« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

September 30, 2006

Dissing the Establishment Clause

[Updated below.]

(Sorry I've been away from PK for a while now [or, if you didn't like my stuff that much anyway, you're welcome]. I've been tending my own garden a little more in the last few weeks.)

What with the release of the NIE documenting that we've made terrorism worse (or better, depending on whose side you'r'e on) in Iraq, America joining the ranks of torture capital around the world, and the news that the Republican co-chair of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus just resigned over predatory emails to a 16-year-old boy, perhaps it's understandable that this one snuck under my First Amendment radar:

With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

A federal statute, 42 United States Code section 1988, provides that attorneys are entitled to recover compensation for their fees if they successfully represent a plaintiff asserting a violation of his or her constitutional or civil rights. For example, a lawyer who successfully sues on behalf of a victim of racial discrimination or police abuse is entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendant who acted wrongfully. Any plaintiff who successfully sues to remedy a violation of the Constitution or a federal civil rights statute is entitled to have his or her attorney's fees paid.

Congress adopted this statute for a simple reason: to encourage attorneys to bring cases on behalf of those whose rights have been violated. Congress was concerned that such individuals often cannot afford an attorney and vindicating constitutional rights rarely generates enough in damages to pay a lawyer on a contingency fee basis.

Without this statute, there is no way to compensate attorneys who successfully sue for injunctions to stop unconstitutional government behavior. Congress rightly recognized that attorneys who bring such actions are serving society's interests by stopping the government from violating the Constitution. Indeed, the potential for such suits deters government wrong-doing and increases the likelihood that the Constitution will be followed.

Think of it as a supply-side remedy to all those pesky "No Ten Commandments in the Courthouse" suits:

Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys' fees.

In the time left before the devoutly-to-be-wished pre-election congressional recess, the Senate may decide it has other matters to deal with besides this. We can only hope.

Update: The vote was predictable: Walden voted for this piece of unAmericana; Wu, Blumenauer, Hooley, and DeFazio voted against it. (Are you listening, Carol Voisin?)

And georgia10 at DailyKOS adds this:

To see just how disturbing this bill really is, check out the House report on the bill. Most notably, there were several amendments offered in committee to try and temper the effects of the bill. For example, the committee rejected an amendment by Rep. Nadler that would have exempted from the bill cases "involving a declaration of an official religion."

Posted by Nothstine at 08:17 AM |

September 29, 2006

Jesse Ventura, Insulting the Devil, and Global Warming

Some articles I thought you might enjoy:

Interested in seeing what former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura is up to these days? His new look might not be the only thing that surprises you.

It appears Hugo Chavez isn't the only major politician down south who isn't fond of President Bush.

And check out why one NASA scientist says, "one degree and we're done for." Kinda makes habeas corpus pale in significance.

Posted by Becky at 10:20 AM |

The President is Mocking You and Me

Yesterday, President Bush gave a speech in which his tone was so dismissive of many patriotic Americans that I wanted to slap his face. He said those who opposed his pro-torture bill don't have the stomach to fight the war on terror. Never forget that when the President mocks our elected representatives, he's mocking us. And because of the complicity of the main stream media, he's going to get away with this baloney.

"Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in our history, Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing," Bush said at a Republican fundraiser.

"The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run," Bush told a convention-center audience of over 2,000 people. The event put $2.5 million in the campaign accounts of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley and the state GOP.

Now, look at how the AP characterized the bill, which even allows rape as an acceptable "interrogation" technique, and tell me whether you think the average voter would understand the danger in which the Republicans have just placed this country:

The president also criticized House Democrats, including their leadership, who voted this week against a White House plan for interrogating, detaining and trying terrorists. "We must give our professionals the tools they need to protect the American people in this war on terror and those in the House of Representatives were wrong to vote against this bill," he said.

Note his use of the word "professionals." Funny that the professionals from the CIA actually refused to continue their oversight of our interrogation of detainees because it was too harsh. I wonder what kind of professionals the President intends to employ.

Posted by Becky at 06:33 AM |

September 28, 2006

Campaign Ad filmed in Church... by a Democrat

Campaign Ad Filmed in Church Divisive, "Crosses the Line"

Discuss.

Posted by Kevin at 07:44 PM |

Southern Baptists wanna go negative, surprising nobody

Land: Majority of Baptists support Bush

Land, who also serves on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent and bipartisan federal agency, said the United States needs to worry less about trying to improve its image in the Middle East.

Instead, Land says, "we ought to go negative."

"We ought to be spending our money explaining what the Middle East would look like if the jihadists win, what Afghanistan looked like when the Taliban was in control and what the role of women was.

"We need to focus more on the fact that most people being killed in Iraq are not Americans but Muslims being killed by other Muslims," he said. "If democracy loses in the Middle East, it's Muslims who will be the primary losers."

The biggest problem I see with what Mr. Land is suggesting here is that there are apparently a lot of folks in the region who don't want either of his two choices - Islamic terrorists or western-styled democracy imposed at the end of a gun barrel and with a blatent ethical and moral double-standard wherein we can imprison them where, when, why and for as long as we wish and be accountable to absolutely nobody for any of it while on the other hand we lecture them repeatedly about the desirability of doing things our way.

To make a very loose historical analogy... think of some of the former Soviet Block nations in Europe. The brave freedom fighters in Prague didn't want either the Russian Communists nor the German Nazis who went before them. As the Soviet forces slowly beat back the Germans in the waning days of WWII undoubtedly more than a few citizens, had they known what was coming, would have vastly preferred to both be rid of the Nazis and to be left alone to pursue their own course.

Recall that the Soviets too were fond of extra-judicial imprisonment and kangroo courts where defendents had virtually no rights, just as president Bush is.

Some of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East were propped up at various times by American governments. Saddam in Iraq (Reagan) and the Shah in Iran (Nixon, Ford, Carter) top the list.

Rather than "going negative" as the allegedly Christian Mr. Land suggests, we could instead stop using the Arab people as our own personal bitchs in the name of supposed freedom.

Posted by Kevin at 07:31 PM |

Mark Foley Needs A Good Ass-Kicking

How would you feel if you sent your 16-year-old son off to work as a page in the offices of Congress, and subsequently he began receiving emails like these from one of the Congressmen:

"glad your home safe and sound...we dont go back into session until Sept 5....its a nice long break...I am back in Florida now...its nice here..been raining today...It sounds like you will have some fun over the next few weeks...how old are you now?..."

"I am in North Carolina...and it was 100 in New Orleans...wow that's really hot...well do you miss DC...Its raining here but 68 degrees so who can argue...did you have fun at your conference...what do you want for your birthday coming up...what stuff do you like to do"

"I just emailed will...hes such a nice guy...acts much older than his age...and hes in really great shape...I am just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now heading to the gym...whats school like for you this year?"

"how are you weathering the hurricane...are you safe...send me an email pic of you as well..."

Would you believe those emails were purely innocent, or would you want to kick a certain Congressman's ass from here to China? I think Republican Congressman Mark Foley has some explaining to do. On second thought, I don't much have the stomach for more Republican liars, so maybe he ought to keep his trap shut.

Posted by Becky at 04:35 PM |

Perspectives from Israel

It's always interesting to read the perspectives on current events of people in other parts of the world, and three different pieces from the same news source, Israel News have caught my eye the last two days:

This article talks about Pope Benedict XVI's meeting with Muslim leaders this week and reveals the intractability of Christian-Muslim tensions.

This one lays out the similarities between Iranian President Ahmadinejad and U.S. President Bush.

Finally, this one looks at Israel's preoccupation with the Iranian threat and says only God can help the country. Two quotes struck me: "No one would dare do to a nuclear Iran what was done to Afghanistan and Iraq." And "Israel's true role in this affair is just to be a hostage. The great Satan's pet, the Big Brother's little sister, the one that will suffer several heavy blows if anyone lifts its hand at the Iranian bully."

Posted by Becky at 12:02 PM |

Onward Christofascist Soldiers?

Apparently so.

Pastor Becky Fischer, the camp's leader, says the point of the camp is to encourage attendees to "take back America for Christ."

"I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam," she said.

14 young Islamists arrested in a foiled terrorist plot in Syria.

In Sinai's pocket of poverty, young Islamists' rage boiling over

Blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City was the biggest single act of terrorism so far on American soil. For the anti-government radicals in Algeria, such actions are child's play. Apart from the almost daily dose of car bombs in the capital, Algiers, entire villages have been annihilated and its residents decapitated. Buses are found by the roadside, passengers' throats slit ear-to-ear. Intellectuals, journalists and foreigners are targeted. All told, in the past five years, 60,000 Algerians have died in a campaign of unprecedented ferocity. - How real terrorists do it

Just remember what Dear Leader keeps telling us... we're fighting "them" over there so that we don't have to fight them here.

Posted by Kevin at 10:18 AM |

We Will All Pay when Bush Nukes Iran

"The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East." So begins the latest editorial by Paul Craig Roberts, Why Bush Will Nuke Iran. The entire editorial is so gripping, and really so terrifying if you think about it, that I won't even try to summarize it here. Go read it. I think you will conclude, as Roberts does, that "It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government and have no organized opposition in American politics."

Posted by Becky at 09:33 AM |

Republicans are immoral assholes who hate America

Whatever pretense of morality the Republican Party pretended to cling to fell away this morning when they decided to vote for Bush's latest pretend anti-terrorism bill.

This unAmerican, amoral, piece of garbage legislation is a cynical use of law by Republicans desperate to hold on to power at the midterms.

This bill would allow raping of prisoners as a debate tactic.

Any Democrat or Republican who votes for this bill has absolved themselves of the right to be called an American, as far as I'm concerned.

I am deeply ashamed that these are the people who represent this nation in government.

My own Senator, Gordon Smith, is voting FOR this thing. He deserves nothing but scorn and disgust from his fellow Oregonians. He is a sick example of the depths to which Republicans will go to grasp power. He nauseates me to the core.

Update: I don't know if it was a slew of phone calls or if this was reported incorrectly this morning--but Smith voted AGAINST it in the end, as I understand it. So I take back what I sad about him.

Posted by Carla at 08:56 AM |

September 27, 2006

Listen to the Generals

President Bush might not be listening to the generals who are speaking out against his handling of the War in Iraq, but that doesn't mean you can't listen to them.

Inform yourself about what the generals are really thinking. Watch this video from a Senate hearing yesterday of Major General John Batiste, a lifelong Republican who resigned from service so he could tell you what is going on. Don't let our military's loss of this brave leader be for nothing.

Posted by Becky at 05:48 PM |

Ted Piccolo is a Smirking Chimp, Too

I just had to shake my head this morning when I saw this post by Ted Piccolo asserting that because blogger Hart Williams has also made a living writing pornography in the past, we can dismiss out of hand the significance of his research into Howard Rich's clandestine political machine. This is a rather strange twist for a guy who's always complaining that no one will debate the issues. Particularly when he belongs to a party that is addicted to pornography.

Ted writes:

Of course now that I am publishing this story it means that I have been in touch with the mother ship and probably plotting the removal of another planet in our solar system... I am a bad, BAD man.

Unfortunately, Ted's oversized ego and undersized intellect prevents him from seeing the matter any other way.

Anyhoo, Ted, who obviously has his head up Howard Rich's ass, believes Rich never tried to hide anything, so voila, there is no conspiracy. I've been communicating off and on with a former Howard Rich insider who has repeatedly assured me that the group did NOT wish to be discovered. And it has been extremely clear, if you've followed Hart's research on Boregasm, that my source's assertions are correct - his group went to great lengths to cover their tracks. In fact, this person expressed shock when, once their secrets were coming to light, Rich, et al abandoned their secrecy and confirmed their involvement like it was no big deal.

But let's get on with Ted's primary assertion: basically, he thinks Hart is a pervert; therefore, his theory that there was a secret conspiracy (which, unfortunately for Howard Rich and all the idiots on his payroll, is based on solid factual evidence) is nonsense.

If having an interest in pornography entirely discredits a person, then the Republican party is in deep doo-doo. Not only has porn star Mary Carey attended a Republican fundraiser where the President helped raise $23 million for congressional campaigns in 2005, she also attended a Presidential dinner at the White House. Then there was that whole unfortunate Jeff Gannon scandal. In fact, there are quite a few very perverted Republicans out there, and if you are interested in further reading, there have been a mind-boggling array of Republican sex scandals throughout the years. You can find numerous surveys and news reports showing that the porn industry is just as lucrative in the Bible Belt and Salt Lake City as it is anywhere else. So I found it rather hilarious that the Portland Mercury's 2002 sex survey found that 26% of Republicans surveyed stick foreign objects in their bottoms. Now that's a party you can be proud of.

Hart Williams has posted a response of his own at the originating website where Ted gets his material (because, as we all know, he's incapable of doing any credible research on his own):

Jeepers. I suppose that I am a horrible person and all that, but I've never made any secret about my background in porn. In fact, I've always used my real name, precisely because I expected some guttersnipe to eventually show up and scream PORNO!!!! as if that were an argument.

Well, it might be to prudes, censors, bluenoses and other enemies of the First Amendment. But, really, without having viewed the work, you have no idea whether it's Marilyn Manson or Auguste Rodin.

Or, the difference between erotica and pornography is a matter of taste. But this has no bearing on stealth PACs, campaigns and bullying, does it?

But, while you're casting reflected aspersions, riddle me this ...

Let's test your PsychoDdrama IQ: Having been dissed by "Brandy Alexandre" -- how credible an attack do you believe that to be?

I mean, in all of your careful research, you MUST have found that I am the only person that Ms. Alexandre ever flamed. Right?

Anyway, thanks for being the attack dog. You never REALLY know that you're upsetting the opposition until they start slinging mud.

Odd that I can write 50,000 words on the various questionable practices of the friends of Howie Rich and the only answer that comes back is --- MOMMY! HART'S A PORNOGRAPHER!!!!

Ad hominem ad infinitum.

Amen

-- Hart Williams

While Hart's current writings may not be as exciting as pornography, those who get all pumped up over politics - and even those who just care about their own kids' futures - should read what Hart has written under the pen name of Ed Waldo. It's pretty fascinating stuff. Rich breaks the rules and uses the extreme wealth of his many influential connections to circumvent the democratic process. He knows you won't support the changes he proposes if you really understand them. That's why he tried so hard to hide the fact that multiple groundbreaking ballot measures in 13 states were not grassroots at all, but were rather the product of a small group of profit-driven rich guys who don't like playing fair.

Posted by Becky at 09:35 AM |

September 26, 2006

It's All About the Children

A co-worker of mine told me this morning that she has left her husband because he is physically abusing her teenage son. To her great credit, she left him the first time she saw him punch the boy - for no reason. At the police station, her son was taken aside and interviewed. Only then did she learn that the abuse had been going on for some time, with the father often punching him so hard he fell to the floor. I know this boy. He's a good kid – and he's a big kid, not one who would easily fall to the floor. My friend was told by the police that they could not charge her husband because the boy had no bruises or injuries.

How interesting it is that a report has come out today showing that Oregon is not doing a good job of protecting the well-being of children. Non-profit groups are unable to keep up with the need for help for child abuse victims, and growing drug abuse and other family stressors are making it worse.

Some time ago, I read something that has stuck with me ever since. If you want to know how well a society is doing, look at the way it treats its children. We ought to be very concerned about what this report says about the state of our families and our society.

Posted by Becky at 09:56 AM |

September 25, 2006

Bend Bulletin Recommends Censorship

It seems the Bend Bulletin editors believe in censorship. They write in an editorial today that it is just plain wrong to allow people to put ironic or sarcastic statements in the official Voter Pamphlet claiming to support or oppose a ballot measure when the clear intent of the person filing the statement is actually the opposite.

I think irony and sarcasm can peel away the phony façade of a political argument faster than anything else. That's the very reason we love political comedy and why it is so absolutely crucial to good government. As Thom Hartmann pointed out recently on his excellent morning show on KPOJ, this was the job of the court jester – the only one who could really tell the truth about politics. In the case of Voter Pamphlet statements, the humor is dramatically weakened if an ironic or sarcastic "pro" statement must be filed with the other, more staid, "con" arguments.

But apparently the editors of the Bend Bulletin think such communication tools are somehow inferior and do not belong in politics. I say, if they can't tolerate free speech, then they're in the wrong business.

Posted by Becky at 05:01 PM |

There Goes that Liberal Media Again

I get so tired of the right wing's ardent belief that the media is liberal. And rarely does one get a more poignant example than this. If ever there was a time to read the foreign press, it's now.

Posted by Becky at 01:57 PM |

Finally, Healthy Hospital Food

Have you ever eaten hospital food? I've had three surgeries, two births, and a two-day hospital stay with a sick child. I also worked part time for three years in a hospital while in high school. So I've eaten my share of the crap they pass off as food to their sick patients. Gooey white bread, pasty gravy, soggy canned vegetables, sugary desserts, sweetened canned fruit, deep fried ick, and processed entrees that taste like TV dinners. It has always amazed me that the major purveyors of health care somehow don't seem to make the connection between what you put into your body and how well your body will function.

Finally, hospitals are starting to get it, serving meals that are so healthy they don't have to modify the standard meal plan to meet particular patients' health needs (such as low-sodium or low-fat), and so tasty people come to eat there even when they aren't patients in the hospital. Oregon Health Sciences University is one of the hospitals making major changes, and since they have done so, their food sales have more than doubled.

Makes you wonder about the veracity of the argument that kids in public schools wouldn't eat healthy food if cafeterias served it.

Posted by Becky at 09:08 AM |

She's de Debil!

I couldn't help but think of Bobby Bouchet's mother when I read this story this morning. Jerry Falwell says that if Hillary Clinton was running for President, religious conservatives would be more mobilized than if the Lucifer himself were a candidate.

Of course, it's all blustering nonsense. If someone believes the Devil actually exists and they would still choose the Devil over Hillary, you really have to wonder what is wrong with their brain.

But then Falwell was addressing the faithful at the "Values Voter Summit," where attendees at a prayer breakfast were also assured that God would keep Congress in Republican hands (does that mean Diebold is God?). Falwell's staff later said he did not intend to demonize Hillary. But clearly the Christian vote manipulators speaking at the conference intended to demonize the entire Democratic party – after all, God Himself apparently doesn't want them elected.

Posted by Becky at 09:02 AM |

People Eating Tasty Cockroaches

Stunts like this are why PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) lacks credibility. Seems PETA has a problem with the way Six Flags Great America is planning to celebrate Halloween – by allowing unlimited line-jumps to anyone willing to eat a live Madagascar hissing cockroach.

PETA says eating live cockroaches is "gratuitously cruel." The park, looking equally ridiculous, defends itself by saying cockroaches are nutritious, high in protein and fat free – as if nutrition will be a factor in some 18-year-old's decision to eat a 3 inch long cockroach.

Getting upset over people eating cockroaches is as ridiculous as getting upset over people eating shrimp. And if the problem is that the bugs are being eaten alive, well, is there a more humane way to kill a bug than to crush it, which is what happens when you chew it up? PETA would get much further if it stuck to its message about the cruelty of animal treatment in the fur and commercial meat production industries and left silly stunts like this alone.

Posted by Becky at 09:00 AM |

September 24, 2006

Give 'em hell, Bill

All I can say in response to this headline - Angry Clinton defends record on fighting al-Qaida - is: Bravo!

I've never been a particular fan, nor hater, of Bill Clinton. I voted for him in 1992 after having watched two more preferable candidates (first Tsongas and then Perot) cease to be viable options. But I voted for Dole in '96 and I strongly supported Clinton's Impeachment on the material facts of the case. The average of which I would describe as middle-of-the-road. But not on this day!

One thing that has really irked me for the last 5 years has been the attempt by rightwing partisans to blame 9/11 on Clinton. But what did Bush do differently prior to the tragic events of that day? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing which could be construed as even remotely more constructive towards heading off the threat that al Queda posed to America. To the point that he was found sitting in a grade school classroom in Florida reading a childrens book as the events unfolded that day. If the threat from al Queda was so blindingly obvious, as the rightwing freaks and their media lapdogs would have us believe, then surely he could have found something at least slightly more constructive to do with his time!

Even after 9/11 the Bush record on pursuit of Osama bin Laden is anemic at best (bordering on traitorous at worst...).

So I say Bravo to president Clinton for vigorously pointing out the facts to NeoCon lapdog Chris Wallace.

Posted by Kevin at 06:44 PM |

Political Ad Of The Year

Writers at the Washington Post have been pouring over a ton of ads for this cycle, and have come up with one big one, taking a bit from all of them.

It reminds us of just how silly political advertising has become. Worth the read...

ANNOUNCER: It's the big squeeze. Taxes go up every year. Gas prices through the roof. The cost of living is skyrocketing. The legislature wastes more and more. Every week brings new scandals. People are leaving our state. Criminals are coming across the border, victimizing American citizens.

Are you tired of politics as usual? Do you ever feel like no one's representing your interests? Isn't it time for a fresh start?

CANDIDATE: We need to make a change. We need real change. It's time to change the way things are done in Washington. If you want a change, I'm your guy.

ANNOUNCER: Grandson of a farmer. Son of a police officer. Raised by a single mother. Born in a rural small town. His values were shaped in rural Arkansas, a half-mile down a dirt road. A paper route earned a new bike.

He worked his way up from poverty to Harvard Law. He volunteered and saw combat in Vietnam. He built an investment company from the ground up. With his wife, Debby, he founded Kids Reading Network in honor of his mother.

He was elected mayor. Cut taxes. Created jobs. Balanced the budget. Cut waste, fraud and abuse. Abolished 71 obsolete boards, commissions and task forces. Turned the city around.

CANDIDATE: I want to set the record straight. I'm opposed to illegal immigration and methamphetamine. I believe in the wonders of science. I believe you deserve better. I believe our state needs government that works -- servant leadership. Our children deserve a senator who wants the job. That's why I'm running for governor.

ANNOUNCER: The choice? A successful businessman and mayor -- or an ineffective congressman.

She's a liberal, supports gun control, abortion on demand, mandatory gay rights. He voted against strengthening criminal laws against terrorist attacks. He voted against the Patriot Act, which gives law enforcement the tools to fight terrorism. Weakening America's security. Out of touch with Ohio values.

CANDIDATE: The choice in this race is simple. If you're satisfied with the way things are, I'm not your candidate. I believe change starts with ideas. You deserve good ideas. But more importantly, you deserve a governor who gets the job done for you.

I'll stand up for the little guy. It's that simple. It's that fair. It's that important. And I'm not just talking about these issues. I've done something about them.

ANNOUNCER: Protecting the California dream. Changing Maryland for the better. Ready to lead Massachusetts. Turn around Ohio. Make Wisconsin great again.

Colorado values. Nebraska values. Nebraska common sense. Real Montana.

CANDIDATE: This grandma wants to shake Austin up. Bring some passion back to Albany. We need a senator who will stand up for New Jersey. I'll fight for Florida. I'll fight for Iowa's future. That's the Colorado promise -- and mine, too.

ANNOUNCER: Courageous, determined, a fighter for our issues. Challenging politics as usual with honest ideas to lift our state. Hard work. Results.

CANDIDATE: I approved this message about conservative change. I approved this message because working together is the only way to solve our problems. I approved this message because I won't play politics with our security. I approved this message because we've got a great future here in Michigan and I'm fighting for it every day.

ANNOUNCER: It's time to have a governor on our side.

CANDIDATE: I approved this message because it's time for a new politics of unity and purpose. I approved this message because when good ideas cross party lines, we should, too. I approved this message because we really need to know how our representatives vote.

ANNOUNCER: Smart solutions that work.

CANDIDATE: I sponsored this ad because we need someone on our side. I sponsored this ad because we need to protect our borders. I sponsored this ad because you can't change Washington unless you change the people you send there.

ANNOUNCER: Together we can.

CANDIDATE: Why the hell not?

Posted by Alan at 06:38 AM |

September 23, 2006

Something for the Christian Right to Consider

Every member of the Christian Right who is considering continuing their support of Republicans who are standing behind the President in his effort to legalize torture should read R.J. Eskow's "Death of a Torture Victim." I have not seen it more clearly demonstrated how like the ancient Pharisees the current crop of Christian leaders really are.

Posted by Becky at 01:17 PM |

Christians with Values Told to Vote Republican

Christian leaders, activists and politicians have gathered in Washington, DC for the Values Voter Summit, a slick conference sponsored by the Family Research Council, Americans United to Preserve Marriage, the American Family Association, and Focus on the Family in an effort to shore up lagging Christian support for Republicans. The group is discussing abortion, school prayer, gay marriage, judicial reform, feminism, liberal media, the "millions of Muslims" who want us all dead, and "the role of the church in political issues" – and they even have a session on "exposing liberal groups." The conference is clearly Christian and Republican, and its name smacks of the ignorant belief that only Christian Republicans have "values."

Noteworthy speakers at the Values Voter Summit include Senator George Allen (R-VA) (of "macaca" fame), Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, Brent Bozell, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Anne Coulter, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Newt Gingrich, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Sean Hannity, Katherine Harris, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Ron Luce (Founder of Teen Mania youth ministries), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Tony Perkins, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), Tony Snow, and Paul Weyrich. Notably absent are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

To ensure the attending theocratic patriots don't miss the whole point of their get-together, the schedule for Friday began with an invocation (prayer), the Pledge of Allegiance, and the National Anthem. This morning's political discussions began with a session of "praise and worship." Emphasizing the point, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline and former Virginia Attorney Generak Mark Earley spoke at a session entitled "Attorney General in the Culture War." Today's program features a session entitled, "In Defense of Mixing Church and State from Acts 16" (read at least one person's view on this subject here).

Press who have attended the events so far are reporting that attendees are being urged to set aside their frustrations with President Bush and turn out for Republican candidates (42% of white evangelicals disapprove of the job Bush is doing). Because only Republicans have values, don't you know. As James Dobson put it, "There is no choice, because the alternative is terrible." Pastors are being urged to press the social conservative agenda from the pulpit and ignore the threat of IRS investigations. Speakers are offering pastors advice on how far they can push the line without crossing it (of course, the individuals giving the advice are not attorneys – and as Americans United for Separation of Church and State points out, they are giving bad advice).

Attendees were treated to a sneak preview of the epic motion picture "One Night with the King," the Old Testament story of Esther, which will be released in theaters on Friday the 13th of October. Interestingly, the book of Esther, believed to be a true story by much of the Christian world, is actually a Hebrew modification of the ancient Egyptian astrological story of Ishtar and wasn't originally included in the Bible. True or not, its message of Providence and Divine rescue is sure to strike a chord in the hearts of a frightened populace - something which has not been overlooked by event planners.

Speakers are conflating the war on terrorism with family values, saying that we must protect our families and characterizing current world events as a war between Christianity and Islam. James Dobson told attendees, "millions of Muslims want to kill us," and went on to explain:

We have more than 100 members of the press here. I want to make it very, very clear that we are not saying, at least I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent, that all of them want to kill us, that all of them are terrorists. I want to tell you this. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world and a small percentage of a big number is a very big number. And out of 1.2 billion, the estimates I've seen are indicate that somewhere between 10 and 15 percent do buy into the notion that jihad calls for the killing of infidels.

In a nutshell, Christian voters are getting a very clear message from the non-profit, non-partisan sponsors of this Value Voter Summit: Set aside your disappointment over Republicans' lack of commitment to your "values" like gay marriage, abortion, and liberal media. Don't hold them accountable for breaking their promises to you. Because the Democrats are worse – much worse. And they won't protect you from the biggest threat of all – Muslims who want to kill you.

Posted by Becky at 11:12 AM |

Time To Tell The Kids?

Another Episcopalian Diocese is considering a gay man to be their Bishop

The Episcopal Diocese of Newark was voting for a new bishop Saturday, with an openly gay priest among the six candidates.

The election in the historically liberal diocese comes at a time when divisions over the Bible and sexuality are threatening the denomination and the worldwide Anglican family.

A win by Canon Michael Barlowe, 51, would put the diocese at the center of a crisis over whether Anglicans who disagree about ordaining gays can stay in the same fellowship.

Now, I'm not a member of the church, and I'm not "rooting" for anyone to be elected. But what this does show, in my opinion, is that it's probably time for the church to do what the rest of us see coming - split.

Splitting isn't something anyone really ever wants to do. But sometimes, when you have two groups in the same church going in two very obviously different directions, it's for the best for both parties to go their own way.

I just hope that they are able to do it in a Christian way.

Posted by Alan at 07:37 AM |

September 22, 2006

Howard Rich on the Tee Vee

You don't want to miss the PBS special report tonight at 9:30 on Howard Rich and the questionable tactics he used to put initiatives on the ballots of several states. If you don't catch it, streaming video will be available at the web site after the show.

While you're at it, take a gander at the PBS interview with blogger Hart Williams, a.k.a. Ed Waldo from Boregasm, a personal hero of mine who played a crucial role in the dot-connection that lifted the curtain behind which Rich tried to hide his dirty dealings.

Posted by Becky at 12:52 PM |

Iraqis in Constant State of Terror

In case you've been missing the daily reports of tortured bodies dumped all over Iraq, Manfred Nowak, a UN official, has just issued a report claiming that the state of terror for the citizens of Iraq is as bad as it was under Saddam Hussein – and the torture occurring in US detention centers and at the hands of Iraqi police may even be worse than that inflicted before we went in to bring freedom, democracy and human rights to the Iraqi people. I think I've recounted enough explicit descriptions of torture here in the last couple of days, so I'll leave it to you to read the article if you want to know the signs of torture showing up regularly on these bodies. Suffice it to say, modern power tools have expanded people's creative torture options.

The report points out the government in most of Iraq is completely broken down and in a state of primal anarchy. Nowak quotes a US Army major as saying that everyone is at war with everyone else, and the only protection people have is what they provide for themselves. The only reason the world does not know how desperate conditions are is because it is so unsafe for journalists (134 of them have been killed in Iraq during this war) that they will not go in to cover the news. Even members of the CIA have rebelled over our torture activities after being sickened by the brutality of what they saw.

And with around 100 Iraqis dying each day now, the White House's spin machine ain't spinnin' so well these days.

Bad news has cascaded out of Iraq at such an astonishing pace that it defies credulity to suggest that the war has not drastically worsened the lives of Iraqis. ...

The problem for Bush... is that many Americans are now connecting the dots and realizing that Bush's own actions brought terrorism to Iraq. So his pleas to stay the course and fix the problem he created can only garner limited sympathy.

So much for winning hearts and minds.

Posted by Becky at 11:42 AM |

Frankenfoods Are Taking Over

Due to recent discoveries about the state of my health, I have decided to go on a diet of organic foods (which I am delighted to report taste much better than standard grocery store produce). My reasoning is because of the lack of pesticides and herbicides, but I also have had concerns about genetically modified food (which, as I understand it, cannot be labeled "organic"). My father's best friend actually works in the sugar beet industry and has explained to me why we need not worry about these foods. Still, the reports are disturbing.

Deborah Rich, an olive farmer and agricultural writer for The San Francisco Chronicle, writes today about her concerns with the so-called "Frankenfoods" being engineered and served daily to nearly all Americans, who don't even realize it.

Almost all soybeans and more than half of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered. These two foods are in so many processed foods that most Americans are eating them – as are our livestock and poultry. It is a vast experiment, as we literally do not know the extent of any negative effects on the human body or on the environment. We've all heard the justifications – reduced need for pesticides and herbicides, longer shelf life, and the ability to feed all the hungry people in the world. But according to Rich these benefits are not actually coming about.

The price of modified seed includes a technology fee that effectively siphons off the bulk of any additional revenue farmers might gain from reduced pest damage or decreased management costs.

Many hoped that genetically engineered crops would help the environment by cutting pesticide use. We should have known that growing crops engineered to tolerate herbicides could lead to more chemical use. A 2004 analysis funded by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that the introduction of engineered corn, soybeans and cotton caused a 122 million pound increase in pesticide use since 1996.

And because resistant crops have encouraged near constant use of one or two classes of herbicides, superweeds that withstand the chemicals have now emerged and will require ever more potent poisons to control.

Another hope was that gene tinkering would help end world hunger. But the dream of concocting drought-tolerant, insect-resistant, nutrient-dense supreme species ignores the reality of global markets already awash in food. Hunger and malnutrition result from poverty, not a lack of food in the world.

I would add to that the fact that much of the Third World's food distribution problems are directly linked to government corruption.

What is really scary is that research increasingly raises alarms, demonstrating the likelihood that our bodies might not respond well to this genetically engineered produce. Imagine that – we once had an entire ecological system in perfect balance, and even with all we know today we still seem to believe we can tweak some things here and there and nothing bad will happen. Well, we're wrong.

Among the findings: abnormal white and red blood cell counts and inflammation of the kidney in rats fed genetically engineered corn, accelerated growth of stomach and intestinal tissues of rats fed engineered potatoes, and immune responses in mice fed altered peas.

So what happens if we find out this stuff is really dangerous? Can't we just stop planting it and go back to our old seeds? Unfortunately, no.

[P]ollen from genetically engineered crops is on the move. In a recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 50 percent of nonengineered corn and soybean varieties tested by one laboratory contained DNA from engineered versions. Chasing down and eliminating this freeflowing DNA from our seed supply, should the need arise, will require Herculean effort.

Not only are natural foods being polluted by genetically engineered foods, but also companies like Monsanto, which own a vast percentage of the seed industry, can remove any non-modified seed it owns from the market any time it wants to and we can't do anything about it. Could it be that someday, no matter how much we want it, there simply will not be any organic food left in the world? If so, what does that mean for people with fragile health, like me? Rather than being able to help ourselves through natural means, such as a combination of diet, exercise, and natural supplements, we will have no other options but to submit to pharmacology, with all its ugly side effects. It frankly pisses me off.

Posted by Becky at 10:24 AM |

They don't hate our freedom. They hate our hypocrisy.

There are an estimated 14,000 detainees throughout the Bush prison system, world wide. Let's take one example:

Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi was released uncharged last month from an unnamed Bush prison (presumably Abu Ghraib). He had been held for nearly two years. Without charge. Without trial. Without explanation.

Bush keeps telling us that "they hate our freedom." What freedom? The freedom to imprison and torture at will and without recourse and for as long as we like??? That's not a "freedom" that can be found anywhere in American jurisprudence. It most certainly is starkly at odds with the inalienable rights which underpin American notions of "freedom" and "justice." Our ancestors rebelled against British rule for far, far less egregious injustices!

In responding to a question about General Colin Powell's questioning the moral basis of his pathological obsession with torture, President Bush tried to sweep the issue aside by retorting:

BUSH: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic

Really?

So the actions of the UnaBomber, Jeffrey Dahmer or Timothy McVeigh were compassionate and decent enough to warrant their being granted fundamental, inalienable rights that those terrible Islamofacists need to be denied? Even those innocent Muslims who eventually get released without charge, explanation or apology?

Can there be any doubt that President Bush is the kind of demagogue that H.L. Mencken was thinking of when he said, "the demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots"?

But then again... this is the same George W. Bush who smirkingly mocked Karla Faye Tucker's plea for clemency. So perhaps he's not a demagogue. Maybe he's just lacking any personal moral compass. How else do we reconcile the mocking of the condemned with this fixation with torturing the innocent and guilty alike?

While you are pondering that, take a minute to peruse this fascinating post: The Pentagon on why they hate us. It seems that Rumsfeld's civilian ideological minders let some honesty slip through.

Posted by Kevin at 07:35 AM |

September 21, 2006

The Panicked Voices in My Head

God help us: it is looking more and more as if 2008 might pit Hillary Clinton against Newt Gingrich in a run for President. I just don't know if I can take it. Newt is a horrible person. Hillary is a compulsive liar. What kind of a choice is that?

So anyway, I was pretty irritated this morning to read about two individuals who are coming to the defense of the Pope: Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Why did they have to go and do that? Now I'm even more dismayed about the next Presidential election and the future of our country.

What Hillary said:

It's just outrageous and offensive that people would be threatening violence against him based on what he said, especially when there is so much they should be working on together.

What Newt said:

I think what he said in his entire speech ... is that Islam has to come to grips with having a genuine dialogue of mutual respect. Everything you've seen of the viciousness and the evil that has been said since then by fanatics reinforces the pope's speech.

I don't for one second believe these two very sophisticated politicians didn't understand what the pope pulled with his speech. So why are they speaking out in support of him? Are they both committed to the same international cause as our current administration? It has been looking that way to me for a long time.

When Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA into law, is pal-ing around with George H.W. Bush, Hillary Clinton supports the War, and Laura Bush is keynote speaker at Bill Clinton's Global Initiative conference, it all just makes your head want to explode. Somehow, the conspiracy theorist in me finds relevance to this, this, and this. Someone pour me a drink.

Posted by Becky at 11:22 AM |

American Fundamentalists Fear Iranian Fundamentalists

I couldn't help but shake my head this morning as I read WorldNet Daily's breathless reporting on the dangerous, apocalyptic visions of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I don't dispute the man has these visions; nor do I dispute that they are dangerous. What gets me is that WorldNet Daily caters to the Christian right and apparently is blind to the identical situation here in our own country, where our born-again Christian president and the majority of Americans also believe in the Apocalypse.

Ahmadinejad's closing remarks at his U.N speech are described by WorldNet Daily as "chilling":

"I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet," Ahmadinejad said. "Oh, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause."

If he had replaced "human being" with "One" or "Son of God" this very statement would quickly go from "chilling" to thrilling – to the Christian right, that is.

The article warns of Iran's "mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah," saying it is of concern because of the country's "potential for triggering the kind of global conflagration Ahmadinejad envisions will set the stage for the end of the world." Many around the world fear the preoccupation of the Christian right and President Bush with the Second Coming of Christ and the Apocalypse, combined with U.S. military might and interference in the Middle East, for the very same reason.

The article warns, "Ahmadinejad is on record as stating he believes he is to have a personal role in ushering in the age of the Mahdi." Bush has frightened many by saying very similar things. For instance, he is reported to have said he believes God talks to him.

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

And just as the Christian right is pushing for moral revival in the U.S. (even the President has claimed he believes America is in a Third Awakening), "Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West." Read the following and think about the parallels to today's evangelism, youth camps, the emergence of FoxFaith and other religious media, and more:

All Iran is buzzing about the Mahdi, the 12th imam and the role Iran and Ahmadinejad are playing in his anticipated return. There's a new messiah hotline. There are news agencies especially devoted to the latest developments.

"People are anxious to know when and how will he rise; what they must do to receive this worldwide salvation," says Ali Lari, a cleric at the Bright Future Institute in Iran's religious center of Qom. "The timing is not clear, but the conditions are more specific," he adds. "There is a saying: 'When the students are ready, the teacher will come.'"

And horror of horrors, end-times beliefs appeal to one in five Iranians! Perhaps WorldNet Daily didn't realize that 59% of Americans believe Revelation's end-times prophecies.

Posted by Becky at 11:13 AM |

September 20, 2006

Fox Seeks Christian Cash and Loyalty

"The company that brought TV viewers racy and irreverent programs such as 'Nip/Tuck,' 'Temptation Island' and 'The Simpsons' has found religion." So begins this story about Fox Entertainment's new "FoxFaith" film production and distribution division. Having seen the green from "The Passion of the Christ," they've decided that while they're busy raking it in from the sinners, they might just as well be raking it in from the saints, too.

And how better to wed the Christian world to the right wing than to link Fox to Religion?

Fox might seem an unlikely studio to pioneer a religious label, given its history as a purveyor of salacious TV programming. Yet people in the Christian community say the company has gained credibility as the voice for conservative America through its Fox News Channel.

Just as labeling our irreverent drug-using, heavy-drinking, womanizing President a "born again Christian" automatically turned off the brains of many in America's Christian community, so linking Fox to religion will ensure that the religious right fully, mindlessly accepts whatever clap-trap and propaganda Fox News dishes up. What a shame.

Posted by Becky at 11:23 AM |

Naughty Petitioners Cost Rich a Fortune

Betsy Hammond at The Oregonian has written a mildly interesting piece about the initiative battles around the country, which have managed to pare down the number of states voting on TABOR spin-off measures to three. A far better report on the current state of affairs in this on-going soap opera can be found here. It's an incredible saga of millions and millions of dollars spent already by both sides, and the sorry-ass crooked petitioners who have managed to blow it for the anti-government folks who very much would like to bust the system that ended those petitioners' misdeeds. Well worth a read.

Incidentally, I have the Montana District Court's scathing decision in which he threw three of Howard Rich's initiatives off the ballot because petitioners so overwhelmingly violated the law in gathering the signatures. I will happily email a copy to anyone who emails me a request with the words "Montana court decision request" in the subject line.

Posted by Becky at 10:42 AM |

Patriotism and Torture

The discussions we have had here this past week about the Pope's antagonism to the Islamic world, the importance – or lack thereof – of history, and whether or not the U.S. bears culpability in the current conflict of cultures has only heightened my concern that because the MSM has failed to do its job, Americans do not know or understand the depths of evil to which our own anger since 9/11 has pushed us, nor do we understand the rising anger in the Muslim world where the truth is known - hence it seems irrationally violent. We still seem to believe America is always righteous and good and kind, and our opponents are always irrational, evil and violent. Anyone who points out otherwise is treated as traitorous. I maintain that those who demand that Americans wake up and put a stop to this madness are the ones who are the true patriots, and those who bury their heads in the sand are abandoning their duty to their country.

Joe Conason writes today about that very thing in "Opponents of Torture Are True Patriots." You owe it to yourself and this country to read what he has written – especially if you are a Christian.

It is strange but true that the country’s most prominent spokesmen for the Prince of Peace and for tradition and morality are also its most outspoken proponents of torture. These worthies are unfazed to learn that this government is responsible for the bloody medieval abuse of innocent men, like the Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who was sent to a Syrian dungeon on baseless suspicion.

The Reverend Louis Sheldon, who heads an organization called the Traditional Values Coalition, has indignantly warned Senator McCain that opposing torture may mean forfeiting the support of evangelical leaders in 2008.

What are we to make of the fact that men like the reverend, who refer to themselves as “Christian” while obnoxiously suggesting that other Christians are inferior in faith and character, now tell us that we must support the horrific abuse of prisoners?

What “traditions” and “values” do Mr. Sheldon—and, for that matter, the devout Mr. Bush—truly uphold? What kind of conservative promotes the violent abuse of people who have been convicted of no crime?

These words should cut America to the heart. As should the truth about the torture we have inflicted on prisoners in our custody in our post-9/11 war on terror:

This first-hand account tells the horrifying tale of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who had been purchased from members of the Pakistani military. These men were bound, beaten and kicked in the stomach until they vomited blood and fainted. One prisoner was beaten in the face until his eye fell out. They were urinated on, dragged naked across asphalt by wires wrapped around their arms, and forced to walk barefoot across barbed wire and splintered glass. Beatings concentrated on eyes, nose and genitals. Copies of the Koran were dunked in buckets of urine and feces, and pages of the Koran were used to wipe out these buckets, shine shoes, etc. in front of Muslim prisoners. Gasoline was injected in their penises. They were tied naked to the floor and raped. They were given electric shocks. Their beards were literally pulled out. There is much more, but I won't go into it here.

This report tells of how dozens of Taliban prisoners died after surrendering to Northern Alliance forces, asphyxiated in the shipping containers used to transport them to prison.

This report describes techniques we have used, and that the President wishes to formally legalize, including forced shackled standing for 40 or more hours, being held in 50 degree rooms and doused with cold water, and water boarding. The effectiveness of these techniques is highly disputed, and the "mock execution" mental effect on prisoners violates the Geneva Conventions.

Finally, for those who have not seen them, here are some of the Abu Graib torture and abuse photos.

Do you support the President's effort to retroactively allow torture so that those who have committed these atrocities will never have to pay for their crimes? Be a patriotic American – think about what your own family members may face someday if these practices are condoned and then used against them – and then contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them how you feel.

Posted by Becky at 09:38 AM |

September 19, 2006

Red Letter Christians Push Blue Voting

I'm a bit flummoxed by the political push of the left-leaning Red Letter Christians. Like many people, I've been deeply concerned about the religious right's growing influence on government for some time (though I disagree with Rosie O'Donnell's view that radical Christianity is as threatening as radical Islam, at least it's not yet). So at first glance it seems refreshing to see the religious left poke its head up and say, "Hey, we're here, too!" But is a leftward push back via religiously driven political activisim really the answer?

A new group representing values voters on the religious left castigated the religious right yesterday, announcing plans to counter conservatives with a series of candidate fairs, voters guides and Web logs.

One weblog is called GodPolitics.com, and 200,000 voter guides entitled "Voting God's Politics" will be distributed before the election.

"The monologue of the religious right is finally over, and a new dialogue has just begun," Mr. Wallis said. "That's good news for churches, for politics and really, for both parties. We believe the debate on values should be central in American politics. The question is: Which values, whose values and how should we define moral values?"

The right has concentrated on opposition to same-sex "marriage" and abortion, he said, adding that the war in Iraq, poverty and the environment should equally concern evangelicals.

While I like the general message of these so-called "Red Letter Christians" – basing actions and philosophy on the words of Jesus (which are printed in red in many Bibles, hence their name) – how is religious left government influence any better than religious right government influence? Will the religious left take its cues from the aggressive political moves of the religious right, and simply perpetuate the problem, only this time with the political left keeping quiet because they're pulling in Democratic votes? Why can't religion stay in the churches, homes and communities and out of government?

Posted by Becky at 09:39 AM |

Predatory Lenders Targeting Military Families

One of Our Oregon's primary efforts is to rein in the payday loan companies, who have made their money on the backs of the working poor by using predatory loansharking techniques that are simply disgusting. One of the recent developments in this industry has been the targeting of military families.

Congress is considering capping interest rates for payday loans at 36%. Can you even imagine a 36% credit card interest rate? And believe it or not, a Department of Defense investigation found that some of our military families, with fathers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and mothers home raising children alone, are being charged as much as 500% interest! The Senate has already passed the 36% cap, but, as usual, your Representative in the House needs to hear from you on this issue. Congress is being heavily lobbied by the lending industry to retain the status quo.

If you want to help our military families get through tough times without getting screwed, visit Our Oregon's interactive website, which will help you contact the appropriate members of Congress about this issue.

Posted by Becky at 09:35 AM |

September 18, 2006

OK, Then, Just Kill Them All

The Pope's lovely message of peace and rationality has certainly struck a chord with Al-Qaida, who is now warning that the Pope and the West are "doomed" and has vowed to continue the holy war until Islam dominates the world.

"You infidels and despotic, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God's rule is established governing all people and nations."

Since the "Christian" West is entirely unwilling to look at our own culpability in this clash of cultures or try to find a rational, peaceful solution and quit stirring things up, it looks to me like the only option we have at this point is to kill all Muslims so they can't dominate the world.

Maybe that explains the whole depleted uranium munitions thing.

Posted by Becky at 11:23 AM |

Who Really Loves our Troops?

The next time you hear some Republican equate Democrats' opposition to the War with disrespect for our soldiers and claim that only the GOP cares about soldiers, point them to VA Watchdog so they can see for themselves what the Republican Administration is doing to our veterans.

For example, an effort is underway to rid the VA of its obligation to pay disability benefits by paying disabled veterans a lump sum in the amount of 30% to 50% of the total expected lifetime payments and expecting them to take responsibility for investing the money so it will last through their lifetime. VA Watchdog's report lays out the history of this effort, current activity, and potential problems for veterans, such as their inability to obtain increased benefits in the future should a service-related injury worsen over time. Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, is working to see this change come about.

Here is another example of how our veterans' best interests are being sacrificed to the god of cost savings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims ruled that Vietnam-era veterans exposed to Agent Orange because they loaded it off ships and onto planes or because they flew the planes that dropped it are eligible for VA benefits related to the health problems that resulted from that exposure. Until now, believe it or not, only soldiers whose feet had been literally on the ground in Vietnam were eligible for this coverage. But now the VA has decided it will appeal the case, and refuses to even process claims.

Meanwhile, the Air Force has decided not to publish its cancer findings on the effects of Agent Orange on Vietnam veterans. We spent $140 million in taxpayer dollars studying airmen who were exposed so we could determine appropriate compensation for exposed veterans. That study reportedly shows a doubling of cancer rates among the highest-exposed veterans, but the Air Force has instructed the scientist who conducted the analysis to destroy the data.

The stories of this country's abandonment of veterans under a Republican President, with party-loyalist appointees to every level of government, and a Republican-controlled Congress, are so numerous and so heartbreaking that it is difficult to even point to ignorance as an excuse for the claim that Democrats hate our troops. Republicans sent our troops to a war based on lies, Republicans have allowed the use of depleted uranium munitions, Republicans have refused to properly arm, feed, and protect our troops, and Republicans are the ones trying to slash their benefits, avoid compensating them for their injuries, and abuse their loyalty to this country. It is the Democrats who are fighting to preserve benefits for our troops, including decent wages and health care. To me it is as plain as day who truly honors and supports our troops.

Posted by Becky at 11:16 AM |

Republicans Today Are Not Conservative

Here is a great example of why I say the Republican party is no longer the party of conservatives. Read it and weep. Conservatives are thoughtful, prudent, and want the best possible outcome. Today's Republican party, on the other hand, is about profiteering, ideology, and cronyism. And the GOP's lack of fiscal responsibility is costing us dearly.

Posted by Becky at 11:14 AM |

September 16, 2006

Pope's Message Had Subtle, Controversial Undertones

In attempting to encourage people of different faiths and cultures to engage reasoned dialog and refrain from violence, Pope Benedict XVI has instead set off another round of anti-Christian and anti-West violence in the Muslim world (you can read key excerpts of his speech here). At first glance, it looked to me as if Muslim leaders had mis-translated the Pope's message, intentionally inciting a violent response by telling Muslims that he had said the concept of jihad was "unreasonable" and Muhammad's innovations were "evil and inhuman". But it may well be that our surface reading of the Pope's message is incorrect.

The response over at Northwest Republican is both typical and understandable:

In response to the papal suggestion that their religon might be violent, modern Muslims express violent outrage and threaten more violence. …

Where are the calm Muslim leaders expressing sincere concern that their peaceful religion has been misunderstood and asking how, through peaceful dialogue, such a terrible misunderstanding can be resolved? The truth is, in expressing violent outrage that such a sentiment has even been quoted, Muslims are proving the very charges made against them and their religion.

We are in a war for civilization. They prove it by their words and actions. Let us not let down our vigilance.

But Gary Leupp, Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion, offers a different explanation over at Counterpunch. After reading his editorial, I'm beginning to believe the reaction by the Muslim world is not necessarily due to the overt message of the Pope (that violence between cultures is unjustified and that communication based on reason is essential), but rather the subtext of his message - which reinforces the view that it is the Arabs who are irrationally violent, while the West is peaceful and rational.

Recall that the Greeks, aside from shaping rational western thought, also shaped our ideas about geography. The Greeks first divided "Europe" from "Asia," and opined that Greeks were unique and superior to the "Asiatics." The Greeks, declared the Father of History, Herodotus, knew that they were "free," whereas the Asiatics (particularly the Persians) were prone to enslavement by nature. This ideological construction derives from a century of conflicts---the Greco-Persian Wars of the fifth century---but it has been echoed by Orientalists for centuries. Repeated by the Pope, for example, who while still Cardinal Ratzinger told the French newspaper Le Figaro that Turkey should not be admitted into the European Union "on the grounds that it is a Muslim nation" which has "always represented another continent during history, always in contrast with Europe."

In beginning his remarks citing that exchange between a Byzantine Greek emperor and this "learned Persian," the pontiff was perhaps conveying a not-so-subtle political message. It may have been a response to the learned letter from Iranian President Ahmadinejad to President Bush. Ending his speech with two references to the need for a (truly reasonable, nonviolent) "dialogue of cultures" Benedict unmistakably alludes to former Iranian President Khatami's campaign for a "dialogue of civilizations." This is the Pope's rejoinder to that plea, presented as the response of the western world (growing out of that remarkable Judeo-Christian Greco-Roman synthesis), to today's Persia---the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Leupp points out some interesting history about the relationship between the emperor the Pope quoted, Manuel III, and the Islamic world in his day and shows how incongruous that particular emperor's actual motivations were with the message the Pope seemed to the West to be trying to convey. "Here in 1391 we have an emperor in his war camp, provoking what was to be a disastrous war with Muslims while eruditely disparaging their religion." While behaving irrationally and violently toward the Arab world and waging persecution against all non-Christians, the emperor had the nerve to wax eloquent about the irrationality and violence of the Arabs, who had even come to his own aid when he had called on them for help. "[T]he Byzantine emperors… persecuted religious minorities, including Jews, Manichaeans and dissident Christians, during centuries in which the Islamic world showed relative tolerance. … Many Byzantine Jews welcomed the initial Muslim Arab advances, providing relief from Christian persecution."

At a time when the Islamic world is all too aware that Iran's current and previous Presidents (Khatami and Ahmadinejad) have reached out to the West with impassioned pleas for reasoned discussion and an end to the violence the West has waged on the Arab world, the Pope has reinforced the erroneous Greek view that Arabs are innately prone to irrational violence and that it is time they come to the table and approach the current clash of cultures with rationality. No wonder Muslims are offended.

One increasingly expects historical distortion and hypocrisy in the speeches of Bush administration officials. The effort to depict the Terror War as a war on "Islamofascism" shows their desperation. They must be delighted to hear the pope conflate Christianity, the west, and Reason explicitly while implicitly linking Islam, violence, and irrational intolerance. How sweet that His Holiness's erudition should elliptically reference Iran, while the Bush administration prepares to attack it!

It appears that those who know their history (a group that, unfortunately, does not include the vast majority of Americans) recognize that the Pope was attempting to rewrite it, disguising a confrontational message to the Islamic world in the cloak of the lofty siren song that the West would hear. One must wonder why the foremost religious leader in the world would say something that would work to align the West and all of Christendom with the Bush Administration's unjustified war plans for the Middle East. Could there be a link to the seemingly theocratic push by the President and his closest political allies?

Posted by Becky at 11:00 AM |

September 15, 2006

Military leaders urge Congress to just say no

29 retired Generals, Admirals and DOD officials sent a just released letter (.pdf) to the Senate Armed Services Committee urging it to reject Bush's attempt to redefine the Geneva Convention so as to legitimize his illegal CIA torture program. The list includes a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili. In a separate letter another former Chairman of the JCS, General John Vessey, wrote to Senator McCain and also urged a rejection of Bush's obession with torturing detainees. And just the other day a third former Chairman of the JCS, General Colin Powell, likewise voiced rejection of attempts to redefine the Geneva Convention.

While Americans are predictably split on the issue, a solid 56% agree with our military leaders that torture is a bad and unAmerican idea, with only 38% expressing approval of torture.

Count me in with the majority on this one. Just say no to George "torture 'em" Bush.

(hat tip to Cernig of the very aptly named NewsHog)

Posted by Kevin at 07:08 PM |

Gas Prices a Republican Dirty Trick

Lifting a heavy load of high gas prices off the backs of commuters buys a lot of goodwill these days. And I think that is exactly what is going on with the news reports that the cost of gasoline is headed down. Some reports yesterday even said it could hit the unbelievable low of $1.15 a gallon. I'm not buying it.

I do think it's going to keep trending downward – at least until November 8, when Big Oil's favorite Republicans are safely returned to office. But somehow I don't believe gas prices will stay low for long. And I'm not alone.

The GOP, with majorities in both the House and Senate, would have much more to lose [from high gas prices] than Democrats. Big oil does not want its buddies in the Beltway to lose the grip on any branch of government.

Lo and behold, per-gallon prices have dropped, although there is less stability in the Middle East and more hostility directed toward the U.S. from oil producing Middle East countries than we have seen in a long time.

If oil prices truly are tied to political and economic issues in the Middle East and terror threats on a global scale, there is no rational explanation for such a precipitous drop in crude oil after the recent turmoil in Israel and Lebanon and the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What are we left with but price manipulation?

Further, after beating back numerous congressional attempts to authorize drilling in ANWR, and despite dire predictions about what repairs on BP’s Alaska pipeline would do to oil prices during an extended shutdown period, a huge previously uncharted oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico is surprisingly discovered.

Think I'm off-base, that Republicans, who are clearly terrified of their association with the President, won't be helped just because gasoline prices are headed downward? Then explain why Bush's approval ratings exactly follow gas prices.

Think gasoline prices can't be manipulated for political purposes? This article makes a great case that not only can they, but they are.

Five of the largest oil companies now control 50 percent of U.S. refinery capacity (versus 34 percent in 1993) and 62 percent of the retail gasoline market (versus 27 percent a decade ago). This gives the oil industry unprecedented ability to manipulate the market.

As the article explains, the federal government (which is controlled by a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and an Administration packed full of oil company executives) certainly could force prices down if it wanted to do so. But why would these people do that?

Since 2000, the oil industry has pumped out more than $68 million to politicians—80 percent of that going to Republicans.

These millions don't even reflect the additional millions the oil industry pumps into conservative and libertarian think tanks that funnel money to politicians, their family members, and their favorite causes, as well as fight for lax environmental standards and an entirely free market and anti-labor laws.

Read this article, which looks at how oil price manipulation shifts money from the poor to the wealthy and makes a convincing case for charges of price gouging and massive profiteering off of a resource that is a vital part of our economy.

Then tell me I'm wrong.

Posted by Becky at 11:19 AM |

September 14, 2006

Ron Saxton Better Have an Ace Up His Sleeve

Oregon Democratic Governor Kulongoski has called Republican challenger Ron Saxton's bluff, asking him to reveal what "efficiencies" he would find in the state budget that could possibly offset the losses in funding that would result from the new programs and tax cuts Saxton is promising voters.

Looking back to the only time Saxton has served in elected office, his single term as a member of the Portland School Board, Kulongoski's campaign manager, Jim Ross, pointed out that sometimes reality creeps into the budget process. One would think after Saxon's experience in Portland, having to ask the City of Portland for a bailout because the District could not balance its budget, he would have learned that lesson.

Ross noted that the Portland schools received millions from the City of Portland before and during Saxton's tenure. When the district could not meet its budget, even with these additional funds, Ron Saxton had to go back and get $3 million more. "Portland schools needed that money," said Ross, "and it's good that the city came through for them. But Saxton has been saying that he can cut taxes and add new programs just by finding efficiencies. The record shows that he couldn't find those magical efficiencies when he was in charge of the Portland School Board. He had to take bailout after bailout from the city just to keep the school doors open."

Rather than taking that reality to heart, however, Saxton has decided to continue kissing the right-wing fringe's behinds by endorsing $1.3 billion in tax cuts, including Bill Sizemore's Measure 41, and claiming he will "happily" implement Howard Rich's Measure 48 (at least, that's what he said last I heard – he may have changed his mind again), which threatens to chop an additional $2.2 to $2.7 billion out of the next budget. This on top of new spending proposals:

• Expanding state police patrols

• Full enrollment for Head Start and a higher teacher pay

• Giving alternative energy tax credits

• Increasing the subsidy for employers who provide health care

• A major investment in higher education and vocational training

This is not a commentary on his proposals. It is a commentary on his consistent tendency to try to have it both ways. He supports TABOR, he doesn't support TABOR. He wants to cut taxes, he wants to increase spending. He wants to return the kicker, he won't raise taxes, he wants to keep the kicker for a rainy day fund, but that's not a tax increase, but whenever a tax cut is eliminated it's a tax increase. Every time I turn around the man is being wishy-washy again. That's what happens when you try to please everyone instead of telling it like it is. As Ross rightly points out, "Ron Saxton will say anything to get elected." I think we've had enough of politicians like that.

Posted by Becky at 02:41 PM |

September 13, 2006

This may be the best political ad of the season

This TV ad is so good. Simple. Direct. Cutthroat without being nasty.

Truly superb.

I haven't learned how to post YouTube stuff (I'm so friggin techy challenged). Go to Kos and watch it.

He doesn't need the traffic...but c'est la vie. Its SO worth the click.

Posted by Carla at 08:01 PM |

Propaganda from the Heritage Foundation

I just got a major propaganda piece from the Heritage Foundation. I can only assume they don't read PK, because if they did they would not have sent me this piece of garbage. Being near the top of my shit list (for good reason) they would not likely have handed me any ammunition.

I knew it was right-wing bullshit as soon as I saw the envelope.

TAX INCREASE INFORMATION

DO NOT DESTROY
SURVEY ENCLOSED

Inside was a flyer listing some numbers associated with the impact of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire - conveniently timed to coincide with beleaguered Republicans' campaigns to go back to Washington, DC. Here are just a few of these numbers, though they are all outrageous (for information on what Bush's tax cuts really brought to those who needed them, see this article):

$1,040: The average tax increase if President Bush's tax cuts expire.

But what is the average tax "increase" for the average taxpayer (take out the wealthy and see what the rest of us would actually save)? Not much. Would it be worth it to have a truly measly tax cut for most people and a hefty one for the wealthy so that we would continue the drain on the federal budget that prevents us from paying for things like veterans' health care, for example?

6.24 million: Number of jobs that would be created over the next decade by making President Bush's tax cuts permanent.

Jobs in the U.S., or jobs in Third World countries? High-wage jobs or minimum wage jobs (of course, these same anti-worker people are also hard at work trying to eliminate the minimum wage and destroy the clout of labor unions).

$69 Billion: The cost of reinstating the Death Tax.

The estate tax (let's call it by its real name, shall we?) actually only hits the richest of the rich. And having the tax in place is providing the federal government with $69 billion that it needs to do things like take care of our veterans, for example.

$27 Billion: Amount spent in 2005 by Congress on frivolous "pork" projects that use taxpayer funds to reward local special interests and pressure groups.

Too bad the Republicans in Congress wouldn't say NO to all that pork so they could adequately fund veterans' hospital care, among other things.

A letter accompanies the Heritage Foundation flyer. It sets out from the beginning to frighten the unaware:

Dear Ms. Miller,

Enclosed is a confidential survey to determine your awareness of the impact on [insert recipient's city here] area taxpayers of pending tax increases on families, businesses and senior citizens, and the effect such increases may have on your tax bill.

The letter describes several examples of "tax relief … scheduled to expire over the next several years" – if the "liberals" succeed in their "crusade" to block the effort to make the tax cuts permanent. The letter then, after pumping up the inflammatory rhetoric, asks recipients to help them present the media and politicians with "an honest, objective look at the real impact of proposed policy – NOT the 'political spin' or 'media bias'." Because if the tax cuts are made permanent, you see, the "after-tax income for a family of four would increase by an average of $1,848 per year." There's that mystical average family again.

Of course there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, and that's sort of information we're dealing with here.

I did find one nugget of truth in the letter:

Clearly the stakes are higher than ever, and the debate over taxes is – as usual – tainted by political partisanship.

Of course, this letter, coming during election season to someone like me who has never contributed to the Heritage Foundation or received mailings from them before, couldn't possibly be "tainted by political partisanship," could it? Surely they are referring to the "liberals."

If all this isn't bad enough, you should see the survey questions. Purely scientific, of course. Not only does a mail-in survey of this type defy reliability altogether, the questions themselves are extremely biased. For example:

1. Were you aware that – thanks to a provision in tax law demanded by liberals in Congress – President Bush's historic tax relief packages of 2001 and 2003 are set to expire, resulting in what The Wall Street Journal describes as "the biggest tax increase in our nation's history"?

Check out this one:

4. Did you know that if liberals succeed in revoking President Bush's tax cuts, a married couple with two children making $40,000 a year will see their taxes rise from $45 to $1,978, while married seniors could face a 107 percent tax hike?

And then there is this absolute whopper of a lie:

8. Liberals in Congress are working to reinstate the Death Tax – a leading cause of the termination of successful small businesses in America. Reinstating the Death Tax would increase taxes by $69 billion. Do you support or oppose the Death Tax?

(The truth about the "Death Tax" can be found here and here, for those who don't know it.)

What a pile of crap. But then I knew that as soon as I looked at the envelope.

Posted by Becky at 05:57 PM |

Odd Reasons for Stopping By

It has been absolutely fascinating to me to check in on the Site Counter and follow which posts here at PK get read and which don't, and especially which posts are being pulled up from the archives in various Google searches. Some of the posts here are extremely popular, bringing literally scores of hits a day to the site, and I really would never have guessed which ones they would be.

For example, Google images searches for pictures of Kiera Knightley bring up this entry several times an hour. Likewise, Google image searches for Nicole Richey and Calista Flockhart, as well as Google searches for "skinny women," bring numerous people to this post every day.

I've been consistently astounded at how many people every hour are using Google to learn about the self-proclaimed Messiah Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda and winding up here, sometimes several an hour. I only hope the irony of the post isn't too obtuse for the many Googlers from foreign countries who land on the site. I wouldn't want to be encouraging them.

And I don't even want to tell you what Google search terms are bringing up this entry, but it's downright disgusting. If the naturist Christians who own the site are doing what I'm doing and looking to see where the hits on their site are coming from, they must realize the sort of horrible people that are visiting it multiple times per day to gawk at the photos there. Maybe Carla was right about them after all.

Posted by Becky at 04:36 PM |

New Websites for Your Favorites Folder

I've just learned about some excellent new research tools for people who want to know who is behind this year's big initiative campaigns.

The first one - www.howierichexposed.com tells all about Howard Rich and his scheme to take over the world. Included is a wonderful item – a flow chart that shows who got money from him, who got money from them, and who got money from them so you would think it came from a local grassroots effort.

The next site is one that exposes the web of people and money behind the anti-union efforts, including the so-called "Union Facts" campaign of lies. You can find this site at www.AntiUnionNetwork.org.

Finally, just for the fun of it, go check out this hilarious expose of bad Congressional hairstyle trends. They're all wonderful, but I think the dead animal hair is my favorite.

Posted by Becky at 01:56 PM |

Bush Claims America In "Third Awakening"

President Bush yesterday said that he believes America is experiencing a "Third Awakening" of religious commitment that is tied to our current "confrontation between good and evil." The statement is further evidence that the Administration is using religious rhetoric tied to its aggressive foreign policy activities to keep the faithful in the Republican fold.

"A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening."

The First Great Awakening refers to a wave of Christian fervor in the American colonies from about 1730 to 1760, while the Second Great Awakening is generally believed to have occurred from 1800 to 1830.

We all know the President isn't an avid reader, so maybe he missed the big headlines from just two days earlier reporting that Americans aren't any more religious today than they were before 9/11. The intense surge in church attendance immediately following the 9/11 attacks quickly passed, and by January of 2002, people were back to their normal routines.

I might not be as concerned as I am if I had not just read Testament of the Death Squads: Good Christ, Bad Christ by Greg Grandin. The article tells the extremely disturbing story of how Christian leaders have repeatedly partnered with American political leaders to wage war around the world.

Starting in the 1960s, conservative evangelical theologians such as John Price and Jerry Falwell … not only urged their flocks to fight what would become known as the culture wars … but to get more involved in foreign affairs as well. Ronald Reagan’s crusade against the Central American Left--his patronage of the Contra insurgents in Nicaragua and death-squad states in El Salvador and Guatemala--was the first extensive opportunity to do so, an apprenticeship that gave the Religious Right its first real taste of its own power within the Republican Party and drew it closer to other groups within the Reagan Revolution.

In order to bypass public and Congressional opposition, the White House outsourced the “hearts and minds” component of its Central American wars to evangelicals. Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum sent down “Freedom Fighter Friendship Kits” to the Contras, complete with toothpaste, insect repellent, and a bible. Gospel Crusades, Inc, Friends of the Americas, Operation Blessing, World Vision, the Wycliffe Bible Translators, and World Medical Relief likewise shipped hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid to the anti-Sandinista rebels and Honduran refugee camps, where they established schools, health clinics, and religious missions. In El Salvador, Harvesting in Spanish, Paralife Ministries, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Nicaraguan Freedom Fund (affiliated with the Unification Church) and the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade broadcast radio programs, handed out bibles, ran schools, established medical and dental clinics, and provided moral education to the soldiers. Pat Robertson used his Christian Broadcasting Network to raise money for Efraín Ríos Montt, the evangelical Christian who presided over the Guatemala’s 1982 genocide, which killed over a hundred thousand Mayan Indians. Most of the Guatemalan relief aid raised by evangelicals in the United States, by groups such as the California-based charismatic Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship, went to help the military’s efforts to establish control in the countryside in the wake of its campaign of massacres.

In the United States, right-wing Christians Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Phyllis Schlafly and Oliver North, along with evangelical capitalists such as Amway founder Richard DeVos, founded the Council for National Policy in 1981, which, as the Religious Right’s steering committee in the 1980s, was deeply involved in Reagan’s Central American exploits. Christian businessmen raised money for arms and humanitarian work and funded the myriad organizations that worked closely with the White House to sway public opinion and congressional votes in favor of Reagan’s policy in El Salvador and Nicaragua. As part of Iran-Contra’s extensive support network, they deepened their ties with the international Right, with retired military and black ops personal, mercenaries, arms merchants, right-wing public relations experts, ex-agents of the Iranian Shah’s secret policy, international drug traffickers, the Sultan of Brunei, and anticommunist states such as Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Panama, and Israel. Many of the militarists who executed the Contra war -- John Singlaub, CIA director William Casey, Vernon Walters, and Oliver North -- were themselves members of either Protestant or Catholic ultramontane sects, such as the charismatic Church of the Apostles, Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta. Catholic Casey attended mass daily, and filled his mansion with statues of the Virgin Mary. The Da Vinci Code has nothing on what took place in Central America during the 1980s.

There is much more to be found in the article. This observation is one of the more upsetting ones:

Third World poverty, according to evangelical Ronald Nash, has a “cultural, moral, and even religious dimension” that reveals itself in a “lack of respect for any private property,” “lack of initiative,” and “high leisure preference.” Some took this argument to its logical conclusion. Gary North, another influential evangelical economist, insisted that the “Third World’s problems are religious: moral perversity, a long history of demonism, and outright paganism.” “The citizens of the Third World,” he wrote, “ought to feel guilt, to fall on their knees and repent from their Godless, rebellious, socialistic ways. They should feel guilty because they are guilty, both individually and corporately.”

Evangelical Christianity’s elaboration of a theological justification for free-market capitalism, along with its view of a immoral third world, resonated with other ideological currents within the New Right, laying the groundwork for today’s embrace of empire as America’s national purpose. In a universe of free will where good work is rewarded and bad works punished, the fact of American prosperity was a self-evident confirmation of god’s blessing of US power in the world. Third-world misery, in contrast, was proof of “God’s curse.” David Chilton, of the Institute for Christian Economics, a Reconstructionist think tank, wrote that poverty is how “God controls heathen cultures: they must spend so much time surviving that they are unable to exercise ungodly dominion over the earth.”

Could that be the explanation for why these people prefer spreading Christianity over helping Third World countries get up off their knees? Could it be why these people, who worship a cruel God who promises eternal, conscious torment in hell to all non-Christians, feel justified in raining hell fires of their own down on non-Christian nations, who, they believe, all are destined for hell anyway, and are already suffering for their sins? Grandon seems to believe so.

[T]he kind of moralism that many key fundamentalists used to justify the violence visited on Central America in the 1980s easily led to the kind of righteousness that today legitimates cluster bombing of civilians as an option of first resort.

The results of the mixture of politics and religion are now, as they have always been, horrific. Which is why the Rev. Sun Myong Moon's ties to the Bush family and prominent Republicans and his desire to institute a theocratic one-world government concern me so deeply. And why I was also alarmed to read this article about a global conference on religions in the post-9/11 world being held in Montreal.

There's an urgent need to secularize religion and spiritualize politics, said Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the India-based Art of Living Foundation.

I could not disagree more.

Posted by Becky at 09:02 AM |

September 12, 2006

Tom DeLay has waaaaay too much time on his hands

Good grief:

DeLay, a former Republican congressman from Texas, sent out a letter to his supporters urging them to watch -- and vote for -- country singer Sara Evans in the third season of the popular ABC show. "Sara Evans has been a strong supporter of the Republican Party and represents good American values in the media," DeLay wrote. "We have always been able to count on Sara for her support of the things we all believe in. Let's show Sara that same support."

But DeLay's comments weren't just limited to supporting Evans. No, DeLay also took the time to bash one of Evans' competitors. "One of her opponents on the show is ultra liberal talk show host Jerry Springer," DeLay wrote. "We need to send a message to Hollywood and the media that smut has no place on television by supporting good people like Sara Evans."

Are you kidding me?

Tom DeLay is trying to lobby the voting on a reality tv dance competition. Apparently being a slimy asshole isn't limited to real politics--he has to stage it out for this fake TV bull.

He's so insulated that he obviously has no idea what a complete and utter embarrassment he is to himself and his associates.

Gawd.

Posted by Carla at 11:33 AM |

Measure 37 Not to Blame in Newberry Crater Controversy

I think Measure 37 is getting a bum rap because of the controversy over the proposed development of the Newberry Crater. An editorial in yesterday's Register Guard by Douglas Larson, an adjunct professor at Portland State University, prompts me to explain why.

Larson writes:

When Oregonians approved Measure 37 in 2004, few realized that their passion for "property fairness" could threaten some of the state's most treasured natural wonders - including the Newberry National Volcanic Monument, located about 30 miles south of Bend. …

Newberry Crater would have been the perfect poster child to depict what Oregon could lose if Measure 37 became law. The 90-square-mile monument, with the crater as its centerpiece, was created by Congress in 1990 to "preserve for present and future generations the unique geologic landforms and many other resources."…

Yet, despite its national monument status, Newberry Crater may soon feature more than its unique geologic landforms, rare lakes and priceless plant and animal communities. Indeed, future visitors may also behold a geothermal power plant, an open-pit mine containing an estimated 8.5 million cubic yards of high-quality pumice, and a hundred upscale vacation homes equipped with septic tanks and drainfields.

All this would be on 157 acres of private property alongside East Lake.

And therein lies the problem. The land is privately owned. And unfortunately, the County can't afford to buy it so they have little choice but to allow the owner's development plans, which were legal at the time it was purchased, to move forward.

I can only ask why nobody ever moved to purchase this precious land for the public before. It has been nearly forty years – plenty of time to have raised the money to buy it – but the land is still in private ownership. Why? I think it is because people who recognized the resource decided that they wouldn't have to come up with the money if they just took the property through regulation. They thought they had it locked up.

Who cared about the man who invested in the property? It was just one guy. So what? Well, I'll tell you so what. It hasn't been just one guy. It's been property owners all over the state, some big and some small – enough of them that all the sky-is-falling rhetoric in the world wasn't enough to change Oregon voters' minds when they went to the polls – two elections straight – and stood up for private property rights. It is something that it is high time land use planners and environmentalists got through their heads.

The passage of Measure 37 never meant people thought natural resources weren't worth saving. Obviously, natural resources are a top priority for Oregonians. No, what the vote meant was that people thought it was wrong to be cheap about it – to take the resources for the benefit of the public by regulating away their use and not paying for them, leaving individual property owners stuck paying mortgages and property taxes on land they couldn't use. Oregonians are fair people, and they didn't like that.

The potential damage to the Newberry Crater is intolerable and I place the blame squarely on the backs of people who years ago recognized what could be lost and, rather than launching a fundraising drive to save the resource, instead worked to take away the owner's property rights. Now it's coming back to bite them, and all the rest of us, hard in the butt.

Posted by Becky at 10:33 AM |

Term Limits Ads Pure Bunk

Term limits proponents are running some slick ads right now on several Oregon radio stations. Now I really don't care too much one way or the other about term limits, though I lean more against than for them. But these ads are driving me crazy. The reason is that the woman narrating the ads speaks with such a factual tone that you just want to accept what she says as fact when it isn't.

The ads say that when Oregon's legislative term limits were repealed, "problems returned" and the result was "partisan bickering." The ads say, "they call our legislature a national laughingstock," implying that the rest of the country will quit laughing at us (assuming they really are) and all will be right in the world again – if we just re-institute legislative term limits. It frankly is pure bunk.

Let's start with the whole issue of partisan bickering. I think everyone who has been paying attention realizes that partisan bickering really has risen to a new level in the past couple of sessions. Term limits supporters claim that since term limits were thrown out in 2002, legislators now feel invulnerable and that is the cause of the sudden increase in bickering. I think there is a more reasonable explanation: Republicans have quit compromising. Is it really just coincidence that the bickering suddenly escalated when Karen Minnis became House Majority Leader and Republicans started turning even more viciously than before on the so-called "RINOs" among them – the people who chose to follow their principles rather than toe the party line?

This interesting piece explores how extreme partisanship leads to extreme partisan bickering:

Partisan bickering has been part of the Legislature since statehood. Today we've got too many people of the wrong caliber doing the bickering, and it's far too extreme…. too many of them go to Salem with narrow ideological agendas fueled by money from special interests. …At the same time, capable legislators who dare to act on their principles … are being run out of office.

Blame it on the way money has corrupted Oregon's system. ... Last election the average cost of a race for the Oregon Senate exceeded $150,000. Six candidates spent more than $400,000 each. Most of that loot comes from special interests trying to influence who gets elected and how they vote.

That in turn enflames extreme partisanship, with lawmakers fighting not for what's best for all of Oregon but what's best for their contributors and re-election. That's turned off hundreds of thousands of voters, many re-registered in disgust as independents.

Do you think the extreme libertarians who are backing term limits will support a fix for the realproblem - campaign finance reform? Oh, no. Because that would be infringing on the rights of rich people (like Howard Rich) to give $100,000 checks to their favorite ballot measures and "independant" campaigns, not to mention that it could impair their distribution of candidate contribution checks from every single entity they own or manage (quite possibly a hundred, in Rich's case), enabling them to buy politicians who will be obliged to enact their extreme partisan points of view rather than serve the people. Why, it would be a travesty against free speech if the average Joe had the same influence as a rich man or a corporation. But I digress.

So what about that notion that "they" say the Oregon Legislature is a "national laughingstock." Who are "they"? Apparently, some are still smarting from the ribbing we took from late night comedians and the Doonesbury comic strip. The Medford Mail Tribune, influential paper that it is, also called the Legislature a "laughingstock." Why? Because in 2003, due to the extreme partisan shenanigans of right-wing Republicans (some of whom were concerned about their future post-legislative roles in the party, such as former gubernatorial hopeful Jason Atkinson), Oregon was the last state to pass a budget. Compromise was out of the question and it turned into a contest of wills. The school year began with schools not even knowing how much money they would have to spend for the year. And term limits will fix this how?

A recent study by three non-partisan organizations found that where legislative term limits have been adopted, partisan bickering has actually increased (incidentally, they have also moved power away from the people's elected representatives and into the hands of the executive branch of state governments).

Term limits … increase the partisanship of the lawmakers themselves because they have less time to accomplish their policy goals or build relationships with colleagues, the study said.

"Members are less collegial and less likely to bond with their peers, particularly those from across the aisle. The consequences of this are more than a simple change in the social climate -- the decline in civility has reduced legislators' willingness and ability to compromise and engage in consensus-building," the report said.

As I said, I have never been particularly passionate on this issue either way. But the more I learn about the motivations and funding of term limits proponents, and the more I see of their willingness to manipulate the facts in support of their position, the more I am becoming convinced that the entire idea is a bad one.

Posted by Becky at 09:11 AM |

September 11, 2006

Book-signing for "The Republican War on Science" Wed 9/13

[Updated below.]

Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science will be at a book-signing event Wednesday, September 13, at 7pm at Powell's Technical Books 33 NW Park Ave., Portland OR.

Science has never been more crucial to deciding the political issues facing the country. Yet science and scientists have less influence with the federal government than at any time since the Eisenhower administration.

In the White House and Congress today, findings are reported in a politicized manner; spun or distorted to fit the speaker’s agenda; or, when they’re too inconvenient, ignored entirely. On a broad array of issues—stem cell research, climate change, abstinence education, mercury pollution, and many others—the Bush administration’s positions fly in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus.

In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney tied together the disparate strands of the attack on science into a compelling and frightening account of our government’s increasing unwillingness to distinguish between legitimate research and ideologically driven pseudoscience.

For an excerpt from the book, click here.

(Cross-posted at p3.)

Update: Mooney will also be speaking Monday the 18th at 7:30 at Reed College, Eliot Hall chapel. Thanks to Paul for passing that along.

Posted by Nothstine at 12:59 AM |

September 10, 2006

Sizemore: King of "Unintended Consequences"

A lot of us have wondered why Bill Sizemore suddenly got worried about insurance companies basing rates on credit history. It is such a departure from the whole taxes and limited government thing, and besides, telling a company how it can conduct its business is so anti-free market. Well, he's finally offered an explanation.

"I heard this was going on...and I couldn't believe it at first because it seemed so illogical."

Classic Sizemore bullshit, but for now let's assume it's true that this man with chronically poor credit never before realized that all those other formerly-bankrupt, borrow-and-never-pay-back types are also beleaguered with high interest rates and, being unlikely to defend themselves (as he further explains), could really use a leader like him to fix their problem for them. Assuming Sizemore is the greatest populist since FDR, then he just might be interested in hearing from everyday people like you about other potential populist ballot measures that he could ask Loren Parks to fund so the two of them could make your life better. His email address is bill@otu.org (it's no secret - you can find it on his website).

Sizemore's past populist measures have consistently been opposed by people who explained the measures were "poorly drafted" and would have "unintended consequences." That was the grand argument against his Measure 47 property tax cut and cap and in favor of the Measure 50 fix. His previous Measure 91, which allowed deduction of federal taxes on state income tax returns, would have unintended consequences (over half of Oregon's taxpayers would have received no reduction in their taxes, while seventy percent of the tax benefits would have gone to the wealthiest 7% of Oregonians), as would his Measure 93, which required a vote before taxes and fees could be increased (requiring people to vote on a lengthy and confusing list of fees, most of which they would not be paying and probably cared little about), and Measure 8, a state spending limit (which would have required the state to turn back billions of dollars in federal funding). Measure 98 would have had the unintended consequences of threatening the Voter Pamphlet. I could go on, but it would really just be redundant. The fact is, you can pretty much predict that will be the argument against anything he puts on the ballot, and this insurance measure is just another example:

"It has many unintended consequences," said Pat McCormick, spokesman for Oregonians Against Insurance Rate Increases, the group fighting the measure. "There are about 60 percent of Oregonians whose rates are going to go up. Those with good credit histories are going to subsidize those with bad credit histories."

Additionally, the companies say credit scoring is done without information about income, race or where a customer lives - not making it possible to target certain minority groups.

Contrary to what Sizemore claims, however, the problem isn't that people keep playing the "unintended consequences" card. Rather, it's that Sizemore's measures consistently do have unintended consequences.

I'll be voting "no" on this measure for two reasons. First, Sizemore is a compulsive liar, in my opinion, and I don't trust his motives. And second, I have a good credit record and don't see why my rates ought to go up just to give people like Sizemore, who think they ought to be able to borrow money and not pay it back, a break on their insurance rates.

Posted by Becky at 09:25 AM |

September 09, 2006

American Theocracy: A Must Read Book

I'm nearly finished reading the excellent book by Kevin Philips, "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century." If you've never heard of Kevin Phillips before, he is a former Republican strategist who now writes for the Los Angeles Times, Harper's Magazine and Time.

I can't emphasize enough how important it is for everyone who cares about the future of this country to read this book. Through a detailed chronicling of historical facts, Phillips provides critical context to modern events and explains why the confluence of peak oil, surging apocalyptic belief, and unprecedented debt have combined to place this country in tremendous danger. In hopes that it will whet your appetite for more, I offer the following quotes from the book.

On the threat of theocracy:

P. 208: "Rhetoric from Washington so frequently interspersed sentences about Islamic terrorism and Osama bin Laden with references to Saddam Hussein and Iraqi evil that much of Bush's religious electorate muddled them into one dire threat and danger to the United States. …

"Theocracy – some degree of rule by religion – has been an anathema in the modern United States. But the confusion over early-twenty-first-century trends can be clarified, although not resolved, by trying a simple multiple-choice question: Is theocracy in the United States (1) a legitimate fear as some liberals argue; (2) a joke, given the rising secular population, the continuing obscenity and violence from Hollywood, the brothels and gambling in Nevada, and the gay-marriage services in San Francisco; (3) a worrisome bias of several major GOP constituencies and pressure groups; or (4) all of the above? The answer, of course, is all of the above. Conservatives fixate on the provocations and ignore the excesses visible in the neo-puritan and rightist countertide, and liberals have reversed the error, keening over the religious threat while ignoring the secular provocation. The balance of danger, however, has been redefined by the momentum of the Bush-era counterattack."

p. 215: "The Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the owner of the Washington Times and the head of the well-funded Unification Church, said that "we must have an autocratic theocracy to rule the world. So we cannot separate the political field from the religious. My dream is to organize a Christian political party including the Protestant denominations, Catholic and all religious sects. We can embrace the religious world in one arm and the political world in the other." Moon, somewhat surprisingly, has been close to the Bush family, having been praised by the senior Bush in a 1996 speech. Then in 2001, Moon cohosted George W. Bush's inaugural prayer lunch."

p. 237: "In the 1960s and 1970s, to be sure, secular liberals grossly misread American and world history by trying to push religion out of the public square, so to speak. In doing so, they gave faith-based conservatism a legitimate basis for countermobilization. But in some ways the conservative countertrend itself has become a bigger danger since its acceleration in the aftermath of September 11.

"Topics such as natural resources, climate, global warming, resource depletion, environmental regulation, and petroleum geology – all surprising targets for religious attacks … draw in the energy industry, automobile producers, utilities, industries that pollute, and the environmental movement, as well as the forces battling for so-called intelligent design, creationism, or the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Major business lobbies, all too aware of the GOP's religious blocs, harness their biases where possible and avoid trespassing on matters of theology."

p. 242: "Theologically the conservatism at issue contends that homosexuality is not inherited (or God given) but taken up volitionally – and a sin. Thus true believers liken practicing homosexuals to adulterers, drug users, or alcoholics, insisting on the individuals' ability to make a different choice and rehabilitate themselves. Contrary biological evidence could become as divisive as Darwinism.

"In all of these matters, the need of Republican officeholders and party conventions to be theologically correct puts them through all sorts of contortions."

p. 252: "In communications terms the White House has depended on what Bruce Lincoln, David Domke, and other experts have called double coding – the biblical allusions that cluster so thickly in some speeches that the faithful among his listeners respond warmly. With so many liberty-and-freedom, good-versus-evil speeches year after year, Bush made himself a bridge between politics and religion for a large percentage of his electorate, cementing their fidelity.

"Meanwhile, portions of the Christian-right message – too radical and divisive to be voiced directly from the Oval Office – went out through a network of preachers with whom Bush and his advisers kept in touch, could not endorse, but conspicuously never disavowed."

And on the economy:

p. 281: "Never before have political leaders urged such large-scale debt indebtedness on American consumers to rally the economy. Debt has not previously been held out as a solution to a nation already overburdened by it – especially one vulnerable to restive global creditors. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that the rise of finance, the relative decline of manufacturing, and the polarization of incomes and wealth in the United States can be reversed if political control continues to pass to rentiers and credit vendors.

"Think on the differences between the two sectors in income distribution. In the heyday of manufacturing, from the 1920s to the early 1970s, wave after wave of unionized blue-collar jobs lifted tens of millions of Americans into the middle class. Today, the American financial-services economy pushes in the opposite direction. Its narrowing employment base, some 8 million in 2004 out of a national workforce of 131 million, stood in sharp contrast to the much broader uplift of manufacturing in, say, 1960, when goods production employed 17 million Americans out of a workforce of 68 million. This, too, is in keeping with the later stages of previous leading world economic powers: finance distributes its concentrated profits to a much smaller slice of the population."

Posted by Becky at 09:07 PM |

Corporate Sleaze Sinks to New Low

Back when Britney Spears turned from all-American girl into all-American slut and took her pre-teen audience with her, I was outraged. Just as I was outraged when Jon Benet's murder brought child beauty pageants, complete with swimming suit competitions, into the public eye and then made them more popular than ever. But things have reached a new low. Target stores in Australia have begun selling lacy padded bras and matching panties for six-year-olds.

The sexualization of young girls is on the upswing, and the result is a lessening of societal abhorrence of molestation of young girls, however slightly. It also provides creepy predators with bountiful visual delights. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Tiny matching lingerie sets of lacy bras and knickers in many children's brands including Bratz, Saddle Club and Barbie, have hit the shelves aimed at girls who are barely old enough for school.

The Herald Sun last week revealed the latest Bratz Babyz range included sexually provocative baby dolls dressed in leather and lingerie.

You'll never guess what the Bratz distributor, Funtastic, had to say in its defense of their product:

"The idea of the padding is for girls to be discreet as they develop. It is more about hiding what you have got than showing it off. It is certainly not there to make children look like they have breasts."

Target said pretty much the same thing:

Target also stood by the underwear range. It provided "fashionable items that give girls modesty and style as they go through development changes", a spokeswoman said.

Fucking liars. I really hate corporate sleazebags who lie anyway, but when they are encouraging the victimization of children and then trying to claim it's for their own good it is truly unforgivable.

Posted by Becky at 08:33 PM |

Do We Really Want to Know?

Last week I watched "V for Vendetta" for the first time. The timing couldn't have been more apropos. The film asks the question that many are asking today: If your government facilitated and/or perpetrated actions against its own people that were subsequently blamed on domestic/foreign religious terrorists, "Would you want to know?"

Questioning the official account of 9/11 used to be the purview of conspiracy nuts. But over the past five years the "nuts" have been joined by easily a third of the American public, as well as a large number of very reliable academics, scientists, and government insiders. One of these is Bill Christison, former National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979.

Christison recently laid out the factors that have led him to question the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 and explained why we must know who was responsible:

Why is it important that we not let the so-called conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 be drowned out? After spending the better part of the last five years treating these theories with utmost skepticism, I have devoted serious time to actually studying them in recent months, and have also carefully watched several videos that are available on the subject. I have come to believe that significant parts of the 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the “official story” put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false. I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe.

The major questions that concern Christison are:

ONE: An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. …

TWO: The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. A plane did not hit Building 7 of the Center, which also collapsed. All three were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.

He lists the other major questions, some of which he believes have credibility, and some of which he sincerely doubts. And he offers an astute observation:

If the government could prove this evidence false, and its own story on these points correct, all the other data and speculation supporting the conspiracy theories would be undermined. It has provided no such proof and no answers to growing questions.

He believes it is essential that a serious investigation occur to find the answers to the many legitimate questions that have been raised and to determine who is responsible. "Then, these people should be tried in an international court and, if possible, convicted and punished for causing so many deaths." In the mean time, he says, the American people need "to immediately set to work as hard as is humanly possible to defeat in this year’s congressional election any candidate who refuses to support a no-holds-barred investigation of 9/11 by the Congress or a high-level international court. No more evidence than is now available is needed in order to begin this process."

Another doubter of the official 9/11 explanation is David Ray Griffin, a well-known and respected liberal theologian and philosopher. Upon reading the 9/11 Commission report he became angry. "To me, the report read as a cartoon," Griffin said. "It's a much greater stretch to accept the official conspiracy story than to consider the alternatives." According to Griffin, "It is already possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt one very important thing: The destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. The welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed."

Another doubter is Steven Jones, a tenured physics professor from Brigham Young University. He is convinced the three buildings that collapsed at the World Trade Center were brought down by pre-planned controlled demolition. He is currently on paid leave while his claims are investigated, and has just published the book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out."

Other doubters include former Reagan aide Barbara Honegger, who is now a senior military-affairs journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School in California, and Morgan O. Reynolds, appointed by George W. Bush as chief economist at the Labor Department, who believes 9/11 was perpetrated by "[e]lements of our government and M-16 and the Mossad."

As you go to the polls this November, just think about what the world would have been like had 9/11 never happened. No war in Afghanistan, no war in Iraq, no Patriot Act, no torture scandals, no dead and wounded American soldiers, no 100,000+ Iraqi civilians dead, no Iraq civil war, no cloud of fear hanging over us every day, no massive national debt to pay for war, no loss of American standing in the hearts of the rest of the world. If terrorists are, indeed, responsible for 9/11 as we have been told, then we should be concerned about the gross mismanagement of the required response to it all and oust the entire Administration and its sympathizers. But if these doubters are actually right, and this Administration and its sympathizers are the ones who inflicted the incredible pain of 9/11 and its aftermath on us and the rest of the world, then it is so heart-wrenching and so evil that it overwhelms the mind.

Do we really want to know?

Posted by Becky at 11:47 AM |

Radio Jayne Gets Caught in the Rain

When Governor Kulongoski challenged Howard Rich to come out to Oregon and explain why our tax system was any of his business, I thought it was a brilliant move. The Governor's follow-up has been unsatisfactory, but he did have a moment there. Of course, not everyone sees it that way. Right-wing local radio talk show host Jayne Carroll (who, in comparison with Victoria Taft's legendary four listeners, probably has only two) wrote an editorial about it for The Oregonian entitled, "Governor's Position Cloudy on Rainy Day Amendment."

Clever wording notwithstanding, the Governor's position on Measure 48 isn't "cloudy" at all. He is very clearly opposed to it. So I thought if Jayne can write a clever, meaningless title for her opinion piece, so can I. So I did. The poor woman is clearly lost in a mythological world of the right wing's self-indulgent imagination (clever, eh?).

Jayne seems throughout the editorial to be enamored of her own use of clever phrases rather than any substance. For instance:

- She called Kulongoski's challenge "a campaign stunt apropos of a junior high campaign" and a "sardonic challenge."

- She pokes fun at Kulongoski's "kitchen cabinet" – his staff – and imagines their juvenile strategy session, even throwing in the now-tired phrase "yada yada."

- She says McIntire "would likely make 'mincemeat' out of the tax-and-spend governor."

Yawn. I guess her writing isn't any better than her radio show.

Looking past her fascination with language, she also makes some statements that are largely myth, with just enough truth to assuage the doubts of people who really do not want to wake up from their right-wing fantasy. For example:

The Kulongoski camp is well aware that Measure 48 is the longtime brainchild of legendary taxpayer-rights activist Don McIntire. He has been pitching the idea for a much needed spending limitation and rainy day fund since the early 90s.

This statement leaves out some very important background. Colorado's infamous TABOR amendment passed in 1992, which means probably two years earlier the measure was written, filed, and circulated to gather signatures. McIntire began pressing for a spending limit in the "early 90s." It would seem obvious to me he got his idea from Colorado, not the other way around. Ever since that time, McIntire, Sizemore and various conservative legislators have repeatedly attempted to pass a spending limit and it has repeatedly been blocked, either by legislators or by the Attorney General, who saw multiple subjects within the measure. When Howard Rich conceived his evil genius plan to spread Colorado's misery to other states, Oregon, with its right-wing dreamers and initiative process, was an obvious investment choice.

Supporters of Measure 48 never mention that similar measures have been attempted in 24 states this year (only 4 have made it all the way through the process), along with eminent domain/regulatory takings combo measures and term limits measures, and all have been financed by the same guy – Howard Rich. McIntire must think we are all idiots to expect us to believe his misnamed "Rainy Day Amendment" is a stand-alone piece, particularly since it has, so far, been almost entirely funded by Howard Rich.

As for the notion that McIntire has been pushing for a "rainy day fund since the early 90s," I can only say I've never heard anything about that, particularly in connection with a spending limit, until this year. It looks to me as if backers of the measure are just doing everything they can to try to equate Measure 48's spending limit with a rainy day fund, which it absolutely does not create. But we can't let the facts stand in the way of a good story, can we?

Next, Jayne says something truly amazing:

Evidently, Kulongoski fears a one-on-one debate with the populist McIntire. He should. No one knows more about Oregon's tax system than the father of Measure 5.

I always thought it was Sizemore who knew more about the tax system than anyone else. Oh, wait. Sizemore was the one who told me that. Anyway, the arrogance of the statement is really something. It means that McIntire, a cigar-smoking, heavy drinking health club owner, knows more about taxes than all the tax accountants, government tax law analysts and code drafters and code enforcers, state legislators, and governor. Whew. How do you even respond to a statement like that?

Jayne then claims the measure "will limit state spending to an 8.25 percent biennial increase while creating a rainy day fund for tough times." First, this statement presumes Jayne is an amazing prognosticator who absolutely knows how much population and inflation will increase from now to infinity, and that we will never again see an economic downturn that will include massive expenditures of unemployment payments. Of course, McIntire himself has been having a lot of fun with his claims that the spending limit would allow supposedly huge increases. If you want to take his word for it, fine, but in my opinion a look back at what would have happened if the measure had passed in 1990 gives a much more reliable picture, and just such an analysis has been done by the Oregon Center for Public Policy. It isn't pretty.

Jayne made another statement that made me nearly laugh out loud. She said opponents' "absurd claims that Measure 48 is a carbon copy of Colorado's failed spending limitation measure have been universally discredited." What's so funny? The fact that Measure 48 supporters keep touting the supposed economic growth that has occurred in Colorado under TABOR, but want to distance themselves from the severe damage the measure caused. How convenient.

And then there's this one: "To add insult to injury, they have the audacity to criticize the low budget, grass roots campaign in support of Measure 48."

I've worked on my fair share of "low budget, grass roots" campaigns. We never had enough money for an official web site or fancy lawn signs like Measure 48 has. But like Measure 48, in every case, a single individual or small handful of individuals donated all the money to put a fairly sure-fire measure on the ballot, knowing they would not have to spend a lot of money campaigning because the ballot title was strong enough that polling showed the measure would very likely pass without a campaign. Of course, there was always the added benefit that the opponents, namely public employee unions, would have to spend a fortune to try to defeat the measure. This would prevent them from going on the offensive on measures of their own or having enough money to support their favorite candidates.

So let me say something very clearly. If this measure needs the money, I believe Howard Rich, whose campaign coffers this year are exceptionally full, will find a way to get money pumped into the state. He's already worked things out to run a million-plus dollar anti-union campaign and a very hefty pro-term limits campaign. Clearly, he believes Measure 48 doesn't need his help. It isn't inconceivable that Rich doesn't really care about whether Measure 48 passes because he is trying to suck up public employee union funds. In any case, I hope Mark Nelson gets a clue soon.

The "low budget, grass roots" myth is Jayne's editorial is, of course, accompanied by the "face-off between the people and the politicians" myth. First, 162,000 people signing a petition means nothing. We do not know what they were told about the measure before signing it. Moreover, a fairly good number of that 162,000 were ruled invalid. This anti-government crowd on the right truly believes that as soon as someone is elected to office they become an idiot and can no longer be trusted. They have become a politician. The people always know better than those they have elected to office, even though elected officials are privy to a vast amount of information that the public never sees. So whenever a "politician" sounds a warning, even if it's "their" politician (i.e., Ron Saxton), that politician is automatically wrong because the "people" disagree.

We can't expect more from the Jayne Carrolls, Victoria Tafts, Don McIntires, and Ted Piccolos of the world. They live in their own reality. But before they succeed in leading the rest of us down their mystical path to la-la land, we had better hope that the voices of reason in this state speak out clearly and effectively about what fate awaits us if and when we get there.

Posted by Becky at 10:46 AM |

If I Could Turn Back Time

Apparently, President Bush and the White House gang are hoping that the 5th anniversary of 9/11 will turn back time and get Americans to remember a time when he seemed to be a leader that we needed in a time of crisis. Well, at least he looked that way on top of the pile at Ground Zero.

When President Bush and his top aides gathered in July to plan a strategy for the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, it was clear to all that they had to try to reset the clock -- back to a time, before Iraq, when portraying Bush as a steely commander in chief was a far simpler task, and before Katrina, when questions about the administration's competence did not weigh so heavily.

All that is fine, but its even more important to look at what has happened since that day.

We invaded a country that not only had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, but had rebuffed those that did it when they approached him, because Sadaam saw them as a threat to his leadership.

We invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and get Osama Bin Laden. The taliban is making a comeback now, including having the Pakistanis turn over the border to them this week, and Osama is still putting out tapes.

Homeland Security was created, and the first disaster they faced, Hurricane Katrina, showed that they lacked even the most basic knowledge of disaster relief. Before that, when there were concerns about chemical attacks on the nation's capital, they told us to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape.

The White House can try all they want to go back to 2001, but their performance since then shows that George W. Bush and his administration will go down in history as one of the worst in the history of our nation.

Posted by Alan at 07:58 AM |

September 08, 2006

Best Excuse Ever

I normally don't give a rip about what movie stars have to say about politics, but Brad Pitt has come up with something that is so ingenious I just can't help myself. Apparently, he and Angelina have decided to get married - as soon as gay marriage is legal.

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able."

Score one for Brangelina for cleverness. Seeing as how gay marriage isn't likely to be allowed everywhere in the country for years, if ever, that's about one of the safest and most politically correct marriage-avoidance statements I've ever seen.

Posted by Becky at 12:50 PM |

Series Highlights Post-Measure 37 Need to Cooperate

Dan Richardson and Sam Lowry have completed their three-part series on Measure 37 and the fallout for Oregon: "The Legacy of Oregon's Measure 37," "Oregon's Hood River Valley: Life After Measure 37," and "The Campaign Against Land Use Planning." It is an interesting, fairly even-handed series that seems to acknowledge something that I feel is very important: the land use battle in Oregon has been waged between two sides who have refused to compromise, and it is time for each to listen and respond to the concerns of the other.

Posted by Becky at 08:37 AM |

September 07, 2006

Could FDA "Solution" Create Worse Problem?

In an effort to prevent food poisoning and infections by such bacteria as E. coli, the FDA has approved the spraying of bacteria-killing viruses on cold cuts and luncheon meats. The FDA says the bacteria will be listed on ingredient labels as "bacteriophage preparation." Of course, ridding the food supply of dangerous bacteria that kill hundreds of people a year sounds like a wonderful idea. But as with GM foods, it's always risky to mess with Mother Nature.

One doctor has raised a number of concerns about the new spray-on virus scheme. I'm a consumer, not a scientist, so I don't know diddly about this stuff, but if you ask me whether I trust the FDA or a doctor who specializes in natural health I think I'll follow the doctor's advice every day of the week.

The list of concerns is definitely sobering:

1. "Bluntly speaking it provides meat vendors with more leeway to get away with poor quality control, poor hygiene and meat that's too old because it takes away some of the bacteria. Economic pressure being what it is, there will be vendors who will take advantage of this and who will then have a competitive advantage over vendors that *do* pay attention to proper hygiene and quality control."

2. "When meat leftovers containing this virus are disposed of, they will spread this virus throughout compost heaps and perhaps even into sewage sludge, providing a great opportunity for billions of bacteria to encounter this virus in great dilution under a variety of conditions. Who is willing to bet that no bacteria will develop immunity? This strongly resembles the same irresponsible attitude that was at the bottom of the American habit to prescribe penicillin indiscriminately for everything from coughs and colds to sprained ankles." The last thing we need is more dangerous drug-resistant diseases.

3. "Like so many other 'innovations' it only seems to benefit the producers of this virus by creating competitive pressures to use it if your competitor does so too."

I suggest reading Dr. Mercola's article because he also explains very well the rationale for even healthy people to go organic, including the carcinogenic properties of the pesticides and herbicides used in traditional farming and the fact that organic produce is higher in nutrients.

Posted by Becky at 09:28 AM |

There's Something in the Water

We've wondered for years why politicians talk big when they're running for office, and then, when they get to Washington, they don't seem to be willing to fight to keep their promises. Well, it looks as if there really is something in the water in Washington after all, and it may be affecting our Congressmen's balls.

Posted by Becky at 06:33 AM |

September 06, 2006

Newt's 11-Point Plan for Republicans

Newt Gingrich, co-author of the Contract with America, has a new plan for Republicans to run on: 11 Ways to Say: "We're Not Nancy Pelosi". His plan calls for Republicans to focus on "11 straightforward, morally grounded issues about which the American people have clearly defined beliefs."

Here are the 11 points he believes Republicans ought to campaign on:

1. Make English the Official Language of Government. This would include eliminating multilingual ballots and requiring those seeking citizenship to "pass a test on American history in English."

2. Control the Borders.

3. Keep God in the Pledge. Newt wants the House to "pass a law blocking the Supreme Court from reviewing the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance" – the relatively new version with "under God" inserted, that is.

4. Require a Voter ID Card.

5. Repeal the Death Tax, for Good.

6. Restore Property Rights. This, of course, is a rebellion against the U.S. Supreme Court's predictable decision that states have a right to decide whether they want to allow the use of eminent domain for economic development. Interestingly, most of the states have already responded to this matter, either passing new legislation or bringing the matter before their own supreme courts. But it makes for good press anyway.

7. Achieve Sustainable Energy Independence. Newt is talking here about things like nuclear power, tax credits for the auto industry, and increased off shore oil exploration, as well as development of alternative energy.

8. Control Spending and Balance the Budget. Although Newt says, "liberals will fight to increase spending," he also fails to point out it has been Republicans who have already spent our grandchildren's taxes over the past five years.

9. Tie Education Funding to Teacher Accountability. This would mean only providing funding to schools that "require teacher competency and accountability." What a political game that would be!

10. Defend America From the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam. Newt's idea includes just what every small government conservative would want: increased powers for government surveillance, for example.

11. Focus on Iran and North Korea. And here the fearmongering logic is just too telling to paraphrase it: "The American people are very prepared to believe we face extraordinary threats from a nuclear North Korea and an Iranian regime actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Any actions in Iraq need to be recast in terms of their impact on Iran. A weak America in Iraq will be unable to stop Iran. Stopping Iran is potentially literally a matter of life and death. Congress should hold hearings on the scale of the Iranian and North Korean threat, the statements of their key leaders and the requirements for action to replace these dictatorships before they succeed in killing millions of Americans. The Santorum Iranian democracy bill should be forced out of the Senate in the context of these threats. Everything about Iraq should be debated within this larger and much more dangerous context."

I fail to see the moral grounding on that last one, in particular, but at least he's been straight-forward enough with us that we can see where he would lead us if he decides to run for President in 2008 as rumored – right down the path of imposed moral virtue and endless fear.

Posted by Becky at 02:06 PM |

Blind Partisanship Could Do Us In

Congressman Ron Paul is pretty upset about the potential for the creation of a North American Union (similar to the European Union) that is currently being advanced without any form of congressional oversight. The potential damage to our national sovereignty is very serious, but will Americans heed the warnings? Will Americans recognize what we need to stand for or whom we can trust?

Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous. …

According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.

Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.

It all is just one more reason why Americans are looking forward to the end of the Bush Administration. The real question is, what will come next? A good friend of mine who is a former Republican has become so incensed by the corruption and lies of those in power that he has bought wholesale into everything said by anyone on the left. And I dare say that may be every bit as serious a mistake as standing by the GOP no matter what because you've always been a Republican. Any honest liberal will tell you that corruption is a problem on both sides of the political aisle, and when it comes to the potential for a North American Union, Clinton's support of NAFTA rings some pretty loud warning bells.

George Lakoff, Sam Ferguson, and Marc Ettlinger today have an opinion piece entitled, "Bush Is Not Incompetent" that is well worth reading, but also, in my opinion, comes to an erroneous conclusion.

Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush’s plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush's "failures" and label him and his administration as incompetent. For example, Nancy Pelosi said “The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader." Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush’s disasters — Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit — are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault. Bush will not be running again, but other conservatives will. His governing philosophy is theirs as well. We should be putting the onus where it belongs, on all conservative office holders and candidates who would lead us off the same cliff.

I don't believe the problem here is a matter of "all conservative office holders and candidates." After all, Ron Paul is a conservative, and he's pretty darned upset about what the Bush Administration is doing – and it is not difficult to find many others who feel the same way. The article misunderstands conservatives:

Conservative philosophy has three fundamental tenets: individual initiative, that is, government’s positive role in people’s lives outside of the military and police should be minimized; the President is the moral authority; and free markets are enough to foster freedom and opportunity.

The conservative vision for government is to shrink it – to “starve the beast” in Conservative Grover Norquist’s words. The conservative tagline for this rationale is that “you can spend your money better than the government can.” Social programs are considered unnecessary or “discretionary” since the primary role of government is to defend the country’s border and police its interior. Stewardship of the commons, such as allocation of healthcare or energy policy, is left to people’s own initiative within the free market. Where profits cannot be made — conservation, healthcare for the poor — charity is meant to replace justice and the government should not be involved.

This view of conservatism is deeply colored by the Libertarian influence that has been allowed to infiltrate the party leadership over the past thirty years. It does not reflect the true conservative mindset, which of late has been forced into hiding due to the libertarian infiltrators' and right wing's labeling of traditional conservatives as "moderates" or "RINOs" (Republicans in name only). I, for one, would like to see rational conservatives take back their party.

It is inexcusable that rational conservatives are allowing the radical, fundamentalist, libertarian-leaning conservatives to monopolize the podium, so to speak. As a result, many on the left have a skewed view of conservatives, believing all of us are wing nuts and blindly loyal to the Republican party:

During the debate over Iraq, the conservative belief in the unquestioned authority and moral leadership of the President helped shape public support. We see this deference to the President constantly: when Conservatives call those questioning the President’s military decisions “unpatriotic”; when Conservatives defend the executive branch’s use of domestic spying in the war on terror; when Bush simply refers to himself as the “decider.” “I support our President” was a common justification of assent to the Iraq policy.

Clearly, the smearing of the "conservative" label is following the model of the smearing of the "liberal" label, and both labels are nos burdened with the connotation of extremist thinking. About 60% of us, however, fit in between these extremes. Absent the divisive partisan prejudice borne of inflammatory rhetoric, that kind of rational majority should be able to agree on some pretty darned good solutions for America's problems and thereby avoid being run over by the wealthy self-appointed lords who are trying to modify our international trade laws and foreign policy to enrich themselves. The so-called "conservative successes" cited in this article are not conservative at all, but the people inflicting this damage on the country really don't care what you label it, so long as everyone stays busy hating each other long enough for them to complete their plans.

Alexander Cockburn offers some very good insight in his article on Counterpunch, "Will Bush Bomb Teheran? Would the Democrats Do Anything Different?," in which he looks past the partisanship to try and see what is really going on in our current foreign policy.

Though president Bush has now plummeted so far in public esteem that he appears to be deep, deep down in some well, the only reason we can see the top of his head is that he’s standing on the shoulders of some Democrat. …

Though the numbers are dwindling, some people still go through their whole adult lives thinking that the next Democrat to hunker down in the Oval Office is going to straighten out the mess, fight for the ordinary folk, face down the rich and powerful. …

We approach the midterm elections; soon thereafter the great masquerade of Election 2008 will commence. There will, I can guarantee it, be once again hopes for change, courtesy of a Democrat. I will remain without illusions and I feel more will join me. Like the Labor Party, the Democrats offer no uplifting alternative and, in this fraught world, not even the pretense that they differ in essentials from the Republicans in the way they propose to deal with the rest of the world.

I might even offer a maxim here: the greater the hunger for change, the more thunderous the popular cries for decisive, radical action, the more rapid will be the puncturing of all hopes, as though the whole point of the electoral exercise, of 1964 and 1966 in the case of Wilson, and of 1992 in Clinton’s, had been to demonstrate to those foolish enough to have thought otherwise the lesson that all hopes and fierce expectations notwithstanding, business will continue as usual. …

As is now widely recognized, most of all by the voters, there is no effective opposition here, any more than there is in the UK, where many Establishment commentators confide that they think Tony Blair has gone mad. But if the parties are identical in their essential programs, give or take mini-swerves from the norm such as tactical environmentalism by the Democrats to keep Green and Hollywood money flowing in, then why is there such vitriol between them? Much of it is plain stupidity. Many people in middle age keep the prejudices of their youth intact.

And that is precisely it. We so easily become distracted by the extremists' noise and by our own inaccurate expectations of each other that we don't hear each other and we don't work together and so nothing changes. Do we want to keep this great country for ourselves, or slowly lose it to the corporations, banking interests, Big Oil, and powerful families? If we want to keep it, then we have to stop this nonsense of blindly placing our hopes in our partisan leaders, who all rely on campaign contributions from those very groups, and start being involved citizens, watchdogging our representatives, telling them what we believe, working with them to get it done, being informed, using our brains, and trusting our fellow Americans, who are good people, not merely "liberals" or "conservatives."

Posted by Becky at 11:45 AM |

Kissing Katie's ass...and rightly so.

I was unable to catch the Couric show on CBS last evening as she debuted in the anchor chair, but Howard Kurtz loved it:

Katie Couric broke the mold last night. Her "CBS Evening News" was more magazine show than news show, more "60 Minutes" than Cronkite headline service. In fact, the number of full-fledged stories about something that happened yesterday amounted to -- let me count here--one.

From her "Hi everyone" greeting to her closing appeal for people to go to the CBS Web site to suggest a signoff line, you knew you were looking at something different.

And the journalistic quality was pretty high.

I'm sure some will say there wasn't enough news in the "Evening News." And they will have a point. But that's the tradeoff if you're going to do longer, more textured pieces and new features on a half-hour broadcast.

One of my main complaints against network news is the lack of indepth, layered presentation. For so long its been a spitting out of headlines and quick snippets sent to correspondents and then back to the anchor. The only watchable evening news, in my view, has been on PBS.

Based on Kurtz's review, I'll be tuning in to CBS tonight. Or at the very least I'll Ti-Vo it. We may finally have network news worth watching again.

Posted by Carla at 09:43 AM |

September 05, 2006

Imagine that... The President of Iran and Jeb Bush agree

Those who have been paying attention are not surprised.

The President of Iran hates liberal academics. Oddly enough so do a great many Republicans. From lonely bloggers to prominant rightwing demagogues idealogues to leading Republican politicians like Jeb Bush to the self-described "grassroots arm of the Republican Party" (notice the prominant citation of Ann "I hate liberals" Coulter ranting specifically against liberal, secular academics).

I submit to you that the greatest enemy of everything that America stands for and to the principles upon which it was founded is not the "islamofacists" that Bush and Rumsfeld speak of but rather is the unholy marriage between religious and political conservatives both in the Middle East and here at home.

Posted by Kevin at 08:04 PM |

MSM Doing a Bang-Up Job!

Did you know that the BBC reported today that four of the 9/11 hijackers have since turned up alive and well, but the U.S. Government has offered no explanation? Probably not.

Did you know that 14 million children in sub-Saharan Africa are AIDS orphans? Probably not.

Did you know that farmers in the central states have just been through the worst drought in 50 years, with winter wheat crops down 48%, alfalfa down 35%, corn unable to pollinate due to heat, and farmers forced to sell entire herds of livestock they can't feed or water? Did you know they are so desperate the governor of South Dakota has resorted to asking people to pray for rain? Probably not.

Did you know that more Americans have died in Iraq now than died on 9/11? Probably not.

Did you know a Monsanto whistleblower is claiming GM foods are changing proteins in a way that could cause a form of mad cow disease in humans? Probably not.

Do you know what John Mark Karr ate on the airplane on his way back to the United States after claiming to have killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Or that TomKat have finally allowed the world to see baby Suri? Or that Katie Couric debuts in her new role as news anchor on CBS tonight? Probably.

Do you feel good about that?

Posted by Becky at 02:08 PM |

Social Security "Reform" = Economic Imperialism

It looks like President Bush is laying the groundwork for his Social Security privatization plan. As James Petras writes, "The appointment of Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, the leading Wall Street investment bank, to head the US Treasury Department was a move toward re-opening Wall Street’s battle to privatize the trillion dollar Social Security program… Clearly the Treasury Secretary is party to the strategy of forcing a budgetary crisis by reducing the taxes on the rich and then blaming the costs of the social security and medical programs upon which the middle and working class depend." And as we all know, when Congress faces a budgetary crisis, the first thing that happens is they raid the Social Security Trust Fund.

The attack on Social Security, says Petras, is part of a larger strategy designed to enhance economic empire building. Combined with tax cuts and cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, the massive private investment in retirement savings accounts will fund the expansion of the wealthy in overseas enterprises while putting everyday people here at home at risk.

With Paulson as the leading economic voice and policymaker in the Bush Administration, the big push is to cut social programs, lower taxes and turn over Social Security funds in order to strengthen the expansion of US financial power overseas, both through acquisitions and mergers as well as by direct majority shares in equities. …

With Paulson freeing up more capital for big business, and the latter enjoying greater freedom to borrow risk-free in the Third World, empire building has the material basis to proceed with greater flexibility and with greater competitive advantages.

If the United States truly is a beacon of light in the world, then we ought to seriously consider the results of our imperialist approach to world markets: the bankruptcy of Third World farmers and peasants who can no longer compete in a world market dominated by corporations. Farmers in Asia, Africa and Latin America are all suffering as a result of the "free market" inroads already in place.

It should come as no surprise that the very same web of libertarian players who are presently working to pass term limits, TABOR and extreme property rights measures around the country are also working hard to privatize Social Security. Howard Rich and Ed Crane both have served on the Board of Directors of Social Security Choice (which is co-Chaired by Kenneth Blackwell of stolen election fame). The Social Security Choice website is a project of Club for Growth, a group whose Founder is Steven Moore (Editor for National Review, former director of fiscal policy studies for the Cato Institute, former staff member at the Heritage Foundation, and former staff member for Dick Armey, who is now the head of Citizens for a Sound Economy). Social Security Choice's Director is David Keating (Senior Counselor and former Executive Vice President and Board member for the National Taxpayers Union, member of the Advisory Board for the Initiative & Referendum Institute, and Board member for the American Legislative and Exchange Council). Howard Rich heads up Club for Growth State Action, and Peter Ferrara, former general counsel and chief economist for Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, founded the Virginia Club for Growth. Even Grover Norquist is getting in on the act. And not to be left out, the Cato Institute, on whose Board Howard Rich serves, has its own website on privatizing Social Security.

Make sure you head over there and read Cato's response to a "dishonest Social Security advertising" campaign – a response that is clearly playing a semantic game. Here's a taste of that piece of nonsense (note the caveats I have italicized):

Americans United, a liberal front group, has been running ads attempting to frighten seniors with scare stories about Social Security reform. The ads suggest that Republican candidates support cutting Social Security benefits in half and, as a result, forcing retirees to spend half as much on food and medications.

These ads are simply wrong on the facts. None of the Social Security reform plans being debated in Washington, including the one proposed by President Bush last year, would cut or change benefits for anyone retired today or nearing retirement. These seniors will continue to receive every penny in Social Security benefits promised to them. To say otherwise is quite simply a lie.

Even younger workers would not really have their benefits cut by the fifty percent claimed in the ad. Younger workers would be given the choice to voluntarily give up some of their traditional Social Security benefits in exchange for being allowed to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes privately, through personal accounts.

Back to the matter of familiar players, it isn't the least big surprising that on the Oregon Catalyst blog, which is run by the Taxpayer Association of Oregon, local puppet for Howard Rich's TABOR campaign, was an entry last week entitled, "Students Launch "Don't Get Screwed" Campaign. According to the post, "Social Security is another government entitlement program that is etching itself more and more into our lives, forcing us to be dependent on the government, rather than allow us the opportunity to be self-reliant. This is a scary thought for freedom-lovers, like me."

This campaign is harping on a common theme that the elite banking and corporate community believes will con everyday people into abandoning our retirement security and plugging our vast resources into their economic imperialist schemes. We see it again, in combination with the theocratic mindset, in this entry at The Conservative Voice:

Your voting determines if you want government to become a cradle-to-grave-nanny-state which demands higher taxation, increased bureaucracy, and as evident from the past, increased corruption and inadequate emergency response and healthcare. Your vote also signifies either your compliance with a secular progressive worldview promoting more government regulations, or a Biblical worldview of personal responsibility, commitment, and respect. … Are you secular or Biblical? …

Social Security: This temporary solution has grown into what FDR feared it would, a permanent dependence on government to provide what the workers could now easily provide for themselves.

Another tactic being used by these people comes from the National Center for Policy Analysis, which is playing to feminists by emphasizing how working wives are not getting their fair share out of the system. And "Team NCPA" offers this "fix" for Social Security's problems:

How to Fix the Problem

• In order to shore up Social Security's financial shortfall, the government must increase the program's income (raise taxes), decrease its expenses (reduce benefits) or find a new source of funding.

• One way to create a new funding source is to allow younger workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes into a personal retirement account (PRA). Over time, the PRA balances -- with their accumulated interest and dividends -- would replace an increasing portion of retirees' Social Security benefits, saving future tax payers trillions of dollars.

No surprise here, NCPA is primarily funded by Koch Industries (the founders of Cato Institute), the Coors family, Scaife and Olin Foundations, and Exxon Mobil. Exxon Mobil? Yes. You see, these exact same people who want your retirement money also use these groups to work for the elimination of environmental regulations that stand in the way of their profits. They don't care about your health or your retirement. All they care about is your money. But we have just enough of our democracy left that in order for these corporatists to get your money, they have to make you believe it's for your own good.

Their motives are international economic domination and their own wealth; therefore, one must be extremely careful in weighing the information they present to the public. Like many things these days, critical decisions are being demanded from a public who does not have trustworthy sources of information. We truly are like sheep among wolves.

Posted by Becky at 09:57 AM |

September 04, 2006

Lessons of Measures 5 and 37

Yesterday's Register Guard report on Measure 37 (requiring just compensation for regulatory takings) brings out two issues that are important for both opponents and proponents to understand – and both are lessons that should have been learned following the passage of Measure 5 (the property tax cut and cap). First, knowledge of a measure's financial backers can shed light on the outcome one can expect if it passes. And second, failure to address reasonable problems harming everyday people can result in a backlash that brings negative effects along with it.

Just as with Measure 5, voters supported Measure 37 because it would help everyday Oregonians - and it is helping them. And no surprise, it is also helping the financial backers of both measures, who invested tens of thousands of dollars in some cases and, after passage, took steps to benefit from the measures to a degree far surpassing their original "investment." In other words, the voters envisioned a populist result and, while the measures lived up to that promise, they also served up the unintended consequence of making some wealthy people even more wealthy while violating the intentions of Oregonians who demonstrably support land use planning and progressive taxation.

Of the three contributors-turned-claimants [to Measure 37] in Lane County, Veneta businessman Gregory Demers gave the most - $82,000 - to the pro-37 campaign, donating $57,000 under his own name and the rest through two of his many business entities, ATR Services Inc. and Frontier Resources LLC. …In Lane County, Demers is connected to three claims that, taken together, assert a reduced market value totaling $7.4 million.

The second similarity between the two measures is the fact that opponents have acknowledged the need but done nothing to address it, allowed everyday Oregonians to suffer intolerable costs and losses, fought vigorously against the only solution offered to voters using over-the-top "sky is falling" campaign rhetoric (i.e., you could have a pig farm go in next door), and only after the measure has passed expressed any sympathy with the beleaguered citizens who took matters into their own hands because their elected representatives would not address the problem.

Many of the claims involve individual landowners - some now elderly - who purchased property before statewide land use regulations went into effect in the early 1970s, with the intention of eventually creating homesites for their children or selling parcels to support themselves in retirement.

Even longtime land use watchdog groups such as 1000 Friends of Oregon express empathy for people who have filed Measure 37 claims for those reasons.
"We support an adequately funded system of compensation for property owners who have experienced individual hardship in the application of our state's land-use regulations," one of 1000 Friends of Oregon's position statements says.

Lauri Segel - formerly with 1000 Friends and now part of the nonprofit Goal One Coalition, which provides legal and research assistance to groups working on development and environmental issues, [said] when it comes to people realizing their lifelong dream of settling their children on the family property … "I personally think there's nothing wrong with that."

Citizens were complaining about regulatory takings long before Measure 37 passed. In fact, when signatures were being gathered for Measure 7, the original regulatory takings constitutional amendment, land use planning proponents had a golden opportunity. They could have recognized that we had a serious problem in Oregon with the loss of property rights. They could have lobbied the Legislature to do something about it. And by doing something about it, the pressure for change could have been sufficiently relieved to avoid the passage Measure 37 when Measure 7 was thrown out by the Oregon Supreme Court. But they didn't do it. Just like they didn't deal with property tax relief despite ample evidence that the public was increasingly inflamed over property taxes. To express sympathy now is too little, too late.

Posted by Becky at 08:50 AM |

September 02, 2006

TABOR Would Harm the Middle Class

The only real example we have of a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, is Colorado's version. Proponents of TABOR spin-off measures around the country, including Oregon's Measure 48, are simultaneously touting the economic growth in Colorado as reason to support these measures and distancing themselves from the problems that have resulted from Colorado's TABOR by saying their measures really are not the same thing. It is classic double-speak.

Steve Buckstein of Cascade Policy Institute, an Oregon-based free market think tank, exhibited this double-speak in his recent op-ed, "Oregon’s New Umbrella: The Rainy Day Amendment," in which he claims, based on the Colorado TABOR experience, that Measure 48 would bring Oregon "the fastest economic growth rate of any state over the next five years." But in addressing the problems associated with TABOR, he says, "Colorado’s TABOR amendment is actually quite different from the proposed Oregon Rainy Day Amendment." That is true. According to the Oregon Center for Public Policy, Oregon's version is actually worse. We'll get to that in a minute.

Colorado's economy has done well under TABOR, but the important question Oregon voters should consider is whether the benefits have been shared across the board, so that the majority of Colorado residents are experienced an improved quality of life. The devil is in the details. We know that the quality of the state's roads has declined dramatically in the face of budget cuts that have prevented road maintenance, that funding for higher education has nearly fallen off the face of the earth, that the state's debt per capita has skyrocketed, and that reliance on food stamps has increased. In fact, the economic impact on Colorado families in the middle and lower income sectors has not been good and quality of life indicators overall are beginning to drop.

A 52-page report by The Bell Policy Center, "Opportunity Lost: When Hard Work Isn't Enough for Colorado's Families," takes an in-depth look at the working poor in Colorado and finds that the state not only is not doing enough to help the working poor rise above the poverty level and begin to contribute to the state's economy, but that TABOR ties the state's hands so that it cannot help them. Moreover, since TABOR was adopted, the city of "Denver has seen increased disparities in household income, with those at the higher and lower ends growing more rapidly than the middle." The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Not exactly the American dream, is it?

The Oregon Center for Public Policy published a report in June of this year that said Measure 48, Oregon's version of TABOR, would make recessions worse in Oregon. In fact, the report says, had Measure 48 been in effect during the last recession, "all state services outside of unemployment payments would have been denied most of the population and inflation growth the TABOR proponents claim to allow. Services that experience increased demands during recessions, such as the Oregon Health Plan, would have been incapable of keeping up with rising needs."

If your mentality regarding society is that of a team player, you are concerned about the concept of "lifting all boats." This concern is not shared by the Libertarian backers of Measure 48, who believe each person is responsible for himself alone. One wonders why someone would choose to live in a society where people are not knit together by common concern for the welfare of each other, but rather look only to see how each can benefit from interactions with the other.

Measure 48 is not a good social move for Oregon, particularly in light of new reports from the U.S. Census Bureau showing that despite a strong economy, typical Oregon household incomes are not rising, too many people remain without health insurance, and poverty is not declining.

“Oregon’s economy is doing great, but the prosperity is not being widely shared,” said Michael Leachman, policy analyst for the OCPP. “Oregonians should be proud of the economic growth they are producing, but they should also wonder why they aren’t seeing more of the benefits,” he added.

The OCPP analysis of Census data released today shows that the current strong economic recovery has not restored income or health insurance to the levels that existed prior to the last downturn in 2001.

With TABOR contributing to a similar growth in disparity between the poor and the wealthy and a shrinking middle class in Colorado, one must wonder whether it is right to exacerbate the same problem already underway in Oregon by passing Measure 48. A state that has often been on the front lines in its efforts to ensure quality of life and opportunity for all its citizens ought not be lured by the economic siren song of Measure 48.

Posted by Becky at 11:03 AM |

September 01, 2006

New Comment System - Sticky Post

As the title says a new comment system has been plugged in to replace the default MT system.

Please let me know either here via comments or via email if you're having any problems with the new system.

As you all know, comment spammers basically forced our Blacklist function to get so restrictive that few people could get a comment through... including us. TypeKey works great but clearly was not very popular with our readers. So we've gone back to the system that we started out with in the very beginning - Haloscan.

Note that those of you with a firewall may need to disable or reconfigure how it deals with pop-up ads since Haloscan uses a pop-up script. I know that I've had problems opening Haloscan comments thru my firewall. I know there's a way to reconfigure the Haloscan script so that it just opens up a new page rather than a pop-up window. I don't have the time to track it down right now and I'm not sure we want to go that route anyway. Let me know if you've used that method elsewhere and prefer it, though. We can be persuaded.

Also note that for the time being the Recent Comments listing on the right-hand sidebar won't reflect new comments unless/until I figure out how to convert it or replace it with a script that will perform the same function with the new comment system. I'm pretty sure that one or more fixes to that particular issue are available... somewhere. But I've been working very long hours and work and won't have the time to even look for one until this weekend at the earliest.

Posted by Kevin at 10:06 PM |

Oklahoma Supreme Court Tosses TABOR

The Oklahoma Supreme Court yesterday refused to allow a TABOR initiative onto the ballot, saying that not only had signatures been illegally gathered, but that out-of-staters illegally participated in the signature drive. It had been challenged by several prominent Oklahomans.

George B. Kaiser, president of Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. and one of the petition protesters, said a taxpayer bill of rights "would have devastated Oklahoma's chance to compete for economic development and would have denied essential needs to our citizens."

"People on all sides of the political spectrum understood this," Kaiser said. "This initiative was sponsored by out-of-state interests with an ideological agenda and with no interest in Oklahoma's welfare."

Note the use of the word "ideological" - because this is exactly the word used by Howard Rich when he refused to be interviewed at the recent Americans for Limited Government Conference in Chicago: "It's all about the ideology." That ideology is the libertarian ideology, a free market system with very little (if any) government oversight.

Earlier I wrote a piece pointing out the emails between Susan Johnson of National Voter Outreach, the group that collected these signatures, and Paul Jacob, in which the two spoke freely about bringing in "pros" - out of state signature gatherers. It was obviously a violation of Oklahoma law. Nonetheless, Johnson said of the verdict, "I'm astonished. ...We were repeatedly assured by representatives from the Secretary of State's Office that people become residents of Oklahoma once they set foot in Oklahoma." That, of course, is not the case. Documents show she knew Oklahoma law required petition circulators to actually be residents of Oklahoma and live there - with the intent to stay.

Johnson complains the voters are being "disenfranchised." The fact is, it is these out-of-staters sticking their noses into local politics and disrespecting local needs and laws that are disenfranchising voters. Shame on them.

NOTE: If you are confused about having seen a previous link to this article with the erroneous title "Colorado Supreme Court Tosses TABOR" that was my fault - I posted before the caffeine had hit my brain.

Posted by Becky at 09:28 AM |

Drowning the Poor Non-Voters

Rep. Maxine Waters today points out the travesty of a Republican government that has so taken to heart the Grover Norquist philosophy of reducing government down to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub that it has literally allowed and even facilitated the drowning of the Gulf Coast. "Category Five Failures" recounts the pathetic response of the federal government to the needs of the victims of Hurricane Katrina, both at the time and continually ever since. Even more important, it nails the cause.

What lies behind this string of failures? While incompetence and corruption run rampant in this administration and the Republican Congress, the problem reaches deeper than that. A new report by the Campaign for America's Future documents the federal government’s failures and traces their roots to the conservative ideology that has a stranglehold on our federal government. Our country is now run by people who don’t believe in government and do it badly. They shrink essential services, outsource core functions and care more about politics than performance.

…One year later, the failures of our government to respond to the needs of the Americans of the Gulf Coast region are mounting. Ironically, conservatives use these failures to prove that they’re right–that government can’t be done well, and that the entire project of governance is doomed to failure.

This dovetails nicely with another editorial out today entitled "Time to be thankful for all that hasn’t befallen us," by Triston Abbott. It contains a wonderful prayer of gratitude on behalf of good, Bush-supporting, limited-government-supporting Christians everywhere:

In honor of those who suffered in last year’s tragedy along the Gulf Coast, let’s all step back and be thankful that we live in an area that’s white enough to have not yet been completely abandoned by our nation’s crumbling infrastructure. Please, put your head down, and repeat after me:

Dear blonde, Caucasian Jesus, thank you for answering our holy, Midwestern prayers. Thank you for sheltering us against the kinds of natural disasters that affect sinners and the lesser races, disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, and people who speak in different languages than do we.

Thank you Jesus for guiding our President and our Congress. Thank you for having them drown in Grover Norquist’s bathtub only those parts of our government that directly helped poor people, while giving them the wisdom to actually increase the government’s size, scope, and power during these past six years.

Thank you Jesus especially for having the men and women who make up our congress work in the most mysterious ways (much like your father). Thank you for not having them appropriate any additional money for Gulf Coast relief efforts until ten months after the hurricanes struck. Thank you for helping congress keep its focus, and instead spend their time considering constitutional bans on gay marriage and flag burning and discussing passionately the dire need to drastically cut the estate tax.

It would have been very easy for our government to lose focus from these important issues, had they paid the Gulf Coast tragedy the respect it deserved. Thank you, my sensationalist, easily exploited Lord, for both keeping our government occupied and for keeping our masses placated. You are truly a just and noble god.

You really ought to read the whole article, in which Abbott reveals the truth about "Rocky," the Katrina victim who took is FEMA trailer to Washington, DC to meet with the President and congratulate him on what a great job he was doing.

One other article, relating to the minimum wage battle currently underway in Congress, reveals why these government-destroyers succeed. Grover Norquist, a minimum wage opponent, chides Democrat lawmakers who are hoping voters will respond to a failure of the bill by turning out at the polls in November, saying that low-income workers rarely vote.

Perhaps if more of the "little people" voted, the Republican Party would start paying more attention to their needs.

Posted by Becky at 09:16 AM |

A Call To People Of Faith

One of my favorite columnists, Joel Connelly, takes on fundamentalist Christians, wondering if they are going to get away with hijacking the Washington State Supreme Court - and his faith.

In the most brazen claim so far in this election season, the judicial "guide" published by the Faith and Freedom Network states: "Please use for educational purposes only. These are not endorsements."

The Christian conservative group is, however, on the march toward the Sept. 19 primary.

"Help elect conservative Washington State Supreme Court judges and get paid to do it," Faith and Freedom advises in its electronic newsletter.

Oh, no. They're not "endorsing" the people that they're listing that they want you to vote for. They just want your to work for them and make sure they get elected.

But the writer wants to know what is happening to his faith, and who is standing up against this.

As a believing Christian, I see a hijacking of my faith under way -- something harmful to church, state and community.

The "guide" -- along with another put out Thursday by the Colorado-based Focus on Family -- focuses on gay marriage, adoptions by gays and "benefits for homosexual couples."

Is our "Judeo-Christian tradition" summed up in this narrow, exclusivist agenda?

What about church teachings on social justice, or that famous passage from 1 Corinthians: "But now faith, hope, love, abide these three: but the greatest of these is love."

What has happened to the "Judeo-Christian tradition"? The same thing that has happened in the Muslim faith and even the Hindu faith. Extremists have seen a chance to make money and take control of a group of people by controlling their everyday lives - and they're grabbing it.

Its beyond time for spiritual Chrisitans to speak out about these people, and one in particular that might seem a surprising player is doing just that.

Former Republican Sen. John Danforth championed Clarence Thomas' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. But Danforth, an Episcopal priest, has come to see in the religious right a force for polarization.

Speaking to the recent Episcopal General Convention, Danforth said, "In our country, thank God we are not killing each other in the name of religion, but religious people acting in the name of Christ have championed the wedge issues that divide us, that cut common ground out from under us, and make even discussing important questions so difficult."

"The marriage amendment, the issues of religion in public schools, the display of the Ten Commandments in court houses, the sad case of Terry Schiavo, and the list goes on."

I'm not surprised that Danforth is the person that is coming out and saying this, actually. I remember a story that Janet Reno told when she was running for governor about him.

After the Waco hearings, she received a letter from then Senator Danforth telling her that, even though the outcome was not what anyone wanted, she did the right things considering the information everyone had, and that he appreciated her honesty when she testified. That letter is one of her most cherished possessions, from a woman that has a lot of momentos.

Now, I'm not saying that I was politically compatible with Danforth. But he seems to be what I would term a "thinking conservative" and a man who has a strong spiritual base, which allows him to do what he thinks is right, even when its not popular with those that are around him.

There are wonderful people of faith out there, both conservative and liberal, and its good to see them finding their voice, especially in the last year or so.

I just hope its not too little too late.

Posted by Alan at 04:55 AM |