« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »

October 31, 2006

Of the people, by the people, for the people.

2973 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks, which caused an estimated $83 billion in both direct and indirect costs.

America launched a full blown war against the Afghani Taliban in direct response.

As of today 2816 Americans have been killed in Iraq, a war of aggression based on cherry-picked "intel", and at least $6.8 billion/per month in American taxpayer dollars (current estimated tally is $335 billion) is being spent so that the Iraqi Prime Minister can order American forces around.

What ought America's response be?

Posted by Kevin at 07:46 PM |

Let Me Just Point You Over There ...

Hart Williams, aka Ed Waldo, has written a really good piece today that explains the thinking behind the libertarian efforts that are gaining ground in the country today (including the TABOR ballot measures). Please go and read it, even though it's really long, because when you are done you'll begin to recognize the philosophy behind the numerous shocking events that increasingly take place today under the leadership of the right wing, which has fallen under the libertarian spell in so many ways.

Posted by Becky at 11:51 AM |

Sex and the GOP: Theory and practice

The practice (USA Today, 10/31/06):

The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

"They've stepped over the line of common sense," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. "To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health."

Abstinence education programs, which have focused on preteens and teens, teach that abstaining from sex is the only effective or acceptable method to prevent pregnancy or disease. They give no instruction on birth control or safe sex.

The National Center for Health Statistics says well over 90% of adults ages 20-29 have had sexual intercourse.

But Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.

Government data released last month show that 998,262 births in 2004 were to unmarried women 19-29, the ages with the most births to unmarried women.

"The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children,' " Horn said. "The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."

The revised guidelines specify that states seeking grants are "to identify groups ... most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock, targeting adolescents and/or adults within the 12- through 29-year-old age range." Previous guidelines didn't mention targeting of an age group.

The theory (George Orwell, 1984):

She began to enlarge upon the subject. With Julia, everything came back to her own sexuality. As soon as this was touched upon in any way she was capable of great acuteness. Unlike Winston, she had grasped the inner meaning of the Party's sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party's control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship. The way she put it was:

'When you make love you're using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don't give a damn for anything. They can't bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simpIy sex gone sour. If you're happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?'

That was very true, he thought. There was a direct intimate connexion between chastity and political orthodoxy. For how could the fear, the hatred, and the lunatic credulity which the Party needed in its members be kept at the right pitch, except by bottling down some powerful instinct and using it as a driving force?

(Cross-posted at p3.)

Posted by Nothstine at 11:46 AM |

Dave Johnson is Full of Pig Shit

Color me shocked. The Huffington Post today has one of the most inane, inaccurate, Henny-Penny the-sky-is-falling entries that I have ever seen in the non-wacky blogosphere (thank you, Don Rumsfeld, for adding that delightful phrase to my lexicon). Dave Johnson is warning voters that eminent domain ballot measures in four states (California, Washington, Idaho and Arizona) will require taxpayers to pay people not to put pig farms next to their homes – and he is NOT kidding!

There is a law on the ballot in four states that says if I want to open a hog farm or a chemical plant next door to your house and you don't want me to do that, then YOU have to PAY ME not to -- you have to pay me ALL THE MONEY I MIGHT HAVE MADE.

I am not kidding. This new law says that if you want to stop a corporation from dumping toxic waste into the river from which you get your drinking water, or stop them from venting dangerous chemicals into the air, then YOU have to PAY that company not to. I am NOT kidding!

The far right says that a government stopping a company from dumping waste into a river is "taking" money from that company. I am not kidding. And you had better take this seriously or YOU will be PAYING companies to not harm you and your families.

Big sigh. Did he ever actually READ the measures? SERIOUSLY.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about California's Prop. 90, which I had initially believed was an Oregon Measure 37 on steroids, based on the radical scaremongering reporting I had read. But when I actually READ the measure, I found it wasn't like that at all. Here are a few excerpts from my previous post, and I would again ask anyone to PROVE ME WRONG (I really like this all-caps feature. WOW, it's so EXCITING).

[The language of the measure] provides an exemption for public health and safety, it seems very unlikely to me that the California Courts will determine that environmental protections (which fall under "health and safety" umbrella) or zoning restrictions (ditto) are in some way a taking for a private use in violation of the measure's clear eminent domain context. It seems to me Prop. 90 actually offers quite a bit less protection for private property owners than Measure 37...

It's the old "They'll put a pig farm next to your home" scare tactic, which is utterly ridiculous as no sane property owner would waste perfectly good residential real estate by building a pig farm on it - and he certainly wouldn't be successful in claiming that being prevented from doing so somehow reduced the value of his land.

Which brings me to another false accusation about this measure - that the State would have to compensate private property owners for all the lost money they could have made if they had fully developed their land to its highest and best use. It is simply not true. The measure doesn't say that and no state has ever compensated people that way. In Oregon, property owners are paid compensation for their property based on its value absent the regulation that restricts future development. In other words, if you lifted the restriction and then sold the property "as is," its fair market value would be the amount of compensation. In California, if Prop. 90 passed it would be even more simple. If eminent domain is used to take any portion of your property or damage its value in any way, then – and only then - you must be fairly compensated for your actual loss. Oh, and by the way, your property can't be taken from you and used for a non-public purpose.

If I'm wrong on this, give me a sound LEGAL argument as to why I'm wrong, not a terrified and irrational answer based on some anti-property rights group's WILD INTERPRETATION of the measure. And to Dave Johnson, please, have a drink, catch your breath, read the measures, and look at it from a rational, legal perspective. You may not like tying the hands of planners who want to impose utopia on the rest of us, property rights be damned - and that's fine, if that's how you feel. Make a RATIONAL argument for your position. Otherwise, SHUT UP with the freaking pig farm argument. It is SO STUPID.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, the answer is YES, I am feeling particularly GRUMPY today. So what.

Posted by Becky at 09:42 AM |

The Fruits of Grover Norquist

One might be pretty thrilled to learn that Howard County has decided to give its elderly, limited-income residents a break on their property taxes. One might also expect that the king of tax cuts, one Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, would be supportive. Alas, no. He reasons that targeted tax relief only makes it harder to reduce the tax rates for everyone.

On its face, that might seem reasonable - if you ease the pressure to cut taxes across-the-board, then such tax cuts might never happen. One might, therefore, expect Norquist would then oppose any sort of targeted tax cuts. But that would be where one would be wrong. Because not only does he support a flat tax (which sadly will fall hardest on the poor and ease the burden of the wealthy considerably), he also supports eliminating the estate tax, capital gains taxes and dividend taxes - all tax cuts targeted to benefit the wealthy. Because they're the ones producing jobs, don't you know.

Perhaps Norquist forgot about the small business community, which employs half of America, largely on a shoestring budget. But I digress.

Norquist can talk nice all day long about tax equity and fairness and all that, but where the rubber meets the road, it's always the same old story. The poor and the middle class pay more and the rich pay less. His lovely words are worthless; it is by his fruits that you know him.

Posted by Becky at 09:37 AM |

You Know It's A Week Before The Election When...

The GOP trots out the 'gay marriage' card...again.

STATESBORO, Ga. -- President Bush has for months cast the midterm elections as a choice about just two issues: taxes and terrorism. Now, with polls predicting bleak results for Republicans, he is trying to fire up his party by decrying gay marriage.

"For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order," Bush said Monday. "Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and should be defended."

The line earned Bush by far his most sustained applause at a rally of 5,000 people aimed at boosting former GOP Rep. Max Burns' effort to unseat a Democratic incumbent. In this conservative rural corner of eastern Georgia, even children jumped to their feet alongside their parents to cheer and clap for nearly 30 seconds - a near-eternity in political speechmaking.

First of all, what New Jersey does is New Jersey's business. Remember when the GOP was the party of states' rights? I do, too.

Secondly, I'm disturbed that children are so indoctrinated by their parents there that they would jump up to applaud that line. Doesn't bode well for little Johnny when, 15 years from now, he's trying to come to grips with his sexual orientation.

But more interesting, apparently the economy and terrorism need to take a back seat to the idea of a couple of men getting hitched in Atlantic City. Because you know that will affect your life much more than those other two piddly things.

I hope that Americans can see through this, but my fear is that they won't.

It's Halloween, and gays have become the boogie-man for the the GOP. And it's disgusting.

Posted by Alan at 04:51 AM |

October 30, 2006

When Republicans Get Carried Away

I've been fairly awestruck by the Republican attacks on Michael J. Fox over the past week. I actually thought it would be a one-day story in which Rush Limbaugh would make the usual idiot of himself and everyone would say, "Don't pick on a guy with Parkinsons," and then it would be over. But wow. It just keeps on going. And today's entry by Ted Piccolo steps so far over the line of reasonableness it is downright hilarious.

The BIG DEAL today among Republicans is that Michael J. Fox has finally 'fessed up: he hasn't actually read the text of the Missouri stem cell amendment he spoke favorably about a few days ago when he maliciously refused to take his medicine in order to ensure he shook all over the place so people would feel sorry for him and vote to use stem cells to improve people's lives rather than throw them into the trash can.

Now you just have to read Ted Piccolo's take on this to believe it (warning: it's the classic case of a Republican getting so carried away with something that it no longer makes sense):

So, again, does it surprise anyone that Democrats are all about political power and really don't care about policy?

What it boils down to is political power for Public Employee Unions. Everything else... EVERY THING is merely a political tool for Democrats to maintain that power. Maintain an opening to that pipeline of money and power. I don't care if it is Social Security, stem cell research, oil or anything. It is all a means to an end.

I'm still trying to figure out what public employee unions have to do with this subject, but in the mean time I think it is worthwhile to point out that Congress is notorious for passing bills none of the members have ever read. Neither do their staff members. They vote on a bill based on "summaries prepared by the bill's authors, or by interest groups whose judgment they trust." And just for Ted, I linked to a Fox News story about that so he could know I'm telling the truth.

I would also point out that few voters read the actual text of a ballot measure they are voting on. They read the official summary in the Voter Pamphlet, maybe even just the ballot title itself, and rely on the judgment of groups and individuals they trust.

Did Michael J. Fox really need to read Amendment 2 in order to know whether or not he supported it? I think not. But just in case we all need to have read it ourselves to even comment on it, you can read Amendment 2 by following the link on the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures website. Or you can rely on their summary, like nearly all the voters will, and take what you will from the advice of Michael J. Fox.

Posted by Becky at 10:55 AM |

Radical Calls for Assassination of Half of Congress

Hal Turner, a radio talk show host who believes the Jews are ruling the world and advocates killing Mexicans as they try to cross the border has reached a new low. Now he says if you voters re-elect Congressional incumbents who he believes are ruining the country, half of Congress and at least three members of the U.S. Supreme Court will have to be assassinated. He even goes so far as to lay out plans for doing it using five-man strike forces. Because it's his country, not yours.

You can see his arrogance and lack of respect for the will of the voters in this statement:

All these things took place right under your nose, but YOU have done NOTHING about it. Well, you may be willing to give up YOUR rights, but folks like me will not allow you to give away OUR rights. … So again I say, if you re-elect the people who have committed these wrongs against us and our Constitution, then we may have to simply kill them!

I certainly agree with his list of complaints about Congress and what it's managed to do:

Curtailment of political speech through campaign finance law restrictions; killing innocent people in Iraq; that members of Congress don't read the legislation they pass; that elected officials ignore the will of the people; that politicians lie to get themselves elected; spending is breaking the nation's financial back; disapproves of USA Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act of 2006; and eminent domain ruling jeopardizing property rights.

But the problem with radical fundamentalist extremists of all stripes is their inability to modulate anything or keep anything within reasonable limits. If they don't agree with someone, that person must die. Yes, Hal Turner is no better than the terrorists.

Meanwhile, I wonder whether the Secret Service will come knocking at Hal Turner's door as they did 14-year-old Julia Wilson last year when she posted a drawing with the heading "Kill Bush" on her website.

Posted by Becky at 07:13 AM |

Losing The Evangelicals

The GOP has spent years bringing evangelical Christians into their camp. But they are beginning to lose their grip on them after years of riling them up for elections with promises that they can't keep.

Of the many disturbing trends for Republicans this campaign season, one of the most troubling is the drop in support among white evangelicals.

The number of conservative Christians with a favorable view of the party has plummeted from 74 percent to 54 percent between 2004 and this year, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Evangelicals comprise more than one-third of GOP voters.

The question is, where do they have to turn? The GOP is under the assumption that they have nowhere else to go, so they can keep going with the issues of division to keep them in the tent and voting, but that's not necessarily the case.

The complaints are familiar. Through every Republican victory since the Moral Majority was formed in 1979, abortion remained legal, gay couples won greater acceptance and prayer was still barred from public schools.

In 1999, Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, both veterans of the Moral Majority, examined these failures in their book "Blinded by Might," and concluded that politics was too corrupt to be used to spread Christian morality in America. A few other evangelicals suggested conservative Christians withdraw from politics and focus instead on faith.

The retreat never happened. Between 1999 and 2004, the share of white evangelicals identifying themselves as Republican grew from 39 percent to 49 percent, the Pew Center found.

It's unclear whether this campaign season will be different.

I do think its important that evangelical Christians retain their voice at the voting booth. However, I think it would be better for them as a whole if they didn't do it as a block, listening to their leaders.

Instead, I posit this - talk to your candidates about your spirituality and faith regardless of party. You may not get everything you want from them, but none of us do. But you may be surprised that there are people of faith and strong character on the other side of the aisle.

Posted by Alan at 04:34 AM |

October 29, 2006

A Racist or A Pervert?

I don't envy the voters of Virginia right now, trying to choose between Republican George Allen and Democrat Jim Webb for the Senate. Unless they have the time to really look into the facts, many are going to think they have to choose between a Racist Republican and a Pervert Democrat. Maybe I can offer some assistance.

Sen. Allen's racist past came to the forefront recently after his on-camera use of the denigrating word "macaca" to describe a non-white campaign aide of his opponent's. Other revelations include the fact that he had a noose hanging from a tree in his law office (think lynchings) and a Confederate flag displayed at his house. While governor, he called the NAACP an "extremist group" and, while resisting the establishment of Martin Luther King day, proudly announced "Confederate Heritage Month," the proclamation of which said not a word about the role of the slavery issue in the Civil War. Most damning of all, in my opinion, is that two former college football teammates have confirmed that following a deer hunt one day, Allen asked for directions to the part of town where black people lived and placed a severed deer head in the mail box of a black family he did not know, thinking it was funny. Oh, yes, and he is widely rumored to have used the "n" word on several occasions. Okay, so Allen is a racist asshole. What's the problem now with his opponent, Jim Webb?

Apparently, Webb has penned a few well-known, classic war novels, some of which were, shall we say, gritty and raunchy at times. They were based on what he actually saw during his service in Viet Nam and later as a journalist in Beruit in the 1980s: real-life horrors of war. Allen's campaign is excerpting the steamiest, most disgusting parts of these very adult novels, written for military men, and plopping them down on families' kitchen tables. Like one scene where a female stripper gets friendly with a banana. The most controversial, however, is a scene in which a man embraces his naked 4-year-old son and puts the boy's penis in his mouth. Matt Drudge's headlines have been screaming that Webb does not view a father's placement of his son's penis in his mouth as a sexual act – completely removing all context from the story. By western culture, this is obviously obscene. And while it is not widely accepted throughout the far East, where Webb claims he actually observed that very act, it is known to occur as a sort of affectionate or reverential act, more common when the child is an infant and more often performed by a mother or caretaker. Weird and gross, but then the world is full of weird and gross cultural quirks.

Another problem Allen's campaign is pointing out about the Webb books is that they are demeaning of women. Drudge writes, "Webb’s novels disturbingly and consistently – indeed, almost uniformly – portray women as servile, subordinate, inept, incompetent, promiscuous, perverted, or some combination of these. In novel after novel, Webb assigns his female characters base, negative characteristics. In thousands of pages of fiction penned by Webb, there are few if any strong, admirable women or positive female role models." I have to ask, was Webb portraying his own feelings, or was he showing the reader how life is "over there"? Many quotes from his books are listed, and certainly they aren't very "senatorial," but are we still living under the delusion that the halls of Congress are filled with moral men?

Let me ask you which is worse – that Webb wrote about demeaning women in the context of what he actually saw in a war-torn world, or that George Allen seems to have actually inflicted "harsh physical treatment" on his sister, who wrote a novel of her own that revealed that treatment. Allen responded, "Her book is a novelization. . . . I didn't write those passages in my sister's book." That's correct – he didn't write them. He actually lived them.

Personally, I find it amazing that anyone with political aspirations or an interest in being a political figure would ever pen a novel. Novels have smudged the reputations of a number of conservatives lately, and some of their writings are most certainly more offensive – even sick – than any of those by Webb. For example, Scooter Libby's book, "The Apprentice," made waves several months ago because it contained a scene in which a child was locked into a cage to be raped by a trained bear, bestiality with a dead deer, the rape of a girl by two men who had just murdered her father, and numerous sex scenes with underage girls forced into prostitution. Lynn Cheney's book "Sisters" includes lesbian love scenes, which really is only a problem if you are the wife of the Vice President in an Administration that opposes gay rights. Bill O'Reilly's "Those Who Trespass" features a repulsive drug dealer asking underage girls whom he has lured into drug use to get his "pipe up" – poorly-written, self-indulgent crap, really. It all makes me wonder whether maybe this Webb story is political pay-back for Democrats having had the nerve to out these Republicans' trashy novels.

Of course, no debate over whether the scum on the left is worse than the scum on the right would be complete without a weigh-in by Michelle Malkin, who thinks all the earlier to-do over Republican dirty novels was "pathetic." See, they were writing fiction. Since it came from the deep recesses of their imaginations, it's okay. Malkin then flings the good-old-standby Republican response in such cases: "If George Allen had written this book, not only would the left be going berserk, they’d be circulating lists of characters in his other books whom they suspect of being gay."

God help me. I want to punch something every time I hear that rationale come out of the mouth of a Republican, and it happens all too often. Usually, it's followed by the other good-old-standby that at least Republicans kick out their own when they find out about wrong-doing. Democrats rally around the bad guys. Look at Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton, for chrissakes. You know when this one gets thrown out there, the debate is over, and not because you're wrong, but because the person is so ill-informed they'll never believe you no matter how many examples you list to prove them wrong. For instance, I got into this discussion yesterday with someone and pointed out to them that Republicans have done nothing to oust Grover Norquist (the first example that popped into my head). The response was he isn't elected, so he doesn't count. And it would seem that will soon be a nice, easy response for Republicans wishing to brush off the Republican dirty novels, too. None of those authors were running for office; therefore, they don't count.

Webb, who is running for office, gave a pretty good response to Allen.

"I have lived in the real world, and I have reported the real world in my writings. I started working when I was 12 years old, and I fought in a brutal war. I saw its ugliness while George Allen was hanging out at a dude ranch."

So for all those confused Virginians out there, trying desperately to choose between a racist pig and a pervert, maybe this will help you sort it out. Forget all that stuff and ask yourself whether, in a time of war, you're best served by a man who didn't have to serve his country and instead lived a life of comfort and privilege, during which he could play "harmless" pranks on strangers after a day of hunting with his football buddies, or by a man who served his country in Viet Nam, spent years studying what life is like during war, and then wrote realistic novels about it that are today being recommended to soldiers as helpful reading by the military and being used in college courses all over the country. Personally, I'd throw that racist out on his ass every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Posted by Becky at 01:32 PM |

Theo-Conservatives Weakening GOP

A website I discovered recently, Faith in Public Life, lists daily links to articles that address the role of religion on politics. I found this article particularly well-worth recommending. Some highlights:

- Several Republicans are abandoning the party over theocratic influences. One of these is the former chairman of the Kansas GOP, John Parkinson, who joined the Democrats to run for lieutenant governor. His reasoning: "I'd reached a breaking point. I want to work on relevant issues and not on a lot of things that don't matter."

- A Washington Post/ABC poll shows 10% of Republicans will be voting Democratic. The Pew Research Center says only 37% of moderate and liberal Republicans care whether the GOP controls Congress, and 46% of this group feels theo-conservatives have "gone too far in imposing their religious values."

- Dick Armey, the former Republican leader in the House, said "[James] Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies."

Let's hope all this unrest in the GOP ranks results in a major effort to return some balance to the party.

Posted by Becky at 12:12 PM |

Israel's Use of Enriched Uranium Weaponry in Lebanon

It seems that during the recent 33-day war between Israel and Lebanon, Israel used both enriched and depleted uranium weapons. Two soil samples showed "elevated radiation signatures," which scientists attributed to either a "novel small experimental nuclear fission device or other experimental weapon (eg, a thermobaric weapon) based on the high temperature of a uranium oxidation flash ...[or it] was a bunker-busting conventional uranium penetrator weapon employing enriched uranium rather than depleted uranium."

Reporters asked Israeili Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev whether the IDF had been using uranium-based weapons in Lebanon. The answer: "Israel does not use any weaponry which is not authorized by international law or international conventions." Unfortunately, the weapons in question had not yet been invented when the Geneva Convention rules were written and are not, therefore, "not authorized." Is it, then, a stretch to assume they were used, particularly when a radioactive signature was left behind?

Posted by Becky at 12:03 PM |

:::ahem:::

Earlier this election season Democatic partisan made an effort to paint then Gubernatorial candidate Ben Westlund (I) as a conservative in progressive's clothing and strongly inferred that he only ran as an Indie because the GOP field was so crowded.

Westlund, along with former Governor John Kitzhaber (D), has officially endorsed Democrat Ted Kulongoski on Friday and appeared at a series of Kulongoski campaign stops on Saturday to stump for him against Republican Ron Saxton.

None of which surprised me in the slightest.

Posted by Kevin at 10:28 AM |

Stay In The Closet - But We'll Baptize Your Kids

The Catholic Church still wants LGBT folk to stay in the closet and not have sex, but they aren't going to punish our kids. Is Pope Prada going soft?

Children adopted by gay couples may be baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, even though the church does not support such adoptions, calling them "a pastoral concern," according to new guidelines for ministering to gay men and lesbians that will be presented to U.S. bishops next month in Baltimore.

The 23-page draft document affirms traditional church teachings on same-sex issues, such as forbidding the blessing of same-sex unions or marriages, and addresses some relatively new issues, such as discrimination against and harassment of gay men and lesbians.

An early draft of the guidelines welcomes celibate gay men and lesbians to take part in parish life while asserting the church's "right to deny roles of service to those whose behavior violates her teaching." Public announcements of one's sexual orientation "are not helpful and should not be encouraged," the draft cautions, and it says church ministers must not bless same-sex unions or marriages or promote them in any way.

I'm not too worried about it, though. I realize that people that challenge their authoritarian teachings (about Jesus' love, ironically) are a challenge to their power and wealth, so they're going to fight us all the way.

In the end, much like when they decided a few years ago that the Earth really does orbit the Sun, they'll come to see the truth. Or, more likely, admit the truth they already know. We are people that are just as good (and bad) as any other people.

Posted by Alan at 05:10 AM |

October 28, 2006

But We Are Being Sent To Iraq

Michael Grunwald of the Washington Post has a weekly column called The Zeitgeist Checklist. Overall, its a good rundown of "what's hot" in the news, and he adds a bit of humor as well.

Now, I'm usually not one to be nitpicky, but #4 stuck in my craw today.

JERSEY BARRIERS FALL Last week:-- Weeks on list: 1

[New]

4. Same-Sex Marriage. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals, while leaving it up to the legislature to decide whether those rights constituted "marriage." Gay-rights activists said they were pleased with the decision, and increasingly ecstatic that they still can't be sent to Iraq.

The truth is something different. LGB servicemembers are being sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the world. The only difference is that they are, by law, required to lie continuously about who they are.

The policy is officially called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", but the reality is that, in everyday life, you are "asked" any number of times, whether you know it or not.

"What did you do this weekend?"
"Are you dating anyone?"
"Want to go to a bar and pick up a couple of girls?"
"What say we go out to a movie on Friday?"
"Mail call. You got a letter from Dennis. Who's Dennis?"

The list goes on and on.

And what happens when you tell the truth? Or someone else decides to tell the truth for you? You are discharged. No matter that the military is lowering standards all over the place to try to fill the ranks. If you're gay, you're out. Period.

So, yes, we can and are sent to Iraq. We just have to be on guard 24 hours a day in order to be able to continue to serve our country.

So, while I applaud New Jersey and their step toward equality, our nation is far from looking at its gay citizens and treating us equally.

Posted by Alan at 06:38 AM |

October 27, 2006

Prineville Crybabies Don't Represent Measure 37 Supporters

Cheers to the City of Prineville for deciding its scenic rimrock views are worth paying for. And jeers to Grover and Edith Palin, who won't accept the money. The Palins want to build a home on their land on the protected rimrock (they could have done so when they purchased the property but subsequent regulations prevented it). They filed a Measure 37 claim, apparently fully expecting the regulations to be waived. Surprise. Prineville likes its scenic view so much it opted to pay to protect it rather than lose it. See, Measure 37 leaves that choice up to the government, not the property owner. So the Palins – nearly 80-year-old children that they are - have resorted to kicking and screaming on the floor and demanding they have their way. It means nothing more than the annoying child in the supermarket screaming because his mommy won't buy him a candy bar. Let's move on.

The only legitimate point of contention I can see here is whether the amount of compensation is just (though the Palins apparently don't want any amount of money). The Palins say the land is worth $200,000, while Prineville says it is worth just $60,000. This is not a novel matter; just compensation disputes occur all the time and they always get worked out. Nothing to see here.

Torrid Joe, whom I have never met but feel I would like and read daily, has taken a decidedly different view of this situation than I have. In fact, I was more than a bit surprised by his comments on this issue over at Loaded Orygun when I read them yesterday - where I'm rather phlegmatic about it all, he seems to have completely lost his composure. Now, I fully expected all the usual grumbling about whether people really understood what they were getting with Measure 37 and whether, when "educated" about its effects, people would still support it – and I wasn't disappointed. But Torrid took it further.

To all those supporters who said it's not about developing previously controlled land, it's about fairness: fuck you. If it were about being fair, the Palins would take their money and shut up.

I almost physically felt the slap and I will admit I am offended. I don't agree with the Palins' position on this, but none of it really matters anyway. So what if the only outcome they will deem as acceptable is that they be allowed to do whatever they want on that land, and so what if they simply will not take the money. It doesn't mean diddly squat. The law doesn't work that way now, it was never meant to work that way and it won't work that way in the future, and if the Palins don't like it, well, too bad for them. They can cry and scream all day and the rest of us should just move on without them. To say their attitude has any meaning whatsoever or is reflective of all supporters of Measure 37 is ridiculous. They represent no one but themselves. Torrid is simply making a straw man out of a crybaby.

And insulting potential friends.

Posted by Becky at 11:17 AM |

The Garden State Gays Are Coming!

Apparently forgetting that the Massachusetts court ruling allowing gay marriage was going to ruin marriage and our nation as we know it, social conservatives are now rallying around the recent New Jersey court ruling as their "wake up call".

The New Jersey court decision that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples was bad news for social conservatives -- the bad news they were hoping for.

"Pro-traditional-marriage organizations ought to give a distinguished service award to the New Jersey Supreme Court," said the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.

From the reaction, I can only conclude that the leaders of social conservatives like Rev. Land are only interested in power, not in advancing their agenda. I know that when something happens that I don't like, like a war with no reason or a ruling from the court that said that I have no right to privacy, I get upset.

Not social conservatives. They see it as a way to rally their masses to go vote so they can continue to have access to power.

And that's all the social conservative movement is - a way for some old white men to have power over a bunch of people, using "fear itself" as a way to keep them in line.

This is the first time I've seen them so open about it, though. I wonder how long "the masses" will continue to listen to them.

Posted by Alan at 05:12 AM |

October 26, 2006

Christmas comes early!

Jackson's coming home Monday, we found out today. He's spent all 134 days of his life in the NICU.

Great quotes that have stuck with me throughout:

GOD DID NOT DESIGN YOU TO BREAK
-- church sign near the hospital

A baby is God's suggestion that the world should go on.
-- different church sign

Keep your eyes open for the moment when hope appears.
-- Gordon Atkinson, Real Live Preacher

Posted by Jeff at 12:43 PM |

Even Arrogant Bastards Have to Follow Rules

Howard Rich doesn't like being restricted by rules. Since his early Libertarian activist days, he has continually tried to do as he pleases, everyone else be damned. There is a certain arrogance about it – a sense that rules and procedures are fine for all those less-intelligent schmucks out there who need some guidance, but he's smart enough that no one should be able to tell him what to do. He's right and that's the end of the matter. I've found this is a very typical character trait amongst the "stars" in free-market, limited-government activist circles. And naturally, for the rest of us, it is delightful to see the "stars" fall on their asses once in awhile and be forced to follow the same rules as everyone else. I'm having one of those delightful moments now.

Howard Rich's Americans for Limited Government has funneled at least $2.5 million this year to fund ballot measure campaigns in several states and also hosted a three-day "ALG Action Conference" in Chicago earlier this year. The problem is, during the time the group was dispensing of all that money, it was doing business illegally. Its non-profit corporate status had been revoked. The reason – the organization failed to file an annual report. A mere "clerical oversight," is the response of the organization. Just paperwork. How arrogant.

I won't go into Bill Sizemore and his mess, because I don't feel like it, but I will say he displays the same attitude about "paperwork" and rules. So, too, does Washington's Tim Eyman. If you want a good belly laugh about his paperwork problems with a recent set of initiative petitions he turned in, check this blog out. Eyman has a lengthy history of refusing to follow the campaign finance reporting laws that everyone else seems to be able to follow just fine.

If you want my opinion, all of these individuals are simply displaying a contempt for procedures and rules – a contempt for authority. They truly are anti-government because they truly believe nobody has the right to tell them what to do, demand accountability from them, or discipline them in any way. Fortunately, our system of justice doesn't rely on whether people believe they are subject to it or not.

Posted by Becky at 09:41 AM |

New Jersey Court Ruling A Win For Equal Rights

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples have the right to equal protection under the law when it comes to our unions.

The New Jersey Supreme Court left the door ajar for the approval of same-sex marriage Wednesday, ruling that gay couples are entitled to rights no different from those of heterosexual couples.

The court gave state legislators 180 days to craft a bill offering same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples, though it appeared to leave open a choice between calling the status "marriage" or "civil unions."

There is much discussion already about what this means, if it leaves the door open to "seperate but equal", and the fact that it was a "4-3 ruling". I want to discuss each of these in turn.

First, the seperate but equal argument. I can see where this is coming from, but the reality is that the court ruled that gay couples must be granted the exact equal rights and responsibilities as their straight counterparts. The only difference is that it allows for it to be called something different.

I'm okay with this, and I believe that most people are as well. What's important is that we have legal standing with our partners.

I remember the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in our country, when gay partners weeren't allowed to visit their dying companions, and families came in after a death and cleaned out apartments and homes as if the partner didn't exist - all under the law.

As long as the rights are there, I don't care if you call it Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, or Marriage. Just make sure we have the same rights as everyone else.

As for the 4-3 ruling, the newscasts that I watched about this made it sound like it was 4 in favor of marriage and 3 against. That is not the case. It was 4 for "marriage or something else equal" and 3 for "marriage only". The reality is that all seven justices felt that we had equal rights as partners, which is a huge step for us.

Congratulations, New Jersey, on this big step to guarantee the rights of gay citizens under the law.

Posted by Alan at 04:40 AM |

October 25, 2006

Much Worse than Union-Busting

Probably one of the greatest truths to dawn on me over the past few years has been that wealthy and powerful individuals have managed to convince good, conservative voters to bit-by-bit dismantle the support structure of the middle class and free up the unscrupulous from regulations meant to prevent them from trampling on the rest of us in their effort to gain wealth and power. I know that sounds radical to those who are still wearing their rose-colored "free market" conservative glasses, but it is the truth.

Mary Beth Maxwell today writes about one aspect of this effort - union-busting (and as she says, the problem is much worse than just union-busting). Thom Hartmann has spoken and written eloquently on the crucial role of unions in building and maintaining a middle class and he has played a large role in my own growing understanding of the issue. But the wealthy and powerful have managed to capitalize on the human failings of certain individuals involved in the union movement and used the union corruption cases to devastating effect in their effort to turn upright conservative citizens against the entire union movement - thereby unwittingly harming themselves. Having been anti-union nearly my entire life, including working for the break-the-unions political machine, I know whereof I speak.

Every middle-class conservative who sees their wages, health care, and retirement slowly slipping away really ought to be asking the same question that Maxwell asks:

Who’s willing to invest millions to undermine the right of teachers, nurses and other workers in America to earn a decent living and protect their interests in the workplace? The answer … reads like a page torn out of Christopher Buckley’s bestseller, Thank You for Smoking.

The over-the-top mudslinging by the Center for Union Facts, the National Right to Work Committee and other anti-union groups is nothing more than an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, hiding the real crisis in the American workplace. Too many workers in the U.S. still can’t adequately provide basic necessities for their families, protect themselves from workplace hazards or take care of themselves when they get old or sick. The firings, intimidation and harassment that often befall workers attempting to exercise freedoms of speech and association by forming unions are threats to our democracy. …

The motives behind assailing organized workers are both financial and ideological. Union-busting is big business. Just ask Center for Union Facts founder and D.C. mercenary lobbyist Rick Berman. ...

But the assault on unions goes deeper than the dollar. It is bolstered by a long-standing conservative political objective to eradicate unions. Right-wingers know something the rest of us seem to have forgotten: Workers still want unions because they are a powerful deterrent to poverty and unfettered corporate greed.

The rich are getting richer and the middle class and poor are getting poorer. Bush's tax cuts almost exclusively help the rich and deprive funding for services for the poor. The real value of the minimum wage decreases every year. Fewer people can afford health care every year. And the very same group of individuals currently working to free the market up for Big Insurance and Big Pharma, eradicate the minimum wage, protect tax cuts for the wealthy, and drown government services in a bath tub, is engaged in a concerted effort to destroy Social Security so we will all have to pay them to manage our retirement savings plans for us. The reason for all of these efforts is simple: The social safety net, the rules that protect the middle class, and a regulated benefit system to protect everyday people prevent the wealthy and powerful from becoming even more wealthy and powerful. They don't like being told "no." And they're throwing a very successful and devious temper-tantrum in an effort to get to "yes" at the hands of their victims in the naïve and good-hearted middle class.

Progressives have known this for a long time. Conservatives, it would seem, don't have a clue. They're still heeding the ideological siren song of the Grover Norquists of the world.

Posted by Becky at 11:05 AM |

Litmus testing democracy

One of the things that has really turned me off about todays GOP is how the rightwing litmus test fellow Republicans. That mentality seems to have perculated out into the general rank and file to the point that political issues and ideas are accepted or rejected not on their merits but on the merits of who advocated them in the first place.

Two of my favorite blogs are Blue Oregon which feeds the disgusted-with-rightwing-republicans in me and Centerfield which feeds the centrist/moderate-indie in me. Yesterday there was a post on Blue Oregon which kinda pushed all of those buttons at once. One of my favorite B.O. writers, Jeff Alworth's Room For Agreement, analyzed a recent poll indicating that moderate Independents are swinging Left in rejection of the GOP's "failed process of governance, wayward policies, and incompetent execution" and how the Democrats stand to gain from that rejection.

I agreed but pointed out that moderates aren't going to be any more pleased with litmus testing by the Left than we have been with litmus testing by the Right.

Jeff replied with agreement and restated his point that the Dems have an opportunity to retake the House and govern from closer to the center (than have the GOP)"to swing us back toward uncontroversial progressive change."

I don't disagree. But, I'm not sure that his suggestion will work out in reality. And I had to look no further than another post at Blue Oregon later in the day yesterday to find evidence to support my skepticism.

Another of my fav B.O. writers, T.A. Barnhart's post Just because I voted for M42 doesn't mean you're not a jerk, Bill is essentially a mia culpa where T.A. seeks to justify having voted for an Oregon ballot measure that he fully agrees with (as do I) but whose author is widely hated by Oregon Democrats. Rather than discussing why he voted for Measure 42, T.A., knowing that B.O.'s readership has shifted solidly to the Left over the last two years, and seemingly anticipating a backlash went on a tear against Measure 42's author. As if the measure's author has any bearing on the merits of the measure. Worse, T.A. indicated that he will never again vote for a measure brought by that same hated author.

That, my friends, is a reaction to an unspoken litmus test and is exactly the kind of thing that is going to hurt the Left in the near future.

Balkanizing the democratic process harms all Oregonians. It's what's wrong with the status quo and it's what's wrong with the leading alternative.

Posted by Kevin at 09:45 AM |

October 24, 2006

Democracy May not be for Everyone

Americans who still cling to the belief that we have made Iraq a better place by freeing women, ending the rape rooms, and ousting a brutal dictator might be surprised to learn that daily life in Iraq has become hell on earth. The rest of us, hopefully, know better. I don't number with those who blame this hell entirely on the United States because nobody is making these radicals brutalize each other, but it certainly leaves me hoping we didn't see this nightmare coming – it would be worse to me that we would expect it and plunge forward anyway than that we would be so idealistic and incompetent that we are now surprised by the mayhem.

The state of daily life in Iraq tends to lend credibility to the notion that in some parts of the world, people are so incapable of reining in their hatred of other sects or tribes or groups that only an iron-fisted dictator can maintain the peace. Probably not a sadistic dictator like Saddam Hussein and his sons, obviously, but I have my doubts as to whether democracy can succeed in a place where people hate each other so much that they will power drill dozens of strangers to death each day simply for interpreting the same religion differently.

Posted by Becky at 11:05 AM |

A Little Light on the Posting ...

It may be awhile before I can post as frequently as I usually do. Right now I am fighting iritis in both eyes, and reading is a serious challenge. I have been saving my eyes for my job and resting them as much as possible. Both eyes are very foggy and my right eye can't see anything in focus at all, though I am told in a few weeks my vision should return to normal. So until then, bear with me - and enjoy your vision!

Posted by Becky at 07:19 AM |

October 23, 2006

Stay the Course

The White House really, really doesn't want you to believe your lyin' eyes....

Posted by Carla at 04:35 PM |

The immigration conundrum

On the one hand we've got sleazy politicians like Congressman Sensenbrenner talking tough while making scads of money from undocumented immigrant labor both here and in Iraq, not unlike Oregon Republican Gubernatorial candidate Ron Saxton. And on the other hand we've got farmers losing millions of dollars because they can't get reliable labor after immigration raids.

While I find the typical Republican politico's rhetoric on this issue to be bordering on racist because of how they blatently ignore illegal traffic across our northern border, at the same time I find the typical Democratic politico's rhetoric wishy-washy and contradictory.

Here's the thing that I am unable to get past when I consider both side's arguments: rule of law

The simple fact of the matter is that it is illegal to enter this country by just wandering across the border. It strikes me as more than a little bit hypocritical for politicos to on the one hand be pushing for illegal corruption by members of Congress to be investigated and prosecuted while on the other hand pushing for amnesty program after amnesty program for those who illegally enter this country.

Either we believe in (and do more than just give lip service to) the Rule of Law or we don't.

I submit to those who favor amnesty programs that your priorities are in disarray. Either fight to change the laws governing our borders or stop picking and choosing which class of inhabitants ought to be subject to the rule of law and which shouldn't.

Posted by Kevin at 08:20 AM |

Prediction: cut and run Bush

I predict that by the end of this year, possibly even by the end of November, President Bush will propose a plan for Iraq which will effectively be a "cut and run" plan of the variety which he still attempts to pin on Democrats in hopes of turning public opinion against them.

Posted by Kevin at 07:53 AM |

October 22, 2006

Neil Bush Profiting from No Child Left Behind

Several companies wishing to have influence with the U.S. Government are buying up Neil Bush's educational products in the subjects of social studies, history and science and giving them freely to schools for use in the No Child Left Behind program, which is supposed to be focusing on math and reading.

The Washington Times Foundation, backed by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, head of the South Korea-based Unification Church, has peppered classrooms throughout Virginia with Ignite's COWs [Curriculum on Wheels] under a $1-million grant.

Oil companies and Middle East interests with long political ties to the Bush family have made similar bequests. Aramco Services Co., an arm of the Saudi-owned oil company, has donated COWs to schools, as have Apache Corp., BP and Shell Oil Co.

Neil Bush has also rounded up some interesting investors for his company:

By 2003, the records show, Neil Bush had raised about $23 million from more than a dozen outside investors, including Mohammed Al Saddah, the head of a Kuwaiti company, and Winston Wong, the head of a Chinese computer firm.

Most recently he signed up Russian fugitive business tycoon Boris A. Berezovsky and Berezovsky's partner Badri Patarkatsishvili.

Reading about the purple cow teachers wheel from room to room under Neil Bush's program to teach students a curriculum that negates teachers having to prepare for class themselves, as well as his recent program changes, from an individualized approach to a one-size-fits-all approach, has left me feeling less-than-enthusiastic about the program. It seems to me teachers ought to be rather insulted that the President's brother seems to think they can be replaced by a purple cow.

We all should be insulted at the underhanded tactics he has used to profit from a program put into place under his brother's leadership and at the expense of true quality education.

Posted by Becky at 02:44 PM |

Two German Chancellors: One Scary President

While German Chancellor Angela Merkel's public relationship with President Bush has been dominated by awkwardness, such as when he became inexplicably obsessed with a barbecued pig and later gave Merkel an inappropriate massage, it seems Germany's last Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, also had some deep concerns about our President. In his new book, he reveals how following 9/11, though he was fully prepared to stand beside his country's ally, the United States, he was very concerned about Bush's constant references to his Christian faith in connection with the response to the attack.

Schroeder said he could not reconcile himself with the feeling that religion was the driving force behind many of Bush's political decisions.

"What bothered me, and in a certain way made me suspicious despite the relaxed atmosphere, was again and again in our discussions how much this president described himself as 'God-fearing,'" Schroeder wrote, adding he is a firm believer in the separation of church and state.

Schroeder accused some elements in U.S. as being hypocritical when it comes to secularism in government.

"We rightly criticize that in most Islamic states, the role of religion for society and the character of the rule of law are not clearly separated," Schroeder wrote. "But we fail to recognize that in the USA, the Christian fundamentalists and their interpretation of the Bible have similar tendencies."

With so many voices out there whispering "theocracy," isn't it time people here at home started realizing that we're fighting an enemy in the Middle East that is, in fact, representative of where we ourselves are headed? Or are we too busy laughing at pig jokes and blushing at massages to recognize the very real danger bearing down on our democracy - that is, the Christian terrorist that we might produce someday if we continue down this path?

Posted by Becky at 02:22 PM |

My Recommendations on the Initiatives

I've made up my mind on all the ballot measures. Here are my recommendations, with links to editorials that explain why I made my choices.

Yes on Measure 39 (Stops Eminent Domain Abuse)
No on Measure 40 (Electing Supreme Court Judges by District)
No on Measure 41 (Sizemore/Freedomworks Tax Cut)
No on Measure 42 (see Patty's comments on Sizemore's Insurance Reform)
No on Measure 43 (Parental Notification)
Yes on Measure 44 (Expands Prescription Coverage for Low-Income Seniors)
No on Measure 45 (Legislative Term Limits)
No on Measures 46 and 47 (Campaign Finance Reform)
No on Measure 48, which I have previously written about here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (State Spending Limit).

Posted by Becky at 08:54 AM |

October 21, 2006

Bush Expecting War Crimes Prosecution?

Rumors are flying that President Bush has purchased a nearly 100,000 acre farm in northern Paraguay, where he apparently plans to settle after his term as President. The most interesting thing about this, in my opinion, is that last year, Paraguay granted U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court jurisdiction - meaning Paraguay may be the only safe refuge in the world for President Bush if he is tried for war crimes.

Posted by Becky at 11:13 AM |

October 20, 2006

Sour Grapes?

House Appropriations chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA), under federal investigation for corruption related to... financial appropriations he oversaw as committee chair, abruptly fired 60 of 76 committee investigators whose job it was to root out fraud, waste and abuse.

Me thinks this firing might have been of the self-serving variety.

But that's not what caught my attention.

From TPMmuckraker:

Lewis’ decision “has in fact stalled all of the investigations on the staff,” said one of the contractors, a former FBI agent, who asked not to be identified. “This eviscerates the investigatory function. There is little if any ability to do any oversight now.”
. . .

“In effect, no investigative function is going to be done,” said the contractor, who called the decision “misguided.”

“This staff has saved billions and billions of dollars, we’ve turned up malfeasance and misfeasance,” the contractor said. “It’s results justify the expense of the staff. I have no idea why the chairman would do this.”

Lewis' spokesman, John Scofield, told CQ that such complaints were "sour grapes," and assured the publication that "there is nothing sinister going on."

These investigators have saved the American taxpayers "billions and billions of dollars" and the REPUBLICAN Chairman's spokesman calls it "sour grapes"???

Any idiot can see that there damn well is something very sinister going on in Lewis' committee.

Not that anyone should find any of this surprising, mind you. This is just one out of many examples of the culture of corruption that has plagued Congress under Republican leadership.

(hat tip to Spyder for bringing this to my attention)

Posted by Kevin at 02:52 PM |

Vote Democrat and DIE!

Given that Democrats are highly likely to take over control of the US House of Representatives and have a pretty decent shot at the Senate, President Bush has a message for you:

YOU WILL ALL DIE IF DEMOCRATS TAKE OVER THE CONGRESS*

Earth to W: Its gonna happen, sugar. You'd better put on your pith helmet and gird your loins.

The good guys are back.

*Link fixed. Thanks, Kev.

Posted by Carla at 08:15 AM |

October 19, 2006

Iraq a "catastrophic blunder"

The war in Iraq has been a "catastrophic blunder" that has substantially increased the terrorist threat to Australia, one of the nation's most distinguished former diplomats said today.

Richard Woolcott, a retired foreign affairs chief who advised seven prime ministers, launched a sweeping attack on the federal government, saying that Australian democracy was not functioning as it should.

It's eerie how Woolcott's sentiments describe America under President Bush as well as they do Australia under Prime Minister Howard. Go read the rest and you'll see what I mean.

Posted by Kevin at 08:08 PM |

News by the Numbers

Just for fun, since there are so many news stories out there to talk about, I thought I'd just point some out that relate to my favorite number 11 and multiples of 11 (it seems at least a few other out there enjoy the same interest in numbers, so what the heck?). So here are a few of the many news stories from this week in which 11s dominate:

11 US soldiers are facing charges for the rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the slaying of her family; 11 more US soldiers were killed in Iraq; the federal courts have handled 11-hundred Katrina insurance lawsuits; Iraq attacks are up 22% during Ramadan; polio has returned to Kenya after 22 years; 22 Democrats have raised a record $1 million each to challenge incumbents in the most competitive House races; 22 civilians were killed in fighting in southern Afghanistan; 33 drowned when a bus plunged into a pond in India; 33 have died of dengue fever in India; former Senator Gary Studds died 33 years after his scandalous affair with a 17-year-old page; 33 Katrina victims still remain unidentified; only 33 FBI agents have even elementary Arabic language skills; 44 new waterways have been given special protection by the Dept. of Natural Resources; UK troops killed 44 Taliban; the Indonesian bird flu death toll has reached 55; there are now 55 million blogs; Tanzania's cotton output is down 66% this year; 66% of Israelis believe President Katsav should resign; flooding has severely damaged 66 miles of Alaska highway, leaving the port of Valdez isolated; Hawaii's earthquake registered 6.6 on the Richter scale; Southwest Airlines net income has dropped 77%; Capital Bank's profits rose 88% to 3.3 million for the quarter; after spending $11 million on California's Prop. 88 backers have all but abandoned it; 99 soldiers were killed by a blast in Sri Lanka; 110 were injured and 1 died in a Metro train crash in Rome; suicide bombers killed 110 around the world on the same day; and the Dow Jones has hit a 110-year high.

Posted by Becky at 12:08 PM |

Campaign Finance Reform - change the paradigm

I just read a post over at Blue Oregon on campaign finance reform and it got me to thinking...

I utterly reject any suggestion that spending money is a form of "Speech" in a constitutional sense of the word. Therefore I'm very partial to CFR approaches involving limited spending as well as voter-owned systems such as Portland has. But the reality is that there are ways around every approach. Big money will find its way into campaigns one way or another.

So change the paradigm!

Instead of trying to cap spending, why don't we instead force uberly strict disclosure of exactly who, where, why, when and how much money was given and used on any kind of election issue, whether it be for candidates or referendums or ballot initiatives.

Any type of campaigning (mailings, radio/TV/newspaper ads) would have to contain a disclosure akin to the Surgeon General's warning on tobacco products listing where the money came from, who gave it and what state that entity operates from. And make it the rule that this disclosure has to be in the same font size as the largest font used in the advertisement. The only exception should be private donations from individuals. Anything that came from another PAC or any sort of corporate or political entity would have to be included.

Further, we should institute a fee on any and all non-individual donations which would go to the Secretary of State's office and would be used to pay for broad dissemination of the who, what, where, when and how much data... to be published and posted in a prominent place in... say every publically-owned library in the state (including all school libraries) to make it as accessable as possible for the average citizen to take a peek at exactly who is trying to get them to vote a particular way on any given candidate/referendum/measure.

So for example, a group calling itself something innocent-sounding like Oregon Family Farm Association PAC which is being funded primarily by the timber industry and real estate developers to push Ballot Measure 40 (to create geographical districts from which Oregon Supreme Court and circuit court judges would be elected) should be fully identified as such using the above procedures. Who, what, where, when and how much.

Then let them all spend as much as they like.

Posted by Kevin at 09:38 AM |

More Spying on Americans

FBI Director Robert Mueller is now asking Internet service providers to record and retain records of users' online activities because "terrorists coordinate their plans cloaked in the anonymity of the Internet." Last month Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asked Congress to pass federal legislation requiring private companies to record information about their customers for the FBI. They are also considering asking search engine websites to retain records of individuals' searches. The European Parliament has already approved a similar law that will take effect in 2008.

Posted by Becky at 09:19 AM |

Inexplicably Upbeat? Perhaps Not

A few days ago, after reading reports that President Bush and Karl Rove were "inexplicably upbeat" about Republicans' chances on election day, I asked the question, "Are Bush and Rove in denial? Or is it something else?" If this post at Daily Kos is correct, then they very definitely have something up their sleeves and it stinks to high heaven.

According to the post, a GOP insider close to Ken Mehlman has disclosed that losing either the House or the Senate will be "impossible" because of a GOP scheme that has purged enormous numbers of Democrats from four key states' voter rolls – including Ohio, where 1.2 million have already been purged. The dastardliness of the process will turn your stomach, but you must read it anyway.

Posted by Becky at 09:06 AM |

October 18, 2006

High School Color-Codes Students By Type

Sometimes you can't help but ask, "What were they thinking?" This is one of those times.

For some reason that I will never understand, Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland, has decided that all students must at all times wear a color-coded ID badge. Senior badges are black, freshman are red, magnet students are white, future scientists are maroon, diplomats in training are purple, future entrepreneurs are dark blue, advanced students are brown and white, and students whose English language proficiency is lacking are yellow. The badges come in 11 different colors.

School officials thought the students would like the color-coding system, believing it would help build a sense of identity for various sub-groups. Have they already forgotten what high school is like, with most everyone wanting to just be like everyone else? Students are complaining that the badges only amplify their differences. No duh.

The student newspaper polled the students on their opinions about the badges, and more than 600 responses were received. Nearly two-thirds said the color-coded badges were a "hideous embarrassment," while only 6 percent thought they were "awesome." The badges, however, remain. Seems in this case the students are more American and more perceptive than their school administrators. I hope all the various sub-groups decide they should stick together and all at once throw off the badges in mass protest and refuse to ever wear them again.

Posted by Becky at 11:18 AM |

European Libertarian Advises U.S. Against Universal Health Care

Stephen Pollard, the director of the health policy program at the Libertarian Centre for the New Europe is advising Americans not to adopt a universal health-care system which, he says, is "ultimately flawed."

Pollard pointed to increasing taxes, decreased productivity and public services, as well as long waiting times. He said that those in need of cataract surgery or hip replacements must wait 18 months to two years to see a specialist.

I'm not sure why Pollard is called an "expert" in health care, seeing as how he is more a journalist than anything else, but then this was reported by CNS News (Conservative News Service), which is far from unbiased. Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy and public health at Johns Hopkins University (probably just a bit more of an expert than Mr. Pollard) disagrees, saying we need to reform the U.S. health system, which is already costing fed-up Americans twice what it ought to cost.

"We're not doing very well," said Anderson, noting that the World Health Organization ranks the American health system 37th in the world on overall performance. "We're spending twice as much, but we're not getting twice the results," he said. "You go to a U.S. hospital and you are basically spending 130 percent more than you are in another country."

I ask you, which is worse: rich and poor alike waiting 18 months for a treatment they need, or many people not being able to ever afford the treatment they need? Clearly, neither alternative is perfect. But as someone who lives a healthy lifestyle but has systemic health problems, and who has so many pre-existing conditions that I cannot get health insurance, yet who makes enough money that I cannot qualify for any public assistance with my health care, I have to agree with Prof. Anderson that something must be done.

The New Yorker had this to say about the problem (read the whole article – it's very good):

The U. S. health-care system, according to “Uninsured in America,” has created a group of people who increasingly look different from others and suffer in ways that others do not. The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills. Half of the uninsured owe money to hospitals, and a third are being pursued by collection agencies. Children without health insurance are less likely to receive medical attention for serious injuries, for recurrent ear infections, or for asthma. Lung-cancer patients without insurance are less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation treatment. Heart-attack victims without health insurance are less likely to receive angioplasty. People with pneumonia who don’t have health insurance are less likely to receive X rays or consultations. The death rate in any given year for someone without health insurance is twenty-five per cent higher than for someone with insur-ance. Because the uninsured are sicker than the rest of us, they can’t get better jobs, and because they can’t get better jobs they can’t afford health insurance, and because they can’t afford health insurance they get even sicker.

I have chosen to pursue natural approaches as much as possible because I believe they work better than western medicine in many cases. Few Americans these days understand proper nutrition and many can't afford fresh produce and organic food. Instead, they have no choice but to live on such fare as macaroni and cheese, ramen noodles, and other cheap processed foods, all of which destroy their health. They either suffer with pain and illness or are pushed through the patient assembly line by doctors who won't take more than 7 minutes with them before prescribing pharmaceuticals.

As I was pondering universal health care yesterday following a one-hour in-depth conversation with my naturopathic physician, it occurred to me that naturopathic treatment most certainly ought to be included in any single-payer health care system we have. The last thing we need is to have the powerful, self-interested pharmaceutical companies monopolizing medical treatment for Americans. It that did happen, people like me, who actually want to get at the root causes of health issues rather than continually take the bandaid approach, will still have nowhere to turn. And worse, we'll be facing increased taxes to pay for a health care system that doesn't make people more healthy, leaving us less able to pay for the care we need.

And wouldn't it be wonderful if we had laws requiring organic, whole foods be served in our school cafeterias? Not only would it open up a huge new market for organic food producers and ensure their financial stability, it would also teach our children from an early age how to eat for life. Can you imagine the long-term savings for the health care system if more people were eating healthy food?

Posted by Becky at 10:56 AM |

You poor, self-deluded fools

When the city of Berkeley California denied the Sea Scouts free berthing rights at the city-owned marina there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth on the Religious Right. When the California Supremes sided with Berkeley there was even more weeping and gnashing of teeth. But then it got appealed to the US Supremes and suddenly the Religious Right felt they would finally get the horrible injustice righted. After all, aren't Seven of nine Justices on the SCOTUS Republican picks with four of those coming from Reagan and Dubya alone?

Ah, but the religious right found themselves holding something akin to the title to the Brooklyn Bridge when the SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal, as this Freeper exchange illustrates:

To: SmithL

"The justices on Monday let stand a unanimous California Supreme Court ruling that the city of Berkeley may treat the Berkeley Sea Scouts differently from other nonprofits because the Scouts bar atheists and gays."

Have the President's two "conservative" appointees ruled conservatively on a single case yet? This sure looks like the same old liberal SCOTUS to me.
5 posted on 10/16/2006 8:10:29 AM PDT by TheCrusader

You poor, self-deluded fools. Can't you see that the GOP has only used you? Like Representative Foley dreamed of doing to underage Congressional Pages, they bent you over and rode you to electoral victory time after time. But each time once the deed was done they wiped themselves off and left you right where they'd found you... Oh sure, they've figured out which special catch phrases get your motor running. But can't you see that it's nothing more than foreplay for the upcoming election?

The thing is, those two Justices that Bush nominated to the bench are political idealogues not social idealogues. They don't give a flying fig about your desire to recreate a theocracy which never existed, much less your larger fantasy of waging world-wide crusades against all those godless heathens out there. They do want a new world order, but one in which a future Republican achieves world hegemony. Why do you think they've got such a hard-on for that whole "unitary executive" claptrap?

I know that the revelations by David Kuo of the barely contained contempt that Karl Rove et al have for you rightwing types has caused a lot of consternation and lame attempted denials by your political leaders. But wake up and smell the coffee, guys. Your leaders are in on the scam. Dobson clearly puts politics before principles. Ralph Reed sold you out to Jack Abramoff and mocked your gullibility in private emails to Abramoff when you blindly followed his directions. And look at Abramoff's other partners in crime. Tom DeLay sure couched his words to sound wonderfully Christian. But he too was more than willing to use you to further pad the foreign back accounts of his powerful clients, including at least one wealthy Chinese communist. Isn't that the same Chinese communist government that's persecuting those home churches all over China? But just look at how loyally you fools signed up every time DeLay wanted something done.

You've been used.

Worse, you were a willing partner to the deed.

You've got nobody to blame but yourselves if you keep dropping your knickers every time a Republican winks at you.

Posted by Kevin at 08:45 AM |

October 17, 2006

Juicy Gossip About Mark Foley

I know what I'm about to tell you is pure speculation, but I'm a woman; therefore, I have a license to gossip. And this one is just too good not to pass on. Sanho Tree at Counterpunch is speculating that perhaps the Republicans sat on the Mark Foley scandal because they were able to use the information they had against him to win a last-minute change in his vote on Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) – the key swing vote, as it turns out.

On the night of the vote, President Bush had called Foley to pressure him to change his anti-CAFTA position. The South Florida Congressman was not only under pressure from the White House, but also from the House Republican Leadership to support the bill. But Foley received huge campaign contributions from the Florida sugar lobby, which bitterly opposed CAFTA and Foley had loyally followed his benefactor's wishes in previous votes. That he would flip his position under pressure raises some serious questions.

It was a very curious turn-around for Foley.

Just a month before the vote, he told the House Ways and Means Committee, "I have heard some of my colleagues say we can't turn our backs on people in Guatemala. Well, I can't turn my back on people in South Bay and Canal Point, Lewiston, and LaBelle, whose lives are closely linked to this industry. Not the big growers, not the thousand-acre plantations, but the mom and pop [growers] who have 50 acres, 100 acres in production. That is all they have."

It's all very interesting, particularly in light of the fact that Republicans knew about Foley as early as 2001, by some accounts. And it certainly wouldn't be the first time prominent politicians were sexually blackmailed.

Posted by Becky at 09:16 AM |

October 16, 2006

In Defense of California's Prop. 90

Today my Mom, knowing the depth of my support for private property rights and my disdain for Howard Rich's campaign of subterfuge this election season, asked me to advise her on how to vote on California's Prop. 90 – the so-called "Kelo-plus" initiative placed on the ballot using Rich's money. My first reaction was to repeat what I've been hearing and believing all along – that the eminent domain abuse portion of the measure was simply a convenient cover for a Measure-37-on-steroids just compensation measure. I'd read excerpts of the measure before, but decided that before giving my opinion, I would read the full text of the measure. What I found surprised me.

Now I will readily admit I'm no lawyer, and in fact, that's why I'm offering this post – because someone out there is and can correct me if I'm wrong. Because after reading the measure, I think the horror stories are a bunch of crock.

One of the claims opponents make is that if Prop. 90 passes, then any regulation whatsoever that in any way since time immemorial damaged private property, no matter how minutely, must be revoked or compensation paid. The pertinent section of the measure is in item 8, way down under section (b), and it reads:

8. Except when taken to protect public health and safety, "damage" to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. "Government action" shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.

The catch, however, is the context, all of which has been set long before arriving at item 8. Under the "Statement of Purpose," which guides the interpretation of the measure, it is made very clear what the measure is intended to do and it says nothing whatsoever about takings unrelated to the application of eminent domain for public use:

(c) Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or damaged.

The key phrase here is "for a public use." The measure itself defines "public use" in no uncertain terms in section (b):

1. "Public use" shall have a distinct and more narrow meaning than the term "public purpose;" its limiting effect prohibits takings expected to result in transfers to non-governmental owners on economic development or tax revenue enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact, even though these uses may serve otherwise legitimate public purposes.

Seeing as how section 8 above provides an exemption for public health and safety, it seems very unlikely to me that the California Courts will determine that environmental protections (which fall under "health and safety" umbrella) or zoning restrictions (ditto) are in some way a taking for a private use in violation of the measure's clear eminent domain context. It seems to me Prop. 90 actually offers quite a bit less protection for private property owners than Measure 37, which, as I've said here before, I still support (yes, I know many of my readers do not, but I love you anyway). As for the term "substantial" in connection with property "damage," interpretations of that term in connection with property rights have long been an extremely subjective matter.

Finally, after reading news reports from California newspapers about the imminent danger posed by Prop. 90, I'm convinced the press has lost all sense of rationality about this measure, just as they did here in Oregon when we passed Measure 37 - and they're also way overstating the negative repercussions of our Measure 37 to try to scare California voters away from Prop. 90. It's the old "They'll put a pig farm next to your home" scare tactic, which is utterly ridiculous as no sane property owner would waste perfectly good residential real estate by building a pig farm on it - and he certainly wouldn't be successful in claiming that being prevented from doing so somehow reduced the value of his land.

Which brings me to another false accusation about this measure - that the State would have to compensate private property owners for all the lost money they could have made if they had fully developed their land to its highest and best use. It is simply not true. The measure doesn't say that and no state has ever compensated people that way. In Oregon, property owners are paid compensation for their property based on its value absent the regulation that restricts future development. In other words, if you lifted the restriction and then sold the property "as is," its fair market value would be the amount of compensation. In California, if Prop. 90 passed it would be even more simple. If eminent domain is used to take any portion of your property or damage its value in any way, then – and only then - you must be fairly compensated for your actual loss. Oh, and by the way, your property can't be taken from you and used for a non-public purpose.

Can someone explain to me what I'm missing here, without launching into an anti-Measure 37 tirade, seeing as how it's a moot point anyway?

Posted by Becky at 09:55 PM |

God Hates Fags (and Little Amish Girls, Too)

In yet another shocking display, Pastor Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, which has made headlines over the past year picketing soldiers' funerals (claiming their deaths are America's punishment from God for tolerating homosexuality), have decided to picket the funerals of the five Amish girls killed last week by a mentally disturbed man in Lancaster County, PA. What, you might ask, could Phelps possibly find to celebrate in the deaths of five innocent little girls? After all, there wasn't anything homosexual about it, was there?

Actually, yes there was, but you probably just missed it. You see, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has committed "blasphemous sins" against the church by mocking, ridiculing and condemning it on national Fox television. God used the madman to punish the whole state of Pennsylvania for Rendell's horrid rebuke of His chosen people. God's first planned punishment didn't quite turn out as evil as He had hoped, however. The madman was unable to follow through on his plans to rape the little girls because he ran out of time and had to kill himself. Not to worry - the ever-loving Pastor Phelps and his blessed congregation have assured the public that they are "continuing to pray for even worse punishment upon Pennsylvania."

If you are like me, you don't quite understand what can go wrong in a person's head that they will believe in or worship a God who would do such things. That the man has an entire congregation following him around is even more puzzling. But, if his "God Hates Fags" website is correct, the reason I can't understand is because I am not one of God's Elect (the chosen, true followers of Christ). If I was, then I would certainly understand - and probably be kept busy praying for that predicted Pacific tsunami to wipe out the gay-loving Northwest.

Posted by Becky at 08:19 PM |

Gays and Christians in Tug-of-War for GOP

You would have to be blind not to notice the tug-of-war going on in the Republican Party between those who support gay rights and members of the Christian Right, who don't. The latest chapter in this ongoing saga involves the furor over Condoleezza Rice's swearing in of an openly gay man, Mark Dybul, to serve as global AIDS coordinator. The problem was that Dybul's partner and his partner's mother attended the ceremony, and Rice had the unmitigated gall to refer to the woman as Dybul's "mother-in-law." There followed an explosion.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said Rice's comments were "profoundly offensive." He then said something that made me sit back in shock: "We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse." What does he mean by that? Does he think Dybul will run around the world using his ambassadorial position to find other gay lovers? I'm trying hard to figure it out, but I can't come up with any logical explanation.

Sprigg then went on to connect Dybul's appointment to the Foley scandal, with the point being that the Republican Party is being taken over by those pushing what is commonly called the "gay agenda." Those who resist what science has discovered about homosexuality (that it is not a matter of choice, but rather is a matter of birth), have been horrified by the number of gay Republicans that have been pushed out of the closet in recent months. Tony Perkins, also of the Family Research Council, believes the influence of all those gay Republicans is what has prevented the Party from being proactive on conservative issues that the religious right wants. Of course, it couldn't be that religious voters have merely been used and abused by this Administration for political purposes that have nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

Republicans know they need the support of the so-called "values voters," but many also want to run from the bigotry label. It's a pretty tough bill to fill. Until now, Republicans have been able to get away with talking one way in public, and hiring their staff another way. That all seems to be changing now. The anti-gay activists are hot under the collar and they want the "perverts" expunged from "their" party. Whether Republicans give in to the Christian Right or move away from homophobia, their party will lose an important voting block – and that is an eventuality the Party seems to be desperately struggling to avoid.

I think in the end, the Christian right will wind up without a major party with which to affiliate - unless they are willing to acknowledge that the United States is not a theocracy and the rest of the country just isn't going to agree with them on every issue. The result will be a weakening of the power of both the Republican Party and "values voters."

Posted by Becky at 10:49 AM |

Those Darned 11s Won't Leave Me Alone

I've decided to come out of the closet about something that's probably pretty weird. I have an obsession with the number 11. It started very early in my life, actually. My Dad was born on 11/11/33, which I though was about the coolest thing ever. Shortly after my Dad passed last year, my brother found out he and his girlfriend were having a baby; his adorable daughter, who looks just like my Dad, was born on 11/22. Wow, I thought, that is just super-cool.

About that same time, I ran across all the conspiracy theories about the number of 11s associated with 9/11, and began noticing that 11s were often associated with other major events. It was absolutely fascinating to me.

Now, my dad was a fantastic statistician. He literally wrote the book on statistics for all the casino games during his years working in management at various casinos in Reno, Nevada. Unfortunately, I didn't inherit his grasp of statistical probability, so I cannot say whether the relationship between 11s (and multiples thereof) and noteworthy historical events is statistically significant or not. And I'm not certain I really care, as 11s fascinate me. Unfortunately, of late my fascination with 11s has begun to freak me out. Here's why.

I swear to God, every time I glance at a clock anymore, the time is a multiple of 11. It doesn't matter if it's the clock in my bedroom, on my stove, on my computer, in my car, or at my office, 11 times out of 12 it seems the time is a multiple of 11, and it happens dozens of times a day. Truly. Now, I'm not a real believer in "messages from beyond," as some are. And though I find it fascinating that others out there share my obsession, I think there has to be a rational explanation for this.

I have concluded that the human brain is capable of astonishing things. I believe that my brain is subconsciously tracking the time on all these clocks that I see regularly and prompting me to glance at them at the appropriate moment. Of course, that doesn't explain the fact that the other day when I went to fill up my tank at the gas station, the nozzle automatically shut off at $11.33. And then again at $11.66.

Maybe, this blog commenter has it right: "They say that noticing the number 11 in everyday circumstances is a sign that you are gifted with wisdom and extraordinary perception of things physic and/or spiritual." Yeah, I like that.

Posted by Becky at 10:14 AM |

Clinton Tells Dems How to Win Congress

Former President Clinton yesterday gave a speech that I couldn't agree with more. He told Iowa Democrats that the country is "profoundly divided" because of the actions of "an extreme sliver" of the Republican Party. That is absolutely true. The political divide has always been there, but the combination of Rush Limbaugh and the other right-wing talks show hosts that have followed after him, as well as the involvement of the Christian Right have really done a number on this country, demonizing the term "liberal" and fomenting hatred of the left. He also gave some excellent pointers on what Democrats can do to woo disaffected Republicans.

Clinton said Democrats should reach out to disaffected Republicans. As a disaffected former Republican, I completely agree with that statement. But Democrats need to understand how hesitant Republicans are to associate with a party that their own has demonized for so long. It is an unfortunate truth that a relatively small slip-up, such as the Florida Democratic Party effort to block Republicans from gaining information about the substitute for Mark Foley on the ballot, can entirely undo any chance to win their votes. They'll end up sticking with the bad guys they know.

Clinton's advice to Democrats:

"Forget about 2008. Forget about the politics. Just go out and find somebody and look them dead in the eye and say 'You know, this is not right'...This is America. We can do better and this year, it's a job that Democrats have to do alone. … People know things are out of whack, that fundamentally the order of, the rhythm of public life and our common life as Americans has been severely disturbed. …You cannot blame the entire Republican party for this reason. The entire government of the United States, the Congress, the White House and increasingly the courts for the last six years has been in the total control not of the Republican party but of the most ideological, the most right wing, the most extreme sliver of the Republican Party."

Democrats – and disaffected Republicans – should take heart in the latest AP-Pew poll. Americans' interest in the election this year is at its highest level in a decade. The surge in interest is nearly all Democratic – Republicans are about as interested as usual. Higher interest could well mean higher turnout among Democrats. Moreover, the poll found that the Foley scandal may repress the religious vote, which is key to keeping Republicans in power. Women, in particular, are interested in the election because of fears for their children – that they will be required to fight in a war and that they won't be able to find a good job. As a mother of two boys, those issues have definitely been foremost in my mind.

Posted by Becky at 06:30 AM |

October 15, 2006

This is stupid

FOX fired their number 2 on-air baseball analyst, Steve Lyons, Friday night for making "inappropriate" comments earlier that night during the ALCS.

While I agree that his comments could be construed as racially insensitive, I don't see how they were any worse than Lou Piniella's on-air comment to which Lyons was apparently responding.

The incident Friday began when Lou Piniella, a guest analyst working with Lyons and Thom Brennaman, noted the Oakland Athletics could not expect shortstop Marco Scutaro to continue to produce runs as he did when he drove in six during the division series against Minnesota.

Piniella said expecting similar production would be "like finding a wallet on a Friday night and looking for one on Sunday and Monday, too."

Four minutes later, they had moved to different subjects and Piniella said something in Spanish.

"The bilingual Lou Piniella," Brennaman said.

Lyons said: "Lou's habla-ing some Espanol there, and I'm still looking for my wallet. I don't understand him, and I don't want to sit close to him now."

A Fox spokesman said the company found Lyons' comments "inappropriate."

Lyons later issued a statement saying that he was joking and apologised if anyone had been offended by it.

Taken in a vacuum I agree that Lyons' comment was inappropriate. But in context he was only using an analogy that Piniella had introduced.

If Piniella, a hispanic, can use an analogy of finding and keeping someone else's wallet (something that I consider unequivocally dishonest and dishonorable under any circumstances)... in reference to a baseball player who is also hispanic and everything is peachy, then what other conclussion can we reach except that Lyons' sin was that he is not hispanic? Clearly Piniella had already established the hispanic/wallet stealing meme which Lyons simply, albeit stupidly, tried to turn into a joke.

Maybe someone can explain this to me in a way that puts it in a different light. But my initial reaction to the entire thing is that it seems remarkably like how black people can call each other "nigger" and nobody bats an eyelash, but if a non-black uses the same word in the same kind of context then that person is somehow the spawn of the Devil himself. It's absurd! Either race-based epithets and stereotypes are wrong, at all times and for all people... or they're not. The picking and choosing who can use them is in itself rank hypocritical racism, IMHO, and only serves to continue racial insensitivity.

Posted by Kevin at 08:15 PM |

It's Hitler Again! He's Everywhere!

Brace yourself for the next Hitler: North Korean president Kim Jong-Il is reportedly obsessed with racial purity. All babies born with defects are quickly killed, and babies fathered by Chinese men are forcibly aborted. According to one western diplomat, "These Koreans genuinely believe they are a master race." This may be true, I don't know, but it does seem rather amazing to me that every time someone is supposed to be hated, immediately we hear how they are just like Hitler.

For example, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was accused of planning to require religious emblems be sewn on clothing, reminiscent of Hitler's forcing Jews to sew yellow stars on their clothing and homosexuals to sew pink triangles on theirs. Prior to the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was frequently compared to Hitler. And of course, whenever Israel is at war, including its recent war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, its enemies are always characterized as another Hitler. Bill Clinton was accused of using Hitlerian tactics every time he got into trouble. George Bush, Karl Rove and Arnold Schwartzenegger, Milosevic, Japan's Koizumi, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro have all shared the Hitler label. And there have been plenty more. Frankly, I'm just sick of it.

Isn't there another bad guy we can compare these people to? Perhaps Chavez was onto something when snubbed the Hitler label and compared Bush to Satan.

Posted by Becky at 11:10 AM |

Bush and Rove: In Denial? Or Something Else?

Michael Abramowitz of the Washington Post editorializes today that President Bush and Karl Rove are "inexplicably upbeat" about Republican prospects in the upcoming House races.

Some Republicans on Capitol Hill are bracing for losses of 25 House seats or more. But party operatives say Rove is predicting that, at worst, Republicans will lose only 8 to 10 seats -- shy of the 15-seat threshold that would cede control to Democrats for the first time since the 1994 elections and probably hobble the balance of Bush's second term.

Is it denial, or do Rove and Bush have something up their sleeves? It is difficult to imagine someone being so out of touch with reality, which makes me suspicious. Yet Bush does have a reputation for demanding he