government inspectors and pipeline workers were trying to call attention to the corrosion problem. As a result, they faced retribution from BP that was described by a federal judge as "reminiscent of Nazi Germany." Blackmail, falsified evidence, harassment – it reads like an overdone movie script. So here we are, 17 years later, and suddenly now, in the middle of summer, in the middle of a Middle East war, suddenly BP discovers there is a problem with the pipeline. How convenient.

The price of crude jumped $2.22 a barrel on the shutdown news to over $76. How lucky for BP which sells four million barrels of oil a day. Had BP completed its inspection and repairs a couple years back -- say, after Dan Lawn's tenth warning -- the oil market would have hardly noticed.

But $2 a barrel is just the beginning of BP's shut-down bonus. The Alaskan oil was destined for the California market which now faces a supply crisis at the very height of the summer travel season. The big winner is ARCO petroleum, the largest retailer in the Golden State. ARCO is a 100%-owned subsidiary of … British Petroleum.

BP could have fixed the pipeline problem this past winter, after their latest corrosion-caused oil spill. But then ARCO would have lost the summertime supply-squeeze windfall.

And I thought the $400 million oil executive salary thing was outrageous. But wait, the BP scandal gets worse:

Enron Corporation was infamous for deliberately timing repairs to maximize profit. Would BP also manipulate the market in such a crude manner? Some US prosecutors think they did so in the US propane market. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) just six weeks ago charged the company with approving an Enron-style scheme to crank up the price of propane sold in poor rural communities in the US. One former BP exec has pleaded guilty.

Of course, like Enron, BP has watched out for its own interests by kozying up to the Bush Administration and dishing out the cash; hence, the renewed efforts to allow BP to drill in ANWR. And then we have that wonderful Exxon Valdez crisis that follow-up reports concluded was at least as much BP's fault as Exxon's. See, BP had filed four volume's worth of fake safety reports and claimed containment equipment was there when it wasn't. Reliance on that false information slowed the clean-up effort dramatically.

I really hate being forced to buy anything from people who behave like this. Especially when they're costing me $15 per day just to drive to work.

Posted by Becky at 01:55 PM |

TABOR Talking Points Explored

Oregon's Measure 48 backers are complaining about the conflation of the measure with Colorado's TABOR measure, saying it curbs government spending rather than collections and has safeguards built in that mitigate the harm caused by TABOR. Knowing what I do about how governments define "cuts" (getting less money than they asked for), the only way we will really know whether Measure 48 will decimate Oregon is by backtracking several years and seeing what would have happened had it already been in place. I am working on gathering the data to conduct that analysis.

In the mean time, considering the original Colorado TABOR backers are the individuals pushing TABOR spin-offs across the country right now, it is fair to look at Colorado's experience. That state legislature's response can provide insight into how most other state legislatures are likely to respond when deciding where to apply cuts. It is easy to find economic indicators that show Colorado's economy is doing well under TABOR. On the other hand, the data shows some serious problems on the social welfare and education fronts. And not surprisingly, Colorado's government debt per capita has increased dramatically. In short, there are things to like and to dislike in Colorado's TABOR experience, and in the end it's a matter of priorities and trade-offs.

Sandlapper at Daily Kos today published a piece called, "Rich's Money, talking points verus TABOR facts, which I thought was interesting as I have been planning to look at talking points versus facts today, too.

Here's what I have found. It seems reasonable to me to look at how Colorado has fared when compared to other states from year to year. The Morgan Quitno “Most Livable State” ratings give a good indication of whether the state is gaining or losing ground in 44 different categories. I could not find data clear back to 1993 when TABOR was first implemented, but I did find data from 1997 to 2005, and it showed the state's ranking for livability was slipping a bit over time, though things improved slightly in 2005, the year Colorado decided to take a 5-year break from the limits. In 2005, Colorado ranked 16th overall; in 2004, it ranked 23rd; in 2003, 19th; in 2002, 7th, in 2001, 2nd; in 2000, 3rd; in 1999, 2nd; in 1998, it was 8th; and in 1997, 14th.

Obviously, 13 years after TABOR, the state seemed to be doing well in terms of livability. That is not particularly surprising, as Colorado is a fairly well-to-do state and extremely beautiful. But from 1997 to 2005, things began to fall apart. The areas in which the state's livability began to decline are elightening.

For example, the state's ranking in terms of pupil-teacher ratio in public elementary and secondary schools was 9th in 1998, but by 2003 it had slipped to 15th nationwide. Other school-related rankings also showed some problems. In 1998, Colorado ranked 17th for expenditures for education as a percent of all state and local government expenditures. By 2003, its ranking was 22nd. And though the percentage of population that has graduated from college has dropped from a state ranking of 47th in 1998 to 49th in 2003 (and ranked dead last – 50th – in 1999, 2000, and 2001), the state has still cut funding per resident student by one third since 2002.

The state's poverty rate has declined, and its unemployment rate has declined. Personal income and median household income are up. BUT health insurance coverage is down in comparison with other states, and the number of low birthweight babies is increasing faster than the rest of the country, pointing to poor prenatal care for some women. Moreover, the percentage of households receiving food stamps has increased. Most conservatives would focus on the economic positives and most liberals would focus on the social negatives.

But I think both conservatives and liberals would be troubled by the fact that per capita state and local government debt outstanding has increased dramatically in comparison with other states. In 1999, Colorado ranked 12th in this category. By 2003, it had fallen to 43rd. Clearly, the state is borrowing to maintain services, and at a point that bill will come due.

An editorial in a Nebraska newspaper by TABOR committee chairman Mike Groene claims Colorado's economy has been consistently ranked No. 1 by the American Enterprise institute. Because statistics offer so much room for spin and distortion, I think it is probably a good idea to understand the motivation behind this report. If you check their website, you'll see their scholars and fellows include several prominent neocons: Lynn Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol, Michael Novak, Norm Orenstein, and Richard Perle. Source Watch provides some good basic information.

Furthermore, AEI is a free-market think tank that is in many ways philosophically aligned with Howard Rich, the main proponent of all these TABOR measures. AEI even shares some of the same scholars and board members as the Cato Institute, which is closely linked to Rich. For example, Sam Peltzman (who also serves on the Reason Foundation and the Heartland Institute, more Rich-linked groups) and Robert W. Hahn. It is certainly no stretch to believe AEI's report may well be biased.

Groene claims that "since 1992, Colorado's average household income has risen from 43rd to 7th in the nation." I can't say what may have occurred in Colorado in the past two years, but according the to Morgan Quinto rankings, Colorado was in 41st place as of 2003. That only adds to my skepticism about his entire editorial.

To summarize, it appears to me that Colorado's experience confirms the obvious: When legislators are forced to make cuts, they cut social services and education and find ways to borrow money to backfill where necessary. The economic advantages to lower taxes, on the other hand, are nearly indisputable - at least until that debt comes due. And, of course, there is that whole matter of having to turn a blind eye to the sick, poor, fatherless, widows, etc. that Jesus urged us all to care for.

Posted by Becky at 08:51 AM |

August 08, 2006

It sucks to be me

About 10 days ago I started noticing that the skin on my left shoulder blade was highly sensitive and sore to the touch. Over the next week, the soreness and sensitivity spread into the back of my left arm and into my left armpit.

Two days ago the area just below my left armpit broke out into a rash.

So I went to my visit my physician this morning. I have been diagnosed with shingles, which stems from stress, apparently.

So I've been ordered to take it easy for the next day or two. I also have to take a shitload of medicine--not something I'm very accustomed to.

As such, I probably won't be blogging for the next couple of days.

See you by the weekend, I hope.

Posted by Carla at 11:30 AM |

Will the Next 9/11 be 8/22?

Matt Drudge today is headlining a story about Princeton scholar Bernard Lewis's concerns that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in pursuit of the fulfillment of Islamic End Times beliefs, may have "cataclysmic events" planned for August 22. Whether it is propaganda by those who would have America rally around a U.S. attack on Iraq or fact, I do not know. But considering this report that 11 Egyptian students (all males about 20 years of age) flew into JFK International Airport and promptly disappeared last month, perhaps we should be concerned.

Cue theme music from "The Twilight Zone" ...

Posted by Becky at 11:21 AM |

August 07, 2006

Norquist Explains Reason for TABOR

Back on July 8, I posted this entry about Grover Norquist's speech to the Prospect, in which he laid out the strategic approach to politics as he is advising the Republican party. One of the interesting parts to me was his focus on what would move votes, as opposed to what might be good policy.

And now we have another indication that for Norquist, it is all about moving votes into the Republican column. This time, he is discussing TABOR:

"Go to steal people's guns, they will leave. Raise taxes, you will break the Republican coalition. [By contrast, high spending] is nobody's vote-moving issue. What I am trying to figure out is, how do you turn it into a vote-moving issue and, therefore ... put it on the ballot."

Remember this: TABOR is about making spending a vote moving issue. It is NOT about creating good public policy. And that is straight from the horse's mouth.

Posted by Becky at 10:09 AM |

Another Abramoff Cohort Bites the Dust

U.S. Rep. Bob Ney has announced he will not run for re-election in the wake of growing public reaction to his involvement in the Jack Abramoff scandal. I am almost as thrilled as I was when Ralph Reed was defeated for the same thing.

Unfortunately, the other key figure in the mess, Grover Norquist, isn't personally up for re-election and is not, therefore, likely to be subjected to sufficient public scrutiny to force him to either go away or be brought to justice for his role in the scandal, despite his predilection for money laundering.

Posted by Becky at 10:04 AM |

Effective Propaganda

A new Harris poll of Americans reveals that half of us still believe Iraq had WMD. Wow. Last year, only 36% of us still bought into that nonsense. How can that be?

[A] drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq. People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Probably the resurgence in belief is the result of Sen. Rick Santorum's big propaganda effort a month ago, in which he claimed that the 500 non-functional, orphaned, degraded chemical munitions we had found spread hither an yon in Iraq since the 2003 invasion were actually WMD. Of course, they were neither dangerous, usable, nor unexpected.

"These are not stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction,'" said Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine who was a U.N. inspector in the 1990s. "They weren't deliberately withheld from inspectors by the Iraqis.'"

Naturally, Fox News, best friend of the Neo-cons and primary purveyor of their propaganda, is still hard at work trying to convince Americans of the lie that WMDs were the reason for the Iraq war:

As Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas battled in Lebanon on July 21, a Fox News segment suggested, with no evidence, yet another destination for the supposed doomsday arms. "ARE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WMDS NOW IN HEZBOLLAH'S HANDS?"' asked the headline, lingering for long minutes on TV screens in a million American homes.

And we wonder why this war continues.

Posted by Becky at 10:03 AM |

The peace Democrats

Conservatives are now so completely out of touch with Americans that they've labeled "peace" as a bad thing.

Martin Perez of the WSJ opinion page leads the charge. And in doing so attempts to lift Joe Lieberman on his back and carry him--baggage and all--to try to woo Connecticut Democrats away from electing Ned Lamont in the primary.

Perez presumes that the mood of the nation is the same now as in the Vietnam era of the late sixties and early 70s--supporting the war. Polls obviously indicate otherwise. And Americans aren't especially supportive of what's what's going on with Israel and Lebanon either, despite a heavily pro-Israel US media.

And he's decided that electing Lamont is the same as electing peace.

I'm trying to figure out how that's a bad thing.

We are a nation that's tired of fighting battles that don't address the problem: that is, terrorism. We're tired of being lied to. And we're tired of the Bush Administration.

We want peace. We want to figure out how to make peace happen. So I welcome the label of "peace Democrat", "peace Republican", "peace Independent"..whatever.

I'll take that over a "War President" who does nothing else.

Posted by Carla at 09:45 AM |

August 06, 2006

NeoCons created the nightmare, soldiers pay the price

The NeoConservative Judeo/Christian War with NeoConservative Islam chugs on unabated. But more and more people are waking up to it's nightmarish results as Daniel Levy, a member of the official Israeli negotiating team at the Oslo and Taba talks and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative, does in his opinion piece in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper.

Witnessing the near-perfect symmetry of Israeli and American policy has been one of the more noteworthy aspects of the latest Lebanon war. A true friend in the White House. No deescalate and stabilize, honest-broker, diplomatic jaw-jaw from this president. Great. Except that Israel was actually in need of an early exit strategy, had its diplomatic options narrowed by American weakness and marginalization in the region, and found itself ratcheting up aerial and ground operations in ways that largely worked to Hezbollah's advantage, the Qana tragedy included. The American ladder had gone AWOL.

Like every other theory ever conceived by mankind the NeoConservative one works... on paper. Unfortunately for the Afghanis, Iraqis, Lebanese and Israelis, and really for much of the rest of the world as the final repercussions of the Bush/Blair/Olmert blitzkrieg are likely still well off in the future.

Fresh evidence of how abjectly the NeoCon's military fantasy fails out in the real world comes via this piece from the British Observer newspaper.

At least two Israeli fighter pilots have deliberately missed civilian targets in Lebanon as disquiet grows in the military about flawed intelligence, The Observer has learnt. Sources say the pilots were worried that targets had been wrongly identified as Hizbollah facilities.
Voices expressing concern over the armed forces' failures are getting louder. One Israeli cabinet minister said last week: 'We gave the army so much money. Why are we getting these results?'

Now why does that basic scenario seem so horrifyingly familiar? Ah... Iraqi WMD? Unarmored Humvees and soldiers buying their own armored vests? American forces being welcomed with rose petals and candies?

The fault lies with neither the IDF nor the American soldiers. They're just doing their jobs... following orders. Rather it's their civilian NeoCon bosses who are so desperate to enact their fantasy theory that the facts get swept aside and untold thousands of innocent civilians across the Middle East have paid with their limbs and lives. At least one senior IDF commander on the ground in Lebanon has suggested that the Israelis air forces might have commited "war crimes." It's a concern with no small degree of legitimacy. But if so then the real criminals in my opinion are wearing suits and surrounded by official body guards, not the guys and gals wearing uniforms and following orders to the best of their ability.

Posted by Kevin at 05:21 PM |

August 05, 2006

Talladega Nights: Not for Kids

I'm no prude and I let my kids watch a lot of things that would probably make my mother's hair curl. I certainly never saw those things until I was in college. The occasional "F" bomb or violent scene doesn't tend to trouble me, so while my husband and I always pre-screen R rated movies, sometimes we will allow the kids to watch them. What does upset me is having my kids, aged 11 and 13, see movies with repeated drug references and blatant sexuality (including homosexuality), both of which are very present in this movie.

We rely on movie ratings and movie trailers to tell us what to expect as parents. Talladega Nights is rated PG-13 and the movie trailers all looked hilarious. In fact, the movie is hilarious. For adults. We spent half the film laughing our asses off and the other half horrified that our kids were with us in the theater. Afterward, they confirmed our feelings - they were also very uncomfortable with it.

This is a very funny film, but it ought to have been rated R. Go see it, by all means, but please leave your kids at home until you've had a chance to see whether it's right for them.

Posted by Becky at 07:31 PM |

Some Like It Hot

I love a good adrenalin rush, but I have never been one to get my thrills from doing things that are actually dangerous. Extreme sports, in particular, have always fascinated me because I simply do not understand the mentality that leads someone to risk their life for that rush of adrenaline when you can get it just as easily by watching a good action flick or getting involved in politics.

But for the sake of entertainment for the rest of us, it's probably a good thing that some people actually are crazy enough to bet their life that they can succeed in a battle against nature's extremes. Such is the case with 85 long-distance runners who raced 135 miles in blistering heat through Death Valley in what organizers rightly called "the most demanding and extreme running race offered anywhere on the planet."

Leave a credit card on the dashboard of a rental car in Death Valley, and it will melt. A freshly opened can of icy-cold soda turns into a kind of caramelized soup within 11 minutes. A cellphone, exposed to the air, feels like an ingot fresh from the forge. But that matters little, since cellphones don't work here. Also, sandstorms created by tropical-storm-force winds are a concern.

When the National Park Service records the official daily maximum temperature, it takes the measurement in the shade. On July 24, it reached 123 degrees Fahrenheit.

Runners train on treadmills in saunas (and that is fun?). But the 135 degree heat (in the sun) does more than just make you sweat profusely. Bearing in mind that steak is medium rare at 135 degrees, it is no wonder runners wrap their feet in duct tape to avoid literally cooking them – and still they are in danger of literally burning their calves in the 145 degree heat radiating off the asphalt. All their blood is busy cooling their extremities, meaning none is available for digestion so any attempt to eat results in vomiting. Their feet swell – sometimes by as many as three shoe sizes. Some hallucinate. Others become dangerously dehydrated. Some describe the run as being like "running into a hair dryer" or being trapped in an oven with no door. All the while they are passing signs warning drivers to watch their radiator levels to avoid overheating. For as many as 60 hours.

The runners say it changes you forever. I like myself just the way I am, thank you very much.

Posted by Becky at 04:03 PM |

Australians Losing Faith

A new study has found that less than half of young people believe in God - only 48% of youth born between 1976 and 1990. A full 30% are decidedly humanist, and of the relatively few God-believers who claim to be Christians, only 19% attend church services at least once a month.

Dr Andrew Singleton of Monash University, a co-author of the study, said they were surprised by the findings. "It's well-known that there has been a turn away from church attendance and participation in young people," he said. "But we thought there was going to be a move towards alternative spiritualities."

There hasn't been. Spirituality of any kind in Australia seems to be dying out.

It is fascinating that this trend has occurred despite the fact that Australian public school students actually have scripture classes as part of their required school curriculum. But as the culture has changed and parents are increasingly secular, more people are calling for a non-religious alternative to those scripture classes.

My own belief in God is so deep that I have difficulty imagining how someone can reject the very idea outright. That might be why I was so fascinated a couple of years ago to read about a geneticist's claims to have found a "God gene" – a genetic cause for spirituality that, he opines, is either the product of evolution or an intentional gift from God to enhance the human experience. If he is correct, then it would stand to reason that spiritual Australians must not be having as many children as those without the "God gene," because according to his theory, nurture has little to do with the spiritual inclination.

Posted by Becky at 03:14 PM |

August 04, 2006

More recommended reading

There are probably few who understand that I'm a deeply spiritual person. My belief in a Supreme Being is a part of my very fiber. And while I shun the authoritarian and rigid rightwing forms of Christianity, I find great beauty in the words and meanings of the Christ.

One of the things that moves me to the core is reading radiant prose from others whose spirituality is as profound for them as it is for me. While you might often read me ridiculing specific Christians or sects, I have a great admiration for those who I see using their Christian beliefs to put them on a path toward a Christ-like existence.

Or at the very least, they're striving for it.

On that note,take a moment out of your busy day to read The Heart Of The Matter by Oregonian columnist Steve Duin.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Posted by Carla at 12:58 PM |

Recommended Reading

I found three articles today that I recommend you read. Unfortunately, I don't have time to analyze and comment on them:

I, too, am horrified by the awful scenes in Lebanon. But wait... is an editorial about the complexity of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict that looks beyond the partisanship that is coloring the message of each side of America's debate on the matter.

Gambling and TABOR takes an interesting look at the similarities between the quick fix of gambling and the quick fix of TABOR. It cuts to the heart of how to make good choices in government spending.

Finally, Watergate’s Charles Colson and the “Goddess of Tolerance” looks at the abuse of religion for "sinister purposes." It is a fascinating run-down of the push and pull between the "Religious Right" and the "Religious Left," and the imperative that Christian leaders in both camps stop making up their own God to suit their own purposes.

Posted by Becky at 10:51 AM |

Media Chastised for "Climate Porn"

After conducting a study of media coverage of global warming, an environmental group in the UK is scolding the media for over-playing stories of catastrophic weather predictions without telling the public any of the simple things they can do to help alleviate the problem.

According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, the media's focus on apocalyptic climate change is a "counsel of despair" and "climate porn." IPPR says the cataclysmic imagery is causing a feeling of helplessness because any coverage given to things people might do in response is "mundane, domestic and uncompelling".

"It is appropriate to call [what some of these groups publish] 'climate porn', because on some level it is like a disaster movie," Mr Retallack told the BBC News website. "The public become disempowered because it's too big for them; and when it sounds like science fiction, there is an element of the unreal there."

IPPR points out the commercial motivation for the type of coverage being offered by the news media:

"Every newspaper is a commercial organization," he said, "and when you have a terrifying image on the front of the paper, you are likely to sell more copies than when you write about solutions."

I would venture to say an even greater market for this sort of extreme coverage exists in the U.S, what with so many Americans believing in the End Times. So it is curious to me that we are not seeing as much of this coverage here as it seems is being displayed in the UK. Could it be that the same power structure that relies on the Christian vote has invested itself too deeply in the notion that global warming is a hoax? And that this same power structure owns significant portions of the mainstream media?

But back to the point of the IPPR's report, which was that the media isn't reporting what people can do in response to global warming. Interestingly, the reporter didn't seem to get the point, because the only mention in the article of what people can do is a brief statement that people can install low-energy lightbulbs.

Posted by Becky at 10:47 AM |

Pay With Your Fingerprint

A new technology is being tested in grocery stores in 44 states that uses biometric technology to allow people to pay for groceries using their fingerprint instead of a credit or debit card.

"We'll all have bar codes on the back of our necks in 10 years," says Stacey Minton, a Coast to Coast shopper who declined to sign up. "As with any technology, people are leery at first," says Shannon Riordan, a Pay By Touch spokeswoman. But "convenience wins in the end."

Personally, though it would be very convenient, I'm concerned about this new technology. After all, if a database exists, it seems the NSA will get access to it. Ever since 2002, we have been fingerprinting Arabs entering the country and now the federal government wants to expand that program and start fingerprinting "U.S. residents with green cards, parolees and some Canadians" every time they enter or leave the U.S. With the ever-expanding infringements on privacy in the Patriot Act era, it seems to me it is only a matter of time before grocery shoppers' fingerprint records are secretly obtained by our government.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center keeps tabs on goings-on like this, for those who are concerned about the government knowing too much about us. Those who like to remind us to "never forget" the Holocaust ought to remember that it was seemingly innocuous data collection and categorization of people by IBM that allowed Hitler to locate and cart away his victims. Would that ever happen here? Considering the course of human history, I don't see why it couldn't.

So if you, like me, love the chills and thrills of conspiracy theories, and your curiosity is piqued by the fact that this technology is being introduced in 44 states, check this out. Make sure, however, that your tin foil hat is on before you enter the Twilight Zone.

Posted by Becky at 10:08 AM |

Who rocked your socks off?

All right, kids... let's set politics aside, indulge in some mental "comfort food" as we get ready for the weekend and share our favorite concerts. Who, what, where, why and when.

1. First concert.
2. Best concert.
3. Most recent concert.
4. Band you most wish you could have seen live.

My comments below the fold...

First of all, I started out in my early teens being really into Top 40 music. But then I got into drugs and very quickly got into harder rock, particularly heavy metal. But my music tastes have always been fairly broad... from Ozzy to The Cars.

1. Black Sabbath.

It was 1980 or 81, I forget which. Ozzy Osbourne had been fired and Ronnie James Dio (formerly of Rainbow and later to gain fame as a solo act) was the lead singer. It was also my first and last "Open Seating" concert where it was first come, first served. So that meant camping out and it was a real zoo with people dressed up in very occult-like outfits. I don't remember a whole lot of it, but I do remember that The Outlaws were the opening act. Within the next 4 years I saw Ozzy twice. Needless to say, I was and still am a Black Sabbath/Ozzy fan, although not to the extent that I was back then.

2. This is really tough. I'd have to say that it's a toss-up between Van Halen, The Cars and the much, much later reformed Fleetwood Mac with Van Halen 1984 getting the nod.

I saw Van Halen, not to be confused with Van Hagar, twice - 1982 and 1984. While I will readily concede that Diamond Dave is an arrogant prick, he was a master showman who really knew how to give the crowd a good show... when he was sober or at least not to drunk to perform.

3. The much, much later reformed Fleetwood Mac here just a couple years ago.

I'd been a big fan going back to my early teens when I was into Top 40 and it was a distinct pleasure to finally get to see them live, even though Lindsey Buckingham clearly no longer had the vocal range he once had.

4. This is tough too. It's a tie between The Beatles and Queen.

My girl and I had the pleasure of seeing a Beatles tribute band a couple years ago here in Portland and I must say that they vastly exceeded my expectations. It was a LOT of fun! But oh man would I love to have seen Freddy Mercury belt out any of his numerous spectacular hits. The closest I'll ever come was getting to watch one of his later concerts on TV during a PBS Pledge Week. Even at such a remote distance from the real thing he could make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Simply put, he was one of a kind... a true master of his art.

Posted by Kevin at 08:21 AM |

August 03, 2006

Conservatives favor wealth redistribution too

A conservative Indie friend and I have been discussing a government-funded Christian charity which her sister is a part of. And it just occurred to me that by taking my tax dollars and giving them to select charities who then turn around and help the destitute that president Bush's "faith-based" scheme is nothing more than a convoluted wealth redistribution plan.

I thought it was only those pinko-commie liberals who were into redistributing wealth...

Posted by Kevin at 07:15 PM |

Carla finds an evangelical Christian pastor to admire and respect

Yup. Its true. Its finally happened. And I even mean it sincerely.

I've discovered an evangelical Christian pastor who I think is deserving of my admiration and respect. I thought it would never happen.

And he's a profile in courage, too:

MAPLEWOOD, Minn. — Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church’s — to conservative political candidates and causes.

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

Mr. Boyd says he is no liberal. He is opposed to abortion and thinks homosexuality is not God’s ideal. The response from his congregation at Woodland Hills Church here in suburban St. Paul — packed mostly with politically and theologically conservative, middle-class evangelicals — was passionate. Some members walked out of a sermon and never returned. By the time the dust had settled, Woodland Hills, which Mr. Boyd founded in 1992, had lost about 1,000 of its 5,000 members.

Now THAT is a conservative Christian that makes me sit up and take notice. Wow.

This guy bucks the trend and refuses to step away from the Christ-like ideals of humility and shunning power. He pushes back against sexual moralizing and military glorification. He emphasizes the things that Jesus emphasized and dimishes the rest.

And in the meantime he lost some followers. Which kind of reminds me of the parts in the Bible where Peter denied Christ, for some reason.

I emailed Rev Boyd the other day to tell him how I felt. And I thanked him for showing me that there really are evangelicals that people like myself can admire and respect.

Posted by Carla at 05:18 PM |

Yikes!

Roosevelt University (Chicago, IL) has fired a philosophy and religion
professor for allowing students in his class to ask questions about
Judaism and Islam. The chair of the department, Susan Weininger, fired
the professor, Douglas Giles, saying that students should not be allowed
to ask whatever questions they want in class. Weininger ordered Giles to
censor his curriculum, restrict his students' questions, and not respond
to controversial questions or comments from students.

Weininger said that free discussion in a world religions course could
"open up Judaism to criticism." Any such material, she said, was not
permissible to be mentioned in class discussion, textbooks, or
examinations. Further, she ordered Giles to forbid any and all
discussion of the "Palestinian issue," any mention of Palestinian
rights, the Muslim belief in the holiness of Jerusalem, and Zionism.
When Professor Giles refused to censor his students, Weininger fired him.

The Roosevelt Adjunct Faculty Organization (RAFO) filed a grievance on
behalf of Giles citing the faculty contract forbidding the university
from restricting academic freedom. Roosevelt University Associate
Provost Louise Love denied the union's claim saying that Weininger was
entitled, as department chair, to control a professor's curriculum and
restrict student speech, and that this was not an academic freedom
issue, but a "pedagogical issue." RAFO has appealed the ruling to
arbitration, confident that Professor Giles's academic freedom was
violated and an impartial arbitrator would find this so.

This case is just one example of a growing trend of attempts to censor
the academic freedom of professors and students. Here, a department
chair who called all Palestinians "animals" and says college religion
courses should teach that only Jews have a legitimate claim to the land
of Israel, has fired a professor whose only "sins" were refusing to
teach a biased class and allowing open discussion in his classroom.

Students of Professor Giles have started a Yahoo Group to connect
activists who want to help us force Roosevelt University to end
censorship, reinstate Professor Giles, and raise awareness of threats to
academic freedom. The group seeks the advice and support of individuals
and organizations who wish to help toward these ends. More information
is available at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/foracademicfreedom/. An
online petition to Roosevelt University demanding it retract its
censorship and reinstate Professor Giles is at
http://www.petitiononline.com/fre2spk2/petition.html. Professor Giles
can be contacted at profgiles@worldfusionradio.com.

Note: Except for the post's title the rest is quoted verbatim from the email Professor Giles sent me.

Posted by Kevin at 02:55 PM |

Rich Funding Code Cracked

Ed Waldo at Boregasm has, through painstaking and very thorough research, cracked the Howard Rich Funding Code. If you haven't read any of this yet, sit back with popcorn and a soda and prepare yourself for some lengthy reading through his multi-part series.

It seems the TABOR, Term Limits, and eminent domain ballot measures all over the country really are part of a conspiracy of a very small handful of rebel libertarians after all.

Posted by Becky at 10:55 AM |

Malkin's Biased Perspective on the War

In a piece entitled The Theater of Jihad, Michelle Malkin goes on a shocking rant about what happened in Qana. In it, she betrays her lack of human compassion in her zeal to side with Israel, starting right off by saying those who are concerned that the Qana attack will stir up Muslim hatred for the West are "nervous nillies." Michelle, when we're looking at the possibility of increasing terrorist attacks on US soil and the prospect of a nuclear WWIII in the Middle East, we have a responsibility to be nervous and it doesn't make us a bunch of nillies.

Malkin would have us set aside the memory of 5,000 years of back-and-forth atrocities between Israelis and Palestinians (formerly known as Phillistines – remember Golliath?). She calls what happened in Qana "the Israeli exception to the Hezbollah rule." Perhaps she was unaware of the last time Israel attacked Qana. And has anyone heard of Israel's efforts to cut off the Palestinians' water supply? Very humane. That is not to say Hezbollah hasn't been utterly horrid. Of course they have.

I must make an important point here: Hezbollah has committed terrorist attacks against the United States and Israel is our ally. So I don't wonder why we are taking Israel's side here. That doesn't mean I support Israel's decision to go to all-out war, putting so many civilians, including young children, at risk. When Iran captured 52 Americans we solved the situation through diplomacy. It wasn't perfect, but we didn't go to war and babies weren't blown up as a result of adults being unable to work out their problems.

Back to Malkin's post:

The truth about Muslim outrage over Qana is that it's not really about the tragic deaths at Qana -- just like the Mohammed cartoon jihad was not really about the cartoons. It's a pretext for much grander goals to defeat the infidels -- be they Israeli, Danish, Dutch or American.

This war isn't really about two Israeli hostages, either. As I'll show later, it seems none of what we are seeing is about what we're told it is about. Something serious is underway and we're being distracted from the truth by people like Malkin.

Malkin's distraction piece next goes on about the "manufactured" Islamic riots and demonstrations of recent months and the "real" reasons behind them. To which I would reply that perhaps the people who orchestrated those demonstrations had ulterior motives in mind, but I am certain those who participated in them were expressing their true feelings and represent a powder keg we should take seriously. You can't convince me that evil Islamic organizers with deceptive intent were able to get crowds that big to put on a convincing acting job that did not reflect their true feelings.

From here, Malkin really gets outrageous, implying that experienced AP and Reuters photographers were fooled by Hizbollah sympathizers digging up long-dead corpses of babies and parading them around as if they had just died. Citing the "sparkling clean pacifier clipped onto a dust-covered toddler carried around by the friendly corpse-parader," she berates these photographers for being basically blinded by their sympathy. (The clean pacifier reminds me of when I was a teen and my great grandmother's house burned. When the fire was out we found, sitting atop a charred desk, a perfect, unsinged postage stamp. Sometimes there is no explaining nature.)

Hezbollah certainly has not earned the right to be above question. In fact, they're known propagandists. But to question these photographers is too much. In fact, the doubts are, in my opinion, thoroughly debunked in this must-read news report, which also, conveniently, tells us the origin of the rumor Michelle cites:

A British Web site, the EU Referendum blog, built an argument that chicanery may have been involved by citing time stamps that went with captions of the photographs…. The site suggests these events were staged for effect, a criticism echoed by talk show host Rush Limbaugh when he directed listeners to the blog on Monday.

"These photographers are obviously willing to participate in propaganda," Limbaugh said. "They know exactly what's being done, all these photos, bringing the bodies out of the rubble, posing them for the cameras, it's all staged. Every bit of it is staged and the still photographers know it."

Rush listeners like Malkin tend to forget that he is not a news reporter. He's an entertainer. And you simply cannot rely on him to tell the truth. His purpose is to advance the Republican agenda. Period.

Malkin's flippant response to this article can be found in a post entitled How dare they be questioned!". It reads simply, "Yes, the gall."

So what is the big picture in this war between Israel and Hezbollah? What are we not being told? No one should go without reading the Clean Break plan authored by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) back in 1996. It is being played out perfectly today. Think Progress has an interesting take on this report, with further links.

For more information on PNAC this site is a useful resource. It is headed by the now infamous pre-9/11 statement from PNAC's strategy paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses": "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Sounds like 9/11, doesn't it?

In closing, I would suggest some reading material. First, Carla made an interesting point earlier that the right wing seems unusually willing to believe the conspiracy theory that the Qana attack was staged, even though they reject out of hand all evidence that other suspicious events, which would be politically inconvenient for them, might have been staged.

And, of course, no study of the current crisis would be complete without a well-rounded look at Zionism, including True Torah Jews Against Zionism, Zionism and its Impact, an explanation by Hamas of why American Christians support Israel, and the comments submitted under Kevin's recent post here on PK.

Happy reading.

Posted by Becky at 09:14 AM |

August 02, 2006

Mad Cao is as Mad Cao does

Long-time readers will remember that shrillist of rightwing demagogues in the blogosphere, Cao and her gang of groveling toadies who just love to attack dissenting bloggers enmasse. And of course they studiously avoid actually addressing anything of substance during these drive-by rhetorical shooting matches.

Well, I just noticed that one of the bloggers who link to Indie Castle, a chap with the fine name of Kevin, of Patriotic Intellect, has learned the hardway that Mad Cao is as Mad Cao does. It seems that he tried to actually get her to answer a few questions on her blog and in response she censored the comment thread and turned off the comments so that Kevin couldn't ask any more questions of her.

He's trying to call her out with Cao the Coward

Posted by Kevin at 07:14 PM |

Here's what I don't get...

Isreali PM Olmert says that Israel's offensive against Hezbollah will stop only once a robust international peacekeeping force is in place in southern Lebanon. Obviously that means that Israel will keep bombing and shelling until such time as this force is already in place. Yet we've seen UN forces bombed and large numbers of civilians bombed thus far. I don't see how any rational person could think that with such poorly descriminate targeting on behalf of Israel that the new peacekeeping force wouldn't also sustain casualties. And that doesn't even begin to figure in whatever resistance Hezbollah might offer.

No, it seems to me that Olmert and Bush are deliberately crafting terms which will guarantee that the fighting will continue for the foreseeable future.

NY Sun columnist Amir Taheri points out a whole series of fundamental problems with a cease-fire. It's all nice sounding and all when Bush or Rice get in front of a teleprompter and demagogue about how they're working for "lasting peace." But Taheri points out that what's been floated thus far simply skips over reality.

Hezbollah has seen considerable success from its tactic of preserving armed militants by hiding them among civilians. Consider: Three weeks into the fighting, Hezbollah admits the loss of 10 fighters, against some 800 civilians killed. At that rate, to "eliminate" Hezbollah's estimated 8,000 fighters, Israel would have to kill almost a quarter of the Lebanese population. Hezbollah's losses in weapons? Easily and speedily replaced by Iran - as indicated by Adm. Ali Shamkhani, head of the newly created Defense Policy Board in Tehran.

Those who hope for a meaningful cease-fire will look to the example of Hervé de Charette, then France's foreign minister, who brokered the 1996 cease-fire after the first massacre at Qana.

The thing is, despite the obvious success of Charette (and Clinton) in producing the longest span of peace that the state of Israel has ever experienced, Olmert and Bush clearly aren't interested in pursuing past formulas. Which again begs the question of whether Olmert seriously wants peace.

Meanwhile as The Blind Beggar points out, "Martin Accad is the academic dean of the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary in Lebanon and is angry at evangelical Christians, Israel, Hezbollah, the U.S., and the international community."

It is striking how normally highly reasonable and spiritually aware people can suddenly lose any sense of ethical, let alone Christian, balance when it comes to Middle East conflicts involving modern political Israel.

Well that's not really anything different from what Pat Buchanan said a couple weeks ago. Predictably enough the so-called American religious right dismissed him as sounding a lot like a liberal.

Posted by Kevin at 01:21 PM |

In Defense of Property Rights

For those of you who don't know, my husband was a Chief Petitioner for Measure 7, Oregon's original just compensation measure, and we both remain ardent supporters of property rights today. Though many have debated me on the merits of Measure 37, I will say right up front that I continue to believe it was the right thing to do.

I won't engage in any lengthy debate here over how the rich developers scored with Measure 37 or how this endangers land use planning (though feel free to say whatever you like in that regard). I've read many eloquent essays and posts on the subject, pondered them carefully, and come back to the same position (one of the few areas in my philosophy where that is true). I remain firmly committed to the belief that if my community decides it wants any part of my property, it ought to have to buy that part from me for its market value. To do otherwise is to literally endanger the very foundation of a free society.

That is not to say that I oppose zoning. It makes good sense when people live together in close quarters to have a few rules about what will be allowed to occur where. But you've also, at a point, got to put a little faith in people to figure out what they want to do with their own property. And value is obviously a pretty good incentive to do the right thing with a piece of property.

For example, unlike this writer I don't buy the notion that requiring just compensation for regulatory takings will result in tire burning plants located next to houses. That is bull crap, plain and simple. What moron would take a residential lot that is worth $100,000 and squeeze a tire burning plant onto it, when he could sell that lot to someone who wants to build a home and buy a lot ten times as large outside of town for the same amount of money without having to deal with the wrath of his neighbors? Same goes for the whole pig farm scare tactic. Sometimes I wonder if the people who make these arguments have ever actually purchased property.

Outside the urban areas, naturally the arguments get a bit tougher. A lot of people with environmental concerns are truly frightened by the volume of Measure 37 claims being filed in rural Oregon. They fear sprawling development will destroy wildlife habitat and eat up farmland. But there has to be money to develop all those potential new parcels and a market for housing sufficient to justify the expense - and that money and market must all exist before the owners die or sell their land.

I've sat in several meetings now where these rural landowners' cases came before planning groups for consideration. Many, if not most of them are elderly and have owned their property almost since they were married. They don't actually plan to develop their land, but they know if they don't apply by a certain date, they will lose their right to ever develop it, so they're going through the process to keep their options open. They have neither the means nor the market to develop their land.

The most notorious Measure 37 case will probably be that of the Newberry Crater developer who wants $203 million or he threatens to develop his in-holding in the national park by building 100 vacation homes and drilling for pumice. My first thought is, that would be a neat place for a vacation home, but if that, and drilling for pumice (which can only come from volcanic sites, by the way), is so appalling to everyone, then it's high time we bought him out. It isn't our land.

You might think at this point that I'm advocating that people should be able to do whatever they want on their land. I would respond that without freedom to reasonably use your property, you don't really own it. That said, I think Libertarians who back property rights because it's a matter of freedom to do what you want are missing the point entirely. In a society where people have to have rules in order to leave at peace with each other, nobody can count on always doing whatever they want. To say we ought to be able to is childish and self centered.

No, the reason property rights are so incredibly important has to do with human nature and how societies can tap into it to benefit everyone. As I described some months ago in my post about capitalism, "life is tough, people are selfish, and there is no perfect world." People will almost always only properly care for property and become engaged in civic life if they have a sense of ownership in the community and something to gain from doing so. How else do you explain the phenomenon of rental homes being trashed, rental cars being trashed, and nobody wanting to live next to apartments? People who don't own property don't take care of it, aesthetically or environmentally. And worse, they don't invest their time or their hearts in their communities.

Moreover, the very lifestyle choices of people who don't own property are subject to the whims of those who do. Take, for example, people who are being forced to move out of manufactured home parks. They have no right to the land. Their entire lives can be forcefully uprooted at any time like the serf living on the land of a great lord who doesn't care one iota about them. It is a clear example of why property ownership is so important in a free society.

The Founding Fathers saw property rights as crucial to freedom. "[T]he Founders regarded the protection of private property rights as a necessary means for the poor to escape the kind of subjugation by the wealthy that they had experienced in Old Europe." You can certainly point to any number of ways in which the wealthy today still manage to subjugate the poor (after all, the wealthy elite often judge others by what they do or do not own).

All of this brings me to the new eminent domain ballot measure, which is being brought to our attention in response to the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London. If wealthy elites can convince the government to take the land of a poor person and give it to them to develop, because doing so will generate more tax revenue, isn't that just another means by which the wealthy have subjugated the poor?

Posted by Becky at 10:33 AM |

August 01, 2006

Quotes of the Day

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography"
Ambrose Bierce

"God needs to turn over the keys to someone else if He's going to keep this up"
Carla

Posted by Carla at 12:18 PM |

War Strategy Vs. War Dead

The current Israeli-Lebanese conflict is one that easily lends itself to two very different types of media coverage. For instance, following Israel's bombing of a residence in Qana that killed 57 civilians, 37 of whom were children, some have decried the seemingly senseless killing while others have stressed the Israeli claim – backed up by photos – that Hezbollah militants were dressing as civilians and launching their attacks on Israel from residential areas.

With all the propaganda permeating media coverage these days, it is hard to tell what is truth and what is fiction. If Hezbollah is using civilians as human shields, then Hezbollah is responsible for the deaths of the Qana children. If they are not, then Israel is responsible. I don't think we will ever know who is responsible. And I'm not sure it ultimately matters who was at fault.

Here is why. So long as the media focuses on the strategy and intrigue of making war, such as whether or not Hezbollah is hiding out in residential areas, the public will continue to support war, no matter which side they favor. But if the media starts showing the reality of war – the dead women and blown up babies – the public will become outraged and clamor for peace.

Could that be the reason why we're not seeing graphic photographs of the dead on television or in the "polite" mainstream press? If Fox News showed its viewers what war really looks like and told them an important historical fact: that this was not Israel's first horrible attack on Qana's children, would American mothers and fathers finally see that perhaps leaping into war was not the right move for Israel? I have to believe the public would pressure President Bush to push harder for diplomacy and peace talks to end this nightmare and put the Middle East back on the road to peace.

Unfortunately, it looks as if peace does not fit with the President's plans.

Posted by Becky at 10:09 AM |