« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »

November 30, 2006

The War on the ACLU

To follow up a bit on Becky's post below, it seems the Young Conservatives of Texas just can't wait to make asses of themselves in an effort to besmirch the ACLU and Christmas all at the same time:

The Young Conservatives of Texas - University of Texas Chapter announced today that they will be displaying an “ACLU Nativity Scene” on the West Mall of the University of Texas campus on Monday and Tuesday, December 4th and 5th. The group’s intent is to raise awareness on the extremity of the ACLU, and bring to light its secular-progressive efforts to remove Christmas from the public sphere. The display, the first of its kind in the nation, will feature characters that are quite a bit different than the standard crèche.

“We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger,” said Chairman Tony McDonald. “The three Wise Men are Lenin, Marx, and Stalin because the founders of the ACLU were strident supporters of Soviet style Communism. The whole scene is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the many ways that the ACLU and the far left are out of touch with the values of mainstream America.”

The scene will also display a terrorist shepherd and an angel in the form of Nancy Pelosi.

“The ACLU and other left-wing extremist groups are working diligently to destroy American’s rights to the free expression of religion,” said Executive Director Joseph Wyly. “We’ve already seen in Chicago an attempt to censor the nativity by a city government this week. It’s just more evidence that there is a War on Christmas being waged by the far-left in this country.”

Maybe I'll make calling these twits to get some quotes from them one of my agenda items tomorrow. That might make for some entertaining reading.

Posted by Carla at 02:08 PM |

Proof the ACLU Isn't Anti-Christmas

It's really sad that so many Christians fail to understand the First Amendment to the point that they believe one of their best friends, the ACLU, is actually their enemy. In particular, the ACLU takes a lot of heat over its supposed war on Christmas. But events in Virginia demonstrate clearly, for those who do understand the First Amendment, that the ACLU is quite reasonable when it comes to religion.

Mount Vernon High School in Fairfax County, Va., is scheduled to host a screening of the "The Nativity Story" Thursday night, the day before its nationwide release. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, also in Fairfax County, will host a screening Friday night.

Both showings are sponsored by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA), a non-profit group that supports Christian clubs on high school campuses across the United States. The screenings are free and open to the public.

And the ACLU not only has no plans to sue, it also has no problem with this, even though the film will be shown in public facilities. FCA members are even being allowed to pass out fliers to fellow students inviting them to come and bring a friend. The reason is that the ACLU supports all Americans' rights to hold "voluntary events sponsored by outside organizations" on public property. Students are not being required to attend and teachers are not promoting it, so no church-state separation issue is in play. The club (FCA) is simply using the facilities the same way any other organization would be allowed to use them. Hence – no problem.

Another interesting item in this story is the real reason why Chicago barred the film from its Christmas festival (the German Christkinlmarket). It wasn't because it was a Christian film. It was because New Line Cinemas insisted it be allowed to play trailers for the movie throughout the event as part of an aggressive marketing campaign. Of course, reporting the truth to conservatives wouldn't serve to get them all riled up about a supposed "war on Christmas," would it?

Posted by Becky at 01:00 PM |

Land of the free, home of the imprisoned?

One out of every 32 adults in the United States is either in prison, on probation or on parole according to the Justice Department. Not surprising statistics considering the fact that we imprison a higher percentage of our population than does any other nation on the planet.

As a culture we have a decidedly passive/aggressive relationship with our much vaunted freedoms. Which is further underscored by the Christian Coalition's recent rejection of Christ's teaching in favor of a more repressive and intrusive agenda. And it all comes at a cost that goes well beyond exposing the hyperbolic "they hate our freedom" as the misdirection that it so obviously is.

"Today's figures fail to capture incarceration's impact on the thousands of children left behind by mothers in prison," Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group supporting criminal justice reform, said in a statement. "Misguided policies that create harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are disproportionately responsible for the increasing rates of women in prisons and jails."

From 1995 to 2003, inmates in federal prison for drug offenses have accounted for 49 percent of total prison population growth.

Of course most of that 49% is men. And Mauer inexplicably doesn't mention incarceration's impact on the thousands of children whose fathers are in prison. Presumably his omission doesn't imply that he believes that the presence of fathers is irrelevant to the wellfare of those children. In any case, we know that Parents or Prison is a disfunctional dynamic which impacts not just the immediate family, but the larger society as well.

So what do we do? Build more prisons? If so, with what money?

Are you willing to pay more taxes to pay for building more and more prisons?

Might not there be a more cost-effective way of using those same funds?

(cross-posted at Indie Castle)

Posted by Kevin at 11:43 AM |

Money-Grubbing Palins Plan New Measure 37 Claim

The only people so far in Oregon to get money instead of a regulatory reprieve under Measure 37 are Grover and Edith Palin, who wanted to build a home in the rimrock surrounding Prineville. The City decided to pay the couple $47,000 instead of allowing them to destroy everyone else's view. But that wasn't enough for the Palins. A few weeks ago, they said they would not accept the money, but would hold out for the restrictions to be lifted; however, after eyeing their $47,000 check for awhile now, they've changed their minds. They have decided they want more money instead.

They plan to refile their Measure 37 claim, this time seeking millions of dollars, because instead of building their dream retirement home that they just couldn't live without, suddenly now they want to build a diner and either a motel or condos. But they can't help but reveal their true motives: Grover Palin's explanation for their change of plans was that "Edith and I wanted a retirement home; we didn't get it, so now if we don't get that we might as well see how much money we can get. I'm looking at pretty close to $5 million." Edith Palin described it this way: "If nothing else, we're going to give (the City Council members) a headache." Lovely people, aren't they?

The problem is, it really doesn't matter what the Palins want to build on their land – what matters is the market value of the land if it was still zoned and regulated as it was when they bought it. The Palins wouldn't charge a different price to one buyer than another for their land based on what the buyers' development plans were. The land is worth what it is worth. And Measure 37 doesn't compensate someone differently based on what they might have built on the land. Rather, compensation is based on the difference between the market value of the land, as currently developed (or not), with the regulations and without them. That has already been determined to be $47,000. End of story.

Posted by Becky at 10:31 AM |

The lame duck makes one last quack

The "Do-Absofuckinglutely-Nothing" Congress currently in their waning days of power in DC is trying extra hard to earn that moniker:

While they still can, House Republicans are looking at scheduling a vote next week on a fetal pain abortion bill in a parting shot at incoming majority Democrats and a last bid for loyalty from the GOP's base of social conservatives.

The measure is tentatively on House GOP leaders' list of bills to be considered in a lame-duck session before Democrats assume control of Congress. It has no chance of passing the Senate during the waning days of Republican control. But, with Democrats ascending to agenda-setting roles, passage isn't the point, said one conservative leader.

"Next year, the leadership of the House will be hardcore pro-abortion loyalists," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "They will block votes on even modest pro-life measures like this one."

The vote would be the first on the measure, which was introduced in September and referred to a health subcommittee, where no action on it was taken. Johnson said his group wants a House vote to test support for the measure.

The bill, by Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., defines a 20-week-old fetus as a "pain-capable unborn child" - a highly controversial threshold among scientists. It also directs the Health and Human Service Department to develop a brochure stating "that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain."

Abortion providers would be required to inform the mothers that evidence exists that the procedure would cause pain to the child and offer the mothers anesthesia for the baby. The mothers would accept or reject the anesthesia by signing a form. The bill allows for an exception for certified medical emergencies.

If GOP whackonuts can't make abortion illegal, they'll just whack a woman upside the head as hard as they can with the guilt factor. How very special.

Not ones to be deterred by real medical science, these guys have to trot out bullshit in order to make their point.

I have a nephew who was born at 28 weeks gestation. He's 10 years old now. But even today he has trouble with some neurological functions. One of them is pain perception. He's been badly burned twice from touching something hot because it takes him an extra long time to feel pain.

This bill has no shot of making it past the senate. We've got soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, people in the US without health care, spending bills languishing without being voted on, private contractors profiting from our occupation of Iraq, New Orleans still in need of major cleanup and fixing....but this is the Congressman from New Jersey's hot issue.

Posted by Carla at 10:07 AM |

November 29, 2006

Ahmadinejad's Silver Tongue

I don't know whether most Americans care that the President of Iran has just written them a letter, but I was anxious to read it from the moment I heard it was coming. The last letter he wrote, to President Bush, was quite good and I wondered what he would have to say to us. CNN has published the full text of the letter so you can read it all. You can tell right away the man is brilliant – he addresses us as "Noble Americans." Ah, the flattery! The siren song! His beautiful words call out to the heart of every peace-loving citizen.

In explaining the "urgency" of his letter to us, he points to the effects of U.S. policy on the people of the Middle East, the fact that Americans are "God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking," the way the Bush Administration has lied to us, and the shared responsibility of Iranians and Americans "to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity." He shows how the people of Iran and the people of the U.S. share much in common, in terms of goodness, decency and honesty. It is really very touching.

Ahmadinejad voices what we all want to believe about who we are, and in the process he humanizes the Iranian people – and the Palestinian people. "Palestinian mothers, just like Iranian and American mothers, love their children, and are painfully bereaved by the imprisonment, wounding and murder of their children. What mother wouldn't?" It is true, and we all know it.

But this is where I begin to run into trouble with the letter – the point where he takes on the "Zionist regime" in Israel. I've read enough about modern Israel and Palestine to understand that we aren't talking about a bunch of boy scouts over there, but with my intense Christian upbringing, my personal love for the Jewish community in Portland, and my recognition that having a friend and ally in the Middle East is probably a good thing, this entire subject is one that I simply cannot address. It would not matter what I said, I would not feel good about it. But I would very much like to hear your thoughts.

Next, he turns to Iraq, and I am alarmed to find myself once again falling under his spell. The man knows how to pull on the heartstrings. For instance, speaking of our soldiers serving over there, he writes of the pain of their mothers. By the time he makes this statement – "I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure" – you'll just about nod yes to anything.

And from there, it's on to the detention centers and the horrible things that have gone on in our name, shaming our country. Next he points out that we "Noble Americans" have also suffered from the administration's "immoral behavior" through the loss of our own civil liberties. Again, I find myself nodding vigorously when he writes, "I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it."

After pointing out that it is not military might that makes a country great, but rather "sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity," he returns to the discussion of Zionists and our relationship with Israel. And he asks a very blunt question: "What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?" It's the sort of thing one might expect Mel Gibson to say. Is it true? I have no idea, but as I said before, I personally may be biased and blinded on this entire issue because of my background.

Ahmadinejad asks for two things: First, that America respect the Palestinian homeland, and second, that we get out of Iraq and let the country rule itself. Neither of these two requests is a surprise. What is really interesting is his warning to the incoming Democratic members of Congress.

The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations.

Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history."

If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America. But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration's policies.

In concluding, Ahmadinejad places responsibility for the future of this country squarely on the shoulders of you and me, shattering any illusion that he will be nice to us because he knows we are nice people. We have a choice, he says, between a future of "injustice and transgression" resulting in "decline and demise" or a "return to faith and spirituality" and a future in which all nations live together in perpetual peace and harmony forever, amen. Okay, those are my own words at the end, but I think they fairly represent the lovely words of Iran's president.

Most Americans probably will never read this letter. Of those who do, some will swallow it hook, line and sinker. Some will recognize the beauty of the ideals, but have little faith it will come to anything. And some will outright reject his message because they see him as an enemy of the likes of Saddam Hussein.

As for me, I look at his desire for the destruction of Israel and for worldwide following of Islam, a religion that I don't see as being particularly good for women, among other things, and I find my enthusiasm for his lovely words is tempered significantly. On the other hand, a read through his bio at Wikipedia ought to engender respect for both his intelligence and his concern for the poor. I fear in the end that he is as determined to have his way as our President is to have his way, and in the process, ordinary Iranian citizens and ordinary American citizens, who actually do want the same things, will end up being forced to kill one another and ultimately pay a bitter price.

Here are some reactions of others to the letter:

Jihad Watch notes the clear call to Islam, based on the words of Muhammed.

Atlas Shrugs points out that Ahmadinejad is writing about truth and justice while at the same time murdering his own people (hanging dissidents) and supporting terrorist organizations.

Freedom Eden thinks Ahmadinejad is kissing up to the Democrats.

Joel's Trumpet finds the letter "an absolute gag fest." Joel, by the way, has written a book entitled, "Understanding Dishonesty and Deceit in Islam." I was hoping for something insightful, but all I got there was snark.

Posted by Becky at 03:51 PM |

Don't Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out

It was with great delight that I heard the news last evening on Victoria Taft's show that Schumacher Furs had decided to leave town. That a family can, in this day and age, make a living off the suffering and death of animals for the sake of making prissy, spoiled women feel elegant, and see nothing wrong with doing so, despite the fact that they more than most should know exactly what goes into the production of fur, is, in my opinion, utterly appalling. God bless those "terrorist" animal rights protesters who have finally chased the beasts out of town.

Every week for an entire year Schumacher has faced sidewalk protests by animal rights activists. Schumacher has blasted city officials and police for failing to support him in the face of picketers who appear weekly to try to dissuade customers from buying his coats.

The Schumachers have rejected the advice of the police and the Mayor, and even alienated a member of the City Council who wanted to help them. Randy Leonard now says, "they did what they could to fan the flames at every opportunity." The Schumachers are so rotten they even posted a sign in the window of the store that read:

ALL PROTESTERS SHOULD BE! - Beaten - Strangled - Skinned alive - Anally electrocuted

Just goes to show they know exactly what it takes to make a fur coat and they don't care. Good on Portland for sending them on their way. Of course the Schumachers are so irritated that the City wouldn't magically fix their protester problem that they are now saying Portland isn't any good for retailing because of panhandling, street musicians, and urination in the parking garages. Had to get in a final kick on the way out. But as anyone who visits Portland knows, Schumacher is full of it. And what's wrong with street musicians?

Like a lot of people, I used to not understand the whole anti-fur thing. That was because I didn't know. For those of you who are reading who still don't know, let me suggest the following reading:

This site disputes some of the fur industry's myths. It also tells a little bit about what is wrong with how the animals are treated. For instance, one of the ways the industry kills foxes is by poisoning them with dithillinium. It does not kill the foxes. It simply paralyses them. They can still feel the pain while they are skinned, but they can't do anything about it. The benefit to the skinner is that the fur comes off easier when the animal is still warm.

This site gives a bit of an overview of the fur industry. Some highlights from the site:

No federal humane slaughter law protects animals in fur factory farms, and killing methods are gruesome. Because fur farmers care only about preserving the quality of the fur, they use slaughter methods that keep the pelts intact but that can result in extreme suffering for the animals. Small animals may be crammed into boxes and poisoned with hot, unfiltered engine exhaust from a truck. Engine exhaust is not always lethal, and some animals wake up while they are being skinned.

The fur industry refuses to condemn even blatantly cruel killing methods. Genital electrocution—deemed “unacceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical Association in its “2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia”—causes animals to suffer from cardiac arrest while they are still conscious.

You can also read on this site about how animals are treated in China – if your stomach can take it. This matters because the fur trade is such that it is impossible to know the source of the fur that goes into the products you buy. Even if the label says it was made in Europe, it is likely the fur came from elsewhere, and that could well be from China.

If you're concerned about the environment, you should be especially anti-fur. It takes twenty times as much energy to produce a fur coat as it does to produce a fake fur coat. The chemicals used to treat the fur and prevent rotting also prevent the fur from being biodegradable and can cause water contamination. Moreover, the animals themselves produce an enormous amount of waste – 44 pounds per mink, for example. 2.56 million minks were skinned just in the U.S. in 2004.

Of course, no look at anti-fur sites would be complete without checking out Fur Is Dead. And though I won't link to it because it is too gruesome, I have seen the widely distributed video from a Chinese fur farm showing a raccoon dog that had just been skinned alive and still had enough strength left to lift its head and look at the camera after writhing around while the workers cut the rest of the fur from its legs. Sadly, the workers found this humorous.

Finally, here are a few facts to help those considering buying a fur coat understand the enormity of suffering that has gone into the garment. Imagining the horror of 50 million suffering animals a year (not counting rabbits) might be too difficult, but consider just the suffering of the number of animals required to make a coat from each of the following:

12-15 lynx (a type of cat, for all you cat-lovers out there)
10-15 wolves or coyotes (a type of dog, for all you dog-lovers out there)
15-20 foxes (another type of dog)
60-80 minks
27-30 raccoons
10-12 beavers
60-100 squirrels

Considering seal fur? Then know this: 300,000 are killed in Canada each year and many of them are skinned alive – yes, in a first world country.

Are you the type that would turn in someone if you saw they had twenty dogs kept outside without shelter in all kinds of weather in cages so small they could barely move for so long they went crazy and started chewing on themselves? What if those dogs had eye infections or other infections and were left untreated? Are those dogs inherently any less smart or sensitive than your pet? Would you report to authorities if you saw a person electrocuting small animals by attaching electrodes to their genitals, or to their delicate little feet and snouts despite the animals' screaming? If you saw someone skinning an animal alive, would you try to stop them? Does animal suffering matter?

Neglect and horrible deaths are everyday occurrences in the fur industry. I cannot accept the notion that such treatment of animals suddenly becomes OK when it's being done to make a fur coat, especially considering that other types of coats are available to keep people warm. And when people like the Schumachers have the gall to make a living literally on the backs of mass suffering, should we feel sorry for them when they're finally forced to leave town? Hell, no.

***************UPDATE 12/19/06******************

I just found this site, which claims the video footage of animals being skinned alive are animal snuff films that have been created by anti-fur activists themselves to try to unfairly smear the fur industry. I do not know whether it is accurate or not, but link to it here in the interest of fairness.

Posted by Becky at 01:29 PM |

The Right To Die In Spain

A 51 year old woman with Muscular Dystrophy is becoming the poster child for a movement to legalize euthanasia in that country.

Inmaculada Echevarria has spent much of her life watching muscular dystrophy ruin her body. She's been in a hospital bed for 20 years, her movements are now reduced to wiggling her fingers and toes and she wants to die.

"For me, life stopped having meaning a long time ago. I want them to help me die because I have spent my whole life suffering," said 51-year-old Echevarria, whose case has triggered debate in Spain on the rights of people with incurable diseases to seek help in dying.

Euthanasia is illegal in Spain and people who help someone else die can be punished with at least six months in prison. But Spain's Socialist government wants to legalize it as part of a wave of liberal reforms that have largely transformed this traditionally Roman Catholic country.

I see this debate the way I do most debates between the religious and the non-religious. It's a matter of control.

The church lays down the rules to control our lives, and fights tooth and nail against any changes.

I have HIV and, while its not what it was at one time, I do remember a time when people I knew spoke openly about when they wanted to go, and how they wanted to die. To me, it is completely understandable that people would be allowed to make decisions about when their lives end.

I would much rather see this happen in a controlled atmosphere of a hospital than the way my uncle did it on New Years Eve 1990 - with pills and a bottle of whiskey, left to his housekeeper to find him.

Posted by Alan at 05:30 AM |

November 28, 2006

Gingrich Proposes Reexamining Free Speech

If this doesn't make you want to scream, you don't deserve to be an American. Newt Gingrich says that the risks of terrorists annihilating an American city are so great that we should reexamine freedom of speech. We must find a way to keep the terrorists from using the Internet and free speech to recruit other terrorists and communicate with each other. Obviously, this will mean greater oversight and prior restraint for everyone.

But that isn't the only problem he has with current free speech laws. We also must, he said, do something about those awful campaign finance laws that are reducing free speech and overturn court rulings about the separation of church and state, which harm citizens' ability to express themselves. Because the three biggest threats we face in this country are people speaking freely on the Internet, limits on corporate campaign contributions, and governments not being able to endorse a particular religion. If we can fix those problems by reining in our First Amendment rights and save an American city in the process, well, it will be morning in America again!

Posted by Becky at 10:53 AM |

It's Only A Brotherly Spat!

Before Tony Snow became the mouthpiece for the President, he was free to say what he wanted, political correctness be damned. In fact, he even once criticized the President, saying he had "a habit of singing from the political correctness hymnal." Once Tony was hired on, however, his frank speech began to be a problem. There was the sorry statement, "I don't want to hug the tarbaby," for instance. I think Tony must have been sent for some intensive political correctness training that he didn't really grasp, because it wasn't long before he started coming up with euphemisms for all sorts of things. For example, he brushed the Mark Foley scandal off, saying it was "simply naughty e-mails." And now, in an effort to avoid using the unacceptable words "civil war" to describe what is occurring in Iraq, he has said the two factions are "expressing differences."

I guess instead of being sensitivity-challenged, the new and improved politically correct Tony Snow has become factually unencumbered.

Posted by Becky at 10:40 AM |

Knee-Jerk Cries of Racism

It's been going on for a few days now, and I've finally reached my saturation point. I have to speak out about my disgust at the left's need to find racism where it doesn't exist. Specifically, I am fed up with the sympathy shown to the six Muslim clerics who were removed last week from a US Airways flight. Yet another example of this was published today at Counterpunch by Michael Donnelly. And like most everyone I've heard cry "racism" over this case, Donnelly only tells part of the story.

The grounds for the expulsion? Witnesses noted that three of the Imams had been seen doing their normal evening prayers in the terminal before boarding and they were supposedly heard making comments critical of the Iraq war.

To read this, one would believe the Imams were booted from the plane for being Muslim and praying. But the truth involves much more .

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.

The specific behavior that led to the removal of the Imams included:

- Loud praying in the concourse and repeatedly shouting "Allah"
- Switching from their assigned seats to a pattern of seating associated with the 9/11 attacks (two in the front row of the first class section, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisles, and two in the rear of the cabin), giving them control of all exits
- Asking for, but not using seat belt extenders even though they were not needed
- Criticizing President Bush and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden
- Sitting in first class even though their tickets had not been upgraded for first class
- Despite choosing to sit separately, getting up repeatedly to go talk to other members of their group
- Some traveling on one-way tickets

It is not "racial profiling" or "Islamophobia" to be concerned about such behavior these days. It is plainly idiotic NOT to be concerned about it. It seems to me these Imams were either probing the airline's security system or trying to set the airline up for a lawsuit. I don't like kneejerk anti-Muslim behavior any more than anyone else, but if that was what had occurred here, these men would never have been allowed on the plane in the first place. That they were allowed to push their behavior as far as they did before being removed shows me they were intentionally being provocative.

Posted by Becky at 08:10 AM |

November 27, 2006

Bill Sizemore's Ego Strikes Again

Bill Sizemore has written a letter to the Bend Bulletin reminding Oregonians who are hearing awful things about him of how much money he personally has saved them in property taxes and asking all those who don't like what he has done to drop him a line (at bill@otu.org) so he can tell them how to give their savings back to the government. What I find amusing about his letter is the ego it displays. Sizemore entirely overlooks Don MacIntire's Measure 5, which is primarily responsible for all that property tax savings, and instead claims full credit for your property tax savings because of his role in passing Measure 47, which, by the way, had so many unintended consequences that it was never enacted and was instead replaced by a voter-approved legislative referral known as Measure 50.

Sizemore likes to use the royal "we" when it suits his purposes – like when he's trying to sound like he still has a team behind him – but when it's time to take credit for something, he jumps right back to "I." In claiming credit for the property tax cut and cap, he not only overlooks MacIntire, he pays no mind to the 5,000 or so Oregonians who contributed everywhere from $5 to $500 apiece to Measure 47, the scores of people who circulated petitions without pay, the staff who worked long hours on the campaign, and all the big donors who put it all on the line when they laundered their money through Americans for Tax Reform so nobody would know they were helping Bill Sizemore. I'd really like to know what drove Sizemore to beg for letters right now, but maybe it's just that he is having trouble coming to terms with the fact that someone as important as he is wasn't properly appreciated by the voters on election day when they rejected all of his measures.

Posted by Becky at 12:48 PM |

Which Dems are on Your Side?

Big Pharma is a bit frightened of the new "hole" that has been created in their team with the departure of Sen. Rick Santorum from Congress. They're fretting about the challenge to their efforts that will be posed by Sen.-elect Jon Tester and Sen.-elect Sherrod Brown. Word is they're hiring up former chiefs of staff and other key staffers of soon-to-be influential Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi) in hopes of setting things right again. In light of that, I found David Sirota's editorial The Money Party vs. The People Party very interesting. We should all be watching the incoming Democrats very carefully to determine whether they are there to help the moneyed interests or the people.

Posted by Becky at 11:15 AM |

Republicans Who Won't Play Grover's Game

Grover Norquist has sent out a mass email to his supporters listing all of the Republican Senators and Congressmen who have not signed his "Taxpayer Protection Pledge." The pledge states: "I, ____________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district of the State of _________ and to all the people of this state, that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes." Now, I'm no fan of new taxes or increased taxes, so why would I make an issue of this? Because while those who sign the pledge think they are simply establishing their own conservative credentials, in fact, by signing it they are really serving to boost the reputation of Grover Norquist, who is deeply mired in the corruption that has, of late, consumed the Republican Party in Washington. As John Cassidy, one of the country's leading business journalists, once told The New Yorker, "The thing that made [Norquist's] career was the tax pledge."

You might want to know who the "delinquent" non-pledge-signing Republicans are, so I shall share the list with you, straight from Norquist's email:

Senate: Richard Lugar (Ind.); Charles Grassley (Iowa); Olympia Snowe (Maine); Susan Collins (Maine); Thad Cochran (Miss.); Pete Domenici (N.Mex.); George Voinovich (Ohio)

House: Christopher Shays (Conn.); Michael Castle (Del.); Steve Buyer (Ind.); Harold Rogers (Ken.); Vernon Ehlers (Mich.); Ralph Regula (Ohio); Todd Russell Platts (Pa.); Frank Wolf (Va.)

From a practical point of view, the pledge hogties legislators and congressmen, preventing them from addressing needs appropriately. For instance, Hawaiian legislators ran afoul of the pledge when they extended the bottle tax to containers with a volume of 68 oz. or less. One would imagine that if Oregon legislators decided it was high time to increase the bottle deposit (a real necessity if the system is to continue to work), Norquist would brand them as delinquents or "enemies of the taxpayers," too.

Speaking of "Enemies of the Taxpayers," some of those Norquist "shamed" in 2006 include NJ Congressman Robert Menendez because he voted against extending the capital gains and dividend tax cut and NJ gubernatorial candidate Senator Jon Corzine because while a U.S. Senator he refused to vote for tax cuts that would only benefit the wealthy.

It's nice to see Norquist lay his philosophy and priorities out there so clearly.

Posted by Becky at 11:09 AM |

Lying Us In - And Lying Us Back Out

Gary Younge writes in the UK Guardian today that Bush and Blair "lied their way into Iraq. Now they are trying to lie their way out." He makes a case for his view that the issue is no longer whether Coalition forces will leave in defeat, but when they will leave and the political rationale that will be used to explain it. And he believes the explanation that will be given to people will entail finger-pointing and lies intended to shift blame away from Bush and Blair and onto anyone else – particularly the victims of the occupation.

Franco-German diplomatic obstruction, Arab indifference, media bias, UN weakness, Syrian and Iranian meddling, women in niqabs and old men with placards - all have been or surely will be blamed for the coalition's defeat. As one American columnist pointed out last week, we wait for Bush and Blair to conduct an interview with Fox News entitled If We Did It, in which they spell out how they would have bungled this war if, indeed, they had done so…

It is absurd to suggest that the Iraqis - who have been invaded, whose country is currently occupied, who have had their police and army disbanded and their entire civil service fired - could possibly be in a position to take responsibility for their future and are simply not doing so…

[I]t leaves intact the bogus premise that the invasion was an attempt at liberation that has failed because some squabbling ingrates, incapable of working in their own interests, could not grasp the basic tenets of western democracy. In short, it makes the victims responsible for the crime.

Younge calls on the anti-war movement to change its focus, to point out why the invasion failed and highlight our responsibility to the people of Iraq.

If we don't, we risk seeing Bono striding across airport tarmac 10 years hence with political leaders who demand good governance and democratic norms in the Gulf, as though Iraq got here by its own reckless psychosis. Eviscerated of history, context and responsibility, it will stand somewhere between basket case and charity case: like Africa, it will be misunderstood as a sign not of our culpability but of our superiority.

The immediate response to Younge's post in the British blogosphere reveals that Britain has its own version of our smug right-wing bloggers. British blogger Dizzy writes of Younge's editorial, "I was so shocked by this, apparently everything is either America or Britain's fault." Of course, Dizzy points out, he will not lower himself to argue Younge's points – like most conservative know-it-alls in the U.S., he simply belittles the man and implies that his opinion is so obviously flawed there is no need to debate it.

I have personally concluded that the situation is far too complicated for anyone to have truly anticipated what would happen, which is why we ought not to have gone into Iraq in the first place. I see no good reason for our having done so. Now we've opened what amounts to an overstuffed box of snakes and we can't get them put back in as quickly as they're crawling out. Few of us think walking away from our mess is the right thing to do, and few of us believe any hope remains that we can fix it. We all know who was responsible for creating this mess – the very people who are pointing the finger everywhere else. And thanks to smug idiots like Dizzy, they believe they can keep pointing the finger and get away with it.

Posted by Becky at 10:11 AM |

November 26, 2006

Georgia tries to go all South Dakota on us

Click here to see what I mean.

Posted by Carla at 11:24 AM |

Barack Obama and His Good Friend Rick Warren

How fascinating that the rising star of the reputedly "Godless" Democratic Party, Barack Obama, is a devoted Christian who is playing heavily to America's evangelical Christian community and making great strides toward closing the "God gap" between Republicans and Democrats. And of particular interest is his friendship with Pastor Rick Warren, the author of "The Purpose Driven Life" and the man who sparked controversy last week when he spoke ill of America's Middle East policy while meeting with religious leaders in the Middle East. Obama's spokesman said the two men speak regularly by telephone and have become friends. Obama will appear on Friday at Warren's Saddleback church, a move some believe is part of Obama's effort to position himself for a presidential run. He also will speak at Warren's "global Aids summit" this week.

Obama has made some truly great speeches, some of which have focused on the need for Democrats to acknowledge the role of faith in American life. "I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives," he said recently. "We need to understand that Americans are a religious people. Substantially more Americans believe in angels than in evolution."

The Democratic Party has actually never been godless – rather, the party has respected the separation of church and state. I am curious whether this new effort to steal Christian voters away from Republicans will result in the same sort of theocratic tendencies on the left that we have in recent years seen emerging on the right.

Posted by Becky at 09:19 AM |

Justifying their love (and hate).

I'm not generally one to nitpick over the usage and definition of words. I tend to find such exercises to be tedious and petty.

But every once in a while its worth doing--especially when it points out a specific hypocrisy. And we all know I'm nothing if not an apt hypocrisy-pointer-outer.

There's a dustup brewing between the rightosphere blog bigshots and lefty blogger Glen Greenwald over the use of the terms "Islamist" and "Christianist" (as well as "Islamofascist" and "Christian fascist") and what they mean.

Perhaps the only thing more tedious that parsing out word usage is blogger pissing matches. Its more often about bruised egos and silly muckraking than not.

But this particular pissing match is a keen demonstration of one of the more blatant hypocrisies of the right: they can say whatever the hell they please about all Muslims and anyone who disagrees is a terrorist sympathizer. But when some Christians are called out on similar behavior and labeled with similar terminology, there's a walloping outcry from the right so fierce as to shatter glass.

The thrust of the pissing is mostly between Greenwald and the genuinely bizarre Ann Althouse. But I did find it interesting how other "big dog" righty bloggers jumped on to Althouse's bandwagon.

The post is lengthy. But genuinely worth the read as it adds another dimension of understanding to the nasty depths the right blogosphere will go to in order to justify itself.

Posted by Carla at 08:36 AM |

November 24, 2006

Breaking: Christian Coalition president-elect quits, blocked from pursuing issues beyond abortion and gay marriage

From the Orlando Sentinal:

The Rev. Joel Hunter, of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood, Fla., said he quit as president-elect of the group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson because he realized he would be unable to broaden the organization's agenda beyond opposing abortion and same-sex marriage.

He hoped to include issues such as easing poverty and saving the environment.

"These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about," Hunter said.

The resignation took place Tuesday during an organization board meeting. Hunter said he was not asked to leave.

"They pretty much said, 'These issues are fine, but they're not our issues; that's not our base,'" Hunter said. A statement issued by the coalition said Hunter resigned because of "differences in philosophy and vision."

Posted by Nothstine at 01:37 PM |

Jack Roberts Done with Elective Office

I am really sad today to read that after losing his bid for the Supreme Court, Jack Roberts is done running for elective office. Roberts is one of my favorite Republicans - someone who uses his brain, does what he believes in even if the wingers don't agree, and really listens to his opponents. And I think it says something about the Republican Party in Oregon that back when they had the chance to nominate Roberts as their candidate for governor, they chose Kevin Mannix instead. Very sad, indeed.

Posted by Becky at 12:06 PM |

November 22, 2006

Grover Norquist is an Asshole

Every once in awhile I run across a story that is several days old that makes me sit up and say, "How the hell did I miss that one?" And this would definitely be one of those. The pertinent quote:

“Bob Sherwood’s seat [in Pennsylvania] would have been overwhelmingly ours, if his mistress hadn’t whined about being throttled,” said Mr Norquist. Any lessons from the campaign? “Yes. The lesson should be, don’t throttle mistresses.”

Hmm. I would have thought the lesson would be don't cheat on your wife. But then we're talking about the morality-challenged Grover Norquist. Amanda Marcotte cut right to the chase in her piece on this at Pandagon last week.

They don’t make mistresses like they used to. Back in the day, your mistress knew her place.

Here's a lesson for Norquist: A woman isn't "whining" when she calls 911 afraid for her life after she's been "throttled" by a man. Asshole.

Posted by Becky at 10:54 AM |

Newt Gingrich Has Lost His Way

Newt Gingrich is hoping to relive the glory days with a program he is calling "American Solutions for Winning the Future." Not only does he fantasize about bringing back "Ronald Reagan conservatism," but he also hopes to become President. If anyone should be able to pull this off, it would be Newt. He worked wonders with GOPAC and later co-authored the successful "Contract with America" that helped Republicans end 40 years of Democratic rule of the House. Now that Republicans have fallen to pieces, he's hoping to get them back on track. But unfortunately for Republicans, Newt has wound up on the wrong track himself.

Gingrich has published a book with his idea for a conservative 21st Century Contract with America, which you can also read on his website. He recently told Fortune magazine, "I am not ‘running’ for president, I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen."

Back in my Republican loyalist days, I was a big fan of Newt Gingrich. He gives a great speech and really seemed to be able to tap into the heart of the right. This time around, I'm a bit concerned about some of the aspects of his new Contract with America. Here are the ones that most concern me:

Transform the Social Security system into personal savings accounts that will enable every worker to have higher retirement incomes from their own work and avoid the need for financial support from their children.

I am completely opposed to the privatization of Social Security. The huge, heartless corporate scandals of the past several years have completely disabused me of any notion that something as important as retirement income could be entrusted to the private sector. If anything, Social Security funds should be locked away where Congress can't spend them. And I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a means test if necessary to preserve the system.

Recenter on the Creator from Whom all our liberties come. We will insist on a judiciary that understands the centrality of God in American history and reasserts the legitimacy of recognizing the Creator in public life.

Can you say "theocracy"?

[Create] a new system of civil justice to reduce the burden of lawsuits and to incentivize young people to go into professions other than the law.

This sounds to me like a lot of glorified language that is all about "tort reform" – or rather, preventing injured parties from suing the corporations that cold-heartedly injured them, and an attack on lawyers – who frequently vote Democratic. And I'm quite concerned about the audacity involved in even stating that one would wish to create "a new system of civil justice," when we have the best legal system ever devised by man.

Develop a system in which those who wish to stay economically active are encouraged and incentivized to do so because active people live longer and healthier, have a greater opportunity to pursue happiness, and are less of a burden on their fellow citizens.

I think it's wonderful if people want to stay active into their retirement – but notice Newt says "economically active," which really means employed. I wonder what sort of incentivization he is thinking of using to get those old people to go to work and quit being a burden on the rest of us.

After reading the first Contract with America and comparing it to this new effort, I think Newt is the one who has lost his way. The America he is envisioning sounds more like a dictatorial, corporate-controlled theocracy than the freedom-loving democracy we hold so dear, and if this is the direction Republicans intend to go in their hopes of winning back America, they have a very long road ahead.

Posted by Becky at 10:21 AM |

Sizemore's Plans to Monopolize Union $$ in 2008

Bill Sizemore isn't letting the dust settle after all of his ballot measures failed this year. In his latest editorial he expresses his disappointment over the right wing's losses and then tells us all about his plans for 2008. If you were hoping for a slow-down in ballot measures, you will likely be disappointed. And if you are the member of a public employee union and had grand ideas of post-Sizemore political projects, you will also be disappointed, as Sizemore has other plans for your union's political money.

Here is what Sizemore has planned for public employee unions to spend their campaign dollars on in 2008 (note that he uses the royal "we" quite often. Almost always, it really should be "I"):

1) We currently are collecting signatures on a measure that each year would allow a property owner to make up to $35,000 in improvements to his or her property without a building permit. Yes, the electrical portion would have to be signed off by a licensed electrical contractor and the owner would have to make full disclosure of all such remodeling to a prospective buyer, but otherwise, what a blow for freedom. Think of it. You could actually go out and nail some boards on the back of your house (or the front for that matter) without having to ask for the government’s permission. (This one’s for you, Stu Miller.) [Full Disclosure: Stu Miller is my husband and was the Chief Petitioner on Measure 7, the predecessor to Measure 37]

2) We also are collecting signatures on a measure that would end English as a second language programs and instead require that non-English speaking students in public schools be immersed in English. This would end one of the teachers union’s favorite scams: Keep immigrant students sidelined in ESL courses for six years so the district can collect $2,650 more per year per student.

3) We are collecting signatures on a measure that would require that future pay raises for public school teachers be based in classroom performance, not teacher seniority. And when lay-offs occur, the schools would be required to keep the best teachers, not those who have been there the longest. Imagine that, putting the good of the children above the demands of the teachers union.

4) We are working on a measure to give property owners a break on their property taxes when they turn 65. The measure phases the property tax out gradually as seniors grow older and eliminates them entirely at age 80. Wouldn’t it be nice to actually own your property and not have to rent it from the government, even if you have to wait until you’re 80 years old to do it. This measure is called the Senior Citizen Homestead Exemption Act.

5) We are working on a measure to stop unauthorized union payroll deductions for politics, and a measure to end Oregon’s $80,000 income requirement, which currently prohibits building a home on farm land until you have generated $80,000 in farm income for two years. Try earning $80,000 a year in farm income on a five or ten acre parcel without growing marijuana.

Sounds like we're in for another fight on multiple fronts. Some of these ideas have merit and could be the basis of some good legislation (most notably the English immersion one and the $80,000 income one), but I'm betting the language is so "poorly written" that "unintended consequences" will result. What do you think of Sizemore's agenda for 2008?

Posted by Becky at 08:41 AM |

November 21, 2006

Big love

I think consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on the ability of others to do the same.

This basic tenet of mine puts me way out of step with a lot of Americans..especially social conservatives. And in case you're wondering, I don't lose sleep at night worrying about being out of step with this group.

This also makes me rather agnostic on the topic of polygamy, which seems to be getting its share of play lately.

The Washington Post:

In recent months, polygamy activists have held rallies, appeared on nationally televised news shows and lobbied legislators. Before the Nov. 7 elections, one pro-polygamy group issued a six-page analysis of all Utah's state and local candidates and their views on polygamy. "We can make a difference," the group told supporters.

The efforts of Valerie and scores of others like her are paying off. Utah's attorney general, Mark L. Shurtleff, no longer prosecutes bigamy between consenting adults, though it is a felony. Shurtleff and his staff have established an organization, Safety Net, to bring together at monthly meetings representatives from at least five polygamous communities and law enforcement officers. He has arranged to have representatives of polygamous groups address Utah police. And three years ago, he wrote legislation to reduce bigamy between adults from a felony to a misdemeanor, although pressure from Utah's county attorneys derailed that.

In an interview, Shurtleff, a tall man who favors roomy suits and dark green shirts, said his office now treats bigamy between consenting adults much like fornication or adultery, laws about which are still on Utah's books.

I think Shurtleff is doing the right thing here.

I do have a caveat on this topic, however. I haven't moved from the "agonostic" camp to the "supporter" camp because bigamy/polygamy seems to bring with it forced and underaged marriage. I think before it can be fully legalized, there has to be a full and vigorous prosecution and punishment for those who compel marriage or those who marry underaged individuals.

I draw the line at CONSENTING ADULTS. And until the law really goes after those who don't..this can't be legal, in my opinion.

Posted by Carla at 03:20 PM |

Smoking in Bars - Ban it or Not?

I really hate being around cigarette smoke. My husband and I go out nearly every weekend and listen to live music, play pool, and do a lot of dancing – it's the highlight of our week. But there is always a down side. I choke on the smoke all night. It makes my nose run. And the next morning, my hair still reeks of smoke. I'd like to go out somewhere where smoking isn't allowed, but there isn't any such place anywhere near where I live. So I've often debated myself over the issue of where my right to a smoke-free environment ends and someone else's right to smoke in a public place begins. I have yet to resolve that inner debate.

But that doesn't stop me from privately cheering on anyone who is working to ban smoking in bars. And apparently, there is a pretty good chance that the new Democratic-controlled Oregon State Legislature will do just that. I find myself on the one hand wanting to write to them and say, "Yes, please ban smoking in bars so I can have a good time!" and on the other hand slapping myself for trying to tell other people what they can and can't do. And in the very next breath asking why their rights outweigh mine. I don't know the answer.

I have a chronic disease, sarcoidosis, which in 90% of patients ends up in their lungs – fortunately, I am not one of them (so far). My doctor tells me that dancing in a smoke-filled environment and breathing that smoke deeply into my lungs every weekend is increasing my chances of moving from the lucky 10% column into the unlucky 90% column and risking lung scarring, emphysema or worse. But I have a real passion for dancing with my husband and nowhere else to do it. So I have a personal stake in the matter that goes beyond mere comfort.

I also think about the people who work in that environment – dealing with the smoke every day. These people are 50% more likely to get lung cancer from secondhand smoke simply because of where they work – in an environment that is 1866 percent higher in air pollution than what the EPA considers "unhealthy" for outdoor air. It's easy to say they can just find a job somewhere else, but at a point we also should be asking how many nonsmokers are being put out in order to accommodate smokers? Is it fair?

Then again, what about all those older people who smoke and have no other social life besides the local pub? Is it fair to tell them to find something else to do? Like I said, I haven't figured this one out yet. Anyone want to help me?

Posted by Becky at 12:38 PM |

It's Yellow Cake Uranium All Over Again

The Bush Administration is desperately working to make a case for war against Iran, and the excuse is that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. But the problem is, the pesky American public demands proof before committing troops. And now it has been revealed that a top-secret CIA analysis using satellite photos and testing water and smoke for radioactivity has concluded that no evidence exists to support the notion that Iran is engaged in efforts to create nuclear weapons. The WMDs are not under the couch or behind the drapes, Mr. President.

Naturally, Vice President Cheney, whom Cenk Uyger at the Huffington Post has just labeled "the most dangerous man in the world," has rejected the CIA's findings and says the nuclear weapons program is just very well hidden. Perhaps the CIA will do a better job of "finding" evidence of Iran's nuclear program if Congress confirms the President's appointment of Michael Hayden, who has a reputation for fixing the facts and intelligence to fit the policy.

Posted by Becky at 11:22 AM |

November 20, 2006

Fox Realizes Morality Produces Revenue

Rupert Murdoch is apologizing for his severe lack of taste and canceling both the O.J. Simpson TV special and his "If I Did It" book. He must have realized that he judged his audience incorrectly. Americans actually have a conscience.

Poor man. He creates this big niche following of religious conservatives, and now he has to actually cater to their sense of right and wrong. That's not to say many of the rest of us weren't at least as offended, but really, this should have been so obvious as to have resulted in the immediate firing of the moron who suggested it in the first place. Of course, that was probably Judith Regan. I wonder how she managed to convince Murdoch of her inane view that the whole endeavor would actually serve as a confession by O.J. and help battered women everywhere. What an idiot.

Posted by Becky at 02:07 PM |

Drafting reality

In shooting down Congressman Rangel's call for reinstituting the draft Nancy Pelosi said that Rangel was trying to underscore that the U.S. war effort should be a "shared sacrifice" and his legislation was "a way to make that point."

I don't see how Pelosi could have arrived at that conclussion unless she is completely ignorant of Rangel's actual position on the subject. Seems to me that Rangel is essentially calling the bluff of unrealistic foreign policy.

Over the weekend, Rangel said he would seek passage next year of the universal draft legislation he has long sought. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

There's nothing about "shared sacrifice" there at all. Rangel is simply being realistic. Either we bring back the draft so that we can pursue all of these nations or we stop trying to unilaterally be the world's cop. Shit or get off the pot, in other words.

Posted by Kevin at 11:25 AM |

Bill Clinton Understands Dem Sweep

Like probably every other blog, we've discussed nearly to death why the Democrats swept the country in the elections and what it all means. We all have our own opinions, but I think Bill Clinton and I are on the same page on this one:

The beauty of the Democratic Party midterm victory, Clinton muses, is that voters said no to ideology. They wanted to move past fearmongering and demonizing toward true debate. "America rejected shorthand," he says. "People are thinking again." But they are not thinking of a set of liberal policy prescriptions. He argues that the election was about more than Iraq and corruption; it turned on the unmet needs of middle-class voters for whom the country "isn't working anymore." And yet no one is exactly sure how to make it work again. "The people didn't give Democrats a mandate," the former president cautions. "They gave us a chance."

Yes! Now let's hope the Democratic Party is still listening to its biggest star in recent memory.

Posted by Becky at 10:22 AM |

U.S. Torturers Trained in U.S. Prisons

Avery F. Gordon, professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, believes that what happened in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and other US military prisons was modeled after U.S. "supermax" (super-maximum security) prisons and, in fact, prison conditions here are actually more brutal. Gordon says the 5,000 civilian prison guards who have already been called up for active military duty have simply taken what they've learned here at home with them.

Several reservists convicted of crimes at Abu Ghraib were civilian prison guards. Ivan L “Chip” Frederick II, identified in the Taguba report as one of the ringleaders because of his expertise in corrections, was a guard in Virginia. Charles A Graner Jr, shown with Lynndie England smiling behind a pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners, had been repeatedly implicated in violence against prisoners at the Pennsylvania super-maximum security State Correctional Institute at Greene, where he was employed. Army reports indicate that Graner was called up in May 2003 and given supervisory positions at Abu Ghraib because of his guard experience.

Gordon says that "torture, humiliation, degradation, sexual assault, assaults with weapons and dogs, extortion and blood sports always have been part of U.S. prison culture and behavior," and the fact that mistreatment is so common in U.S. prisons explains why nobody interviewed by the FBI said they had seen prisoners mistreated at Abu Ghraib. This is in contrast, by the way, to the response of CIA observers at the detention centers, who were so sickened by what they saw that they refused to continue to observe the prisoner interrogations.

Of real interest to me is the gradual acceptance of treatment that used to be clearly unacceptable. "The procedures used, now legally sanctioned as ordinary and acceptable norms of prison life, were once considered violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment." I can't help but think of the fact that we now accept water boarding as a legitimate interrogation technique when back in WWII we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for war crimes for having water boarded American soldiers.

How is it that pro-war conservatives who defend our treatment of prisoners in these detention centers have a lower standard for prisoner treatment than CIA officers? How is it that conservatives tend to believe we are offering too many creature comforts to our pampered U.S. prisoners, while at the same time we have prisons in which the brutality and even torture of prisoners is common and acceptable? Are we not being told the truth, or do we have a schizophrenic approach to prisons in this country?

And why are so many Americans able to justify brutality today when, in the time of our parents and grandparents, Americans saw themselves as better than that? Is it that after seeing so many slasher films, each trying to outdo the brutality and gore of the one before, we view something like water boarding as child's play, and feel that the bad guys in prison deserve whatever they get?

And finally, what has to happen inside a human mind to prepare a person to go to work every day and inflict horror and suffering on another human being? Doesn't this brutality really end up harming the "good guys" even more than the "bad guys"?

Posted by Becky at 09:52 AM |

November 19, 2006

McCain

Posted by Kevin at 07:02 PM |

McCain's transition to the Dark Side is complete

Ugh:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that?

MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.

McCain used to be a guy who spoke up for Roe. But I guess being a desperate Presidential candidate who will sell his soul to Satan (or Jerry Falwell--a redundancy to be sure) means never having to maintain some sort of credibility.

I get that to some degree, anyone who is working toward the US Presidency is a whore. There isn't any way to get there unless one greases the path with lots of promises and glad-handing. But I simply can't abide the blatant way McCain has tarted himself up to show all the thigh he can to the Falwell set.

McCain obviously believes that the road to the White House is paved through the Christian conservative coffers and voter base. This is despite evidence to the contrary.

It appears like nothing more than an overt attempt to get to power no matter what. I can't stand it. Its the same reason I have no intention of voting for Hillary Clinton--from watching her I believe she'd do ANYTHING to become President.

I want nothing to do with either of them.

Posted by Carla at 11:23 AM |

The rats are bailing out fast...

The sinking ship is losing rats faster than we can count:

A certain weary crankiness sets in with any administration after six years. By this point in Bill Clinton's tenure, bitter Democrats were competing to denounce his behavior with an intern even as they were trying to fight off his impeachment. Ronald Reagan was deep in the throes of the Iran-contra scandal. But Bush's strained relations with erstwhile friends and allies take on an extra edge of bitterness amid the dashed hopes of the Iraq venture.

"There are a lot of lives that are lost," Adelman said in an interview last week. "A country's at stake. A region's at stake. This is a gigantic situation. . . . This didn't have to be managed this bad. It's just awful."

The sense of Bush abandonment accelerated during the final weeks of the campaign with the publication of a former aide's book accusing the White House of moral hypocrisy and with Vanity Fair quoting Adelman, Richard N. Perle and other neoconservatives assailing White House leadership of the war.

Since the Nov. 7 elections, Republicans have pinned their woes on the president.

"People expect a level of performance they are not getting," former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said in a speech. Many were livid that Bush waited until after the elections to oust Rumsfeld.

"If Rumsfeld had been out, you bet it would have made a difference," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said on television. "I'd still be chairman of the Judiciary Committee."

And so, in what some saw as a rebuke, Senate Republicans restored Trent Lott (Miss.) to their leadership four years after the White House helped orchestrate his ouster, with some saying they could no longer place their faith entirely in Bush.

Some insiders said the White House invited the backlash. "Anytime anyone holds themselves up as holy, they're judged by a different standard," said David Kuo, a former deputy director of the Bush White House's faith-based initiatives who wrote "Tempting Faith," a book that accused the White House of pandering to Christian conservatives. "And at the end of the day, this was a White House that held itself up as holy."

Its not just the "holiness" that has done them in. I think any Presidency that's bungled just about everything its done would be spurned by the American people. Its just magnified now due to the White House's hubris.

Posted by Carla at 09:14 AM |

November 18, 2006

Wal-Mart Cheats in Organic Food Labeling

Wal-Mart, after announcing earlier this year that it would greatly increase the amount of organic food for sale in its stores, has taken to misidentifying foods as organic through the use of erroneous in-store signage, and appears to be doing so in an effort to force down the prices of legitimately organic food. The Cornucopia Institute, an organic farming watchdog, is asking the USDA to investigate Wal-Mart and has filed a formal legal complaint.

Cornucopia notified Wal-Mart’s CEO Lee Scott in a letter on September 13, 2006 alerting the company to the problem and asking that it address and correct the situation on an immediate basis. But the same product misrepresentations were again observed weeks later, throughout October, at separate Wal-Mart stores in other states.

If found guilty, Wal-Mart could face fines of up to $10,000 per violation for every proven incident in which it misrepresented non-organic food as organic. The Cornucopia Institute has carefully documented and photographed several incidents and hopes the USDA will do its job to protect the integrity and reliability of the organic food supply.

Posted by Becky at 06:59 PM |

Bush's "faith-based administration"

Gary Wills has an appalling inventory of an insufficiently appreciated problem that Democrats face in undoing the systematic undermining of the Constitution instigated by George W. Bush.

It is common knowledge that the Republican White House and Congress let "K Street" lobbyists have a say in the drafting of economic legislation, and on the personnel assigned to carry it out, in matters like oil production, pharmaceutical regulation, medical insurance, and corporate taxes. It is less known that for social services, evangelical organizations were given the same right to draft bills and install the officials who implement them. Karl Rove had cultivated the extensive network of religious right organizations, and they were consulted at every step of the way as the administration set up its policies on gays, AIDS, condoms, abstinence programs, creationism, and other matters that concerned the evangelicals.

Read the whole thing, but here are some highlights:

Bush and "faith-based social services:"

Bush promised his evangelical followers faith-based social services, which he called "compassionate conservatism." He went beyond that to give them a faith-based war, faith-based law enforcement, faith-based education, faith-based medicine, and faith-based science. He could deliver on his promises because he stocked the agencies handling all these problems, in large degree, with born-again Christians of his own variety. The evangelicals had complained for years that they were not able to affect policy because liberals left over from previous administrations were in all the health and education and social service bureaus, at the operational level. They had specific people they objected to, and they had specific people with whom to replace them, and Karl Rove helped them do just that.

Bush and administration personnel:

The head of the White House Office of Personnel was Kay Coles James, a former dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University and a former vice-president of Gary Bauer's Family Research Council, the conservative Christian lobbying group that had been set up as the Washington branch of James Dobson's Focus on the Family. She knew whom to put where, or knew the religious right people who knew. An evangelical was in charge of placing evangelicals throughout the bureaucracy. The head lobbyist for the Family Research Council boasted that "a lot of FRC people are in place" in the administration. The evangelicals knew which positions could affect their agenda, whom to replace, and whom they wanted appointed. This was true for the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and Health and Human Services—agencies that would rule on or administer matters dear to the evangelical causes.

Bush and "faith-based justice:"

After his nomination but before his confirmation, Ashcroft promised to put an end to the task force set up by Attorney General Janet Reno to deal with violence against abortion clinics —evangelicals oppose the very idea of hate crimes. The outcry of liberals against Ashcroft's promise made him back off from it during his confirmation hearings. In 2001, there was a spike in violence against the clinics —790 incidents, as opposed to 209 the year before. That was because the anthrax alarms that year gave abortion opponents the idea of sending threatening powders to the clinics—554 packets were sent. Nonetheless, Ashcroft refused for a long time to send marshals to quell the epidemic.

That was one of many signs that this administration thought of abortion as a sin, not as a right to be protected. The President himself called for an amendment to the Constitution outlawing abortion. He called evangelical leaders around him to celebrate the signing of the bill banning "partial birth abortions." The signing was not held, as usual, at the White House but in the Ronald Reagan Building, as a salute to the hero of younger evangelicals.

Bush and "faith-based science:"

Since President Bush advocates the teaching of intelligent design, it is not surprising that in his administration, the National Park Service would authorize the sale of a book at the Grand Canyon claiming that the canyon was formed by Noah's Flood. A group of scientists protested this endorsement by the government of bogus science. In response to that, the Alliance Defense Fund, set up by James Dobson and other fundamentalists, threatened a lawsuit if the book was withdrawn from sale at the federal site. As other religious right figures chimed in, it was discovered that a draft guide for park employees stated that the canyon was not formed in the time period of the Flood; the guide was not released. A survey of Park Service employees in 2003 found that almost nine out of ten felt the scientific message of the Service was being skewed for political reasons.[24] That is the very definition of faith-based science.

So is the Bush administration's denial of global warming. The religious right would seem to have no stake in this position, but for whatever reason —the premillennial lack of concern for the earth's fate as Jesus' coming nears, the "dominion" over the earth given Adam—evangelicals have been urgent in denying what most objective scientists have been observing.

Bush and "faith-based health:"

One of George W. Bush's first acts as president—in fact, on his first day in office, signaling its importance to his evangelical supporters—was to restore a gag rule on aid to international organizations that counsel women on the subject of abortion.[29] Though abortion is legal in the US, the President was able by executive decree to proscribe its mere discussion in other countries if they are to receive money for their population problems. This was just the beginning of the imposition of moral limits on health measures abroad. Though the President was praised for devoting millions of dollars to preventing and treating AIDS in Africa, 30 percent of that money was earmarked for promoting sexual abstinence, and none of it was for condoms.[30] Religion trumped medical findings on what is effective.

Domestically, too, $170 million were lavished on promoting a policy of "abstinence-only" in the schools during the year 2005 alone. The Centers for Disease Control removed from its Web site the findings of a panel that abstinence-only programs do not work. A study of the abstinence programs being financed by the federal government showed how little medical knowledge mattered, as opposed to moral dictation.

And last but not least, Bush and "faith-based war:"

God's war needs God's warriors, and the White House was ready to supply them. Kay Coles James had been the White House personnel scout for domestic offices. The equivalent director of personnel for the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority (headed by Catholic convert Paul Bremer) was the White House liaison to the Pentagon, James O'Beirne, a conservative Catholic married to National Revieweditor Kate O'Beirne. Those recruited to serve in the CPA were asked if they had voted for Bush, and what their views were on Roe v. Wade and capital punishment. O'Beirne trolled the conservative foundations, Republican congressional staffs, and evangelical schools for his loyalist appointees. Relatives of prominent Republicans were appointed, and staffers from offices like that of Senator Rick Santorum. Right moral attitude was more important than competence.

That was proved when the first director of Iraqi health services, Dr. Frederick Burkle, was dismissed. Burkle, a distinguished physician, was a specialist in disaster relief, with experience in Kosovo, Somalia, and Kurdish Iraq. His replacement, James Haveman, had run a Christian adoption agency meant to discourage women from having abortions. Haveman placed an early emphasis on preventing Iraqis from smoking, while ruined hospitals went untended. This may suggest the policy on appointments that put Michael Brown in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but the parallel is insufficiently harsh.

Cleaning out this rats' nest will be one of the biggest challenges the Democrats face.

(Cross-posted at p3.)

Posted by Nothstine at 03:01 PM |

Rick Warren's Syrian Trip Upsets Christians

Pastor Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life," met this week with Syria's Grand Mufti Sheikh Badr al-Din Hassoun and told him that 80 percent of Americans reject what President Bush is doing in Iraq and consider America's policies and actions in the Middle East to be wrong. He also praised Syria for creating a society in which Christians and Muslims could live together peacefully. His statements particularly upset Joseph Farrah.

… Rick Warren has traveled to and provided legitimacy to a hostile foreign government, presided over by a brutal fascist dictator who hates Jews, threatens Israel, subverts neighboring Lebanon, imprisons and terrorizes its own citizens and even kills them in massive numbers when they stand up in revolt – now I have to denounce this impostor in the strongest terms possible. It is my biblical mandate to do so.

Other Christians may be holding back, waiting to hear Rick Warren's explanation for his behavior in Syria. Some are cautiously suggesting that accounts of his activities there may have been distorted by the controlled press. Some want to give him the benefit of any doubt.

I'm going to give it to you straight: Rick Warren had no business traveling to Syria and being used for propaganda purposes by Bashar Assad, the terrorist-supporting president.

There are only two possibilities to explain what happened:

He made the outrageous statements attributed to him by the Syrians, for which he should be ostracized – maybe even tried for treason, in my opinion.

He didn't make the statements, or was misquoted – in which case he has placed himself in the predictable position of being a "useful idiot" for the Islamofascist regime in Damascus.

Take your pick. Neither option is very attractive.

As one Christian website notes:

Protocol governing the travel of American citizens overseas dictates that they visit foreign leaders only with State Department approval, they do not meet with leaders of countries hostile to the United States, and they do not say anything which will contradict official American government policy. Rick Warren has just violated all these firm and fixed policies.

Robert Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral also visited with the Grand Mufti of Syria back in 1999. Like Warren, he came back with a message of religious inclusiveness – or what some Christians fear is the beginnings of a one-world religion. Schuller's words sound amazingly similar to the religious unification dreams of the Reverent Sun Myung Moon (only without that wacky self-proclaimed messiah as the center of it all):

I met once more with the Grand Mufti, truly one of the great Christ-honoring leaders of faith.... I'm dreaming a bold impossible dream: that positive-thinking believers in God will rise above the illusions that our sectarian religions have imposed on the world, and that leaders of the major faiths will rise above doctrinal idiosyncrasies, choosing not to focus on disagreements, but rather to transcend divisive dogmas to work together to bring peace and prosperity and hope to the world.

It all sounds great, but as just about anyone who has ever truly believed in any religion knows, the notion of compromising one's beliefs in order to accommodate members of another faith is unthinkable. So it is no surprise that Christians are responding quite negatively to Warren's comments about a unified religion, even going so far as to suggest he is a traitor.

While we're on that topic, I do feel that the reports of Warren's statements in Syria call for an investigation. Even though I respect the right of any American citizen to speak out against the policies of our President and government while on American soil, I would never condone such talk on foreign soil, particularly when it could be used by foreign governments as anti-American propaganda. If Warren did go to Syria and talk down our government, I don't think that is something to be treated lightly.

Posted by Becky at 12:14 PM |

November 17, 2006

Senate Dems seek to restore habeus corpus

Thankfully, the Democrats have decided to keep their heads about them--when the "fear itself" saber rattlers have lost theirs. They're working to amend the more odious provisions of the Military Commissions Act.

From The Hill:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who is running for president and who, come January, will be the second ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, introduced legislation today that would amend the existing law.

Dodd said he’s expecting the legislation to be taken up early next year.

“The bill goes back and undoes what was done,” Dodd told The Hill. Dodd was one of the top critics of the military tribunal bill the GOP hashed out with the White House and was signed into law last month.

Dodd’s bill, which currently has no co-sponsors, seeks to give habeas corpus protections to military detainees; bar information that was gained through coercion from being used in trials and empower military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable.

Dodd’s bill also narrows the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants. The legislation would also authorize the U.S. Court of Appeals for the armed forces to review decisions made by the military commissions.

Moreover, Dodd seeks to have an expedited judicial review of the new law to determine the constitutionality of its provisions.

Dodd is the first Democrat to take aim at the controversial military tribunals bill. But Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the incoming Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, also said that he is in the process of drafting “major changes” to the legislation.

Among the planned changes are instituting habeas corpus rights for detainees and looking into the current practice of extraordinary rendition.

Leahy is among several other Democrats, including incoming Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who are concerned about the practice of sending suspected terrorists to countries other than the United States for imprisonment and interrogation.

The incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said he is going to look into the rendition process.

Good.

Posted by Carla at 06:21 PM |

Professor Says Conservatives Give More to Charity

For a long time, running in Republican circles as I have, I've heard that studies show conservatives give more generously to charity than liberals. A new book by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, entitled, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, argues that religious conservatives in particular are far more generous to charities than secular liberals, regardless of income (so, apparently, are people who drink moderately). This conservative domination in the area of generosity includes volunteer hours and donated blood.

For the record, Brooks was raised a liberal Democrat, became a Republican for some time, and now is an Independent. He is also a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal. I leave it to you to decide whether that matters. But those of his peers who have reviewed his data seem to agree with his conclusions and he welcomes other experts to give the book a thorough critique.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.

The book is sure to spur on debate about entitlement programs and the social effects of the government safety net. Republicans will trumpet it as proof that Democrats only want to give away other people's money and will not part with their own. They will probably go one step further and say that government charity has detrimental impacts on society, in terms of people caring for and being responsible for their fellow man.

So I ask you, have you dug into your pocket to give money to a charity? Did you send money to help the Katrina victims? Have you donated blood? Do you support food drives, clothing drives, Christmas present drives, etc.? Based on your anecdotal experience, does it ring true that Democrats work to help the downtrodden through allocations of tax dollars, while Republicans take personal responsibility for helping people by digging into their own wallets? And most important, what do you think is the outcome for society when charity shifts from primarily being funded through donations by generous individuals of all income levels to primarily being funded by the government?

Posted by Becky at 12:34 PM |

Congress Protects Animal Abusers

Back when we designated those people who blow up logging equipment "eco-terrorists" it didn't really trouble me all that much. Back then, we didn't know what terrorism really was, and the expansion of its definition didn't seem to be much of an expansion. Back then, we didn't have the Patriot Act, allowing the government to, in essence, "disappear" terrorists, even if they were U.S. citizens. Today, it's a different world. And that is why I am very troubled that Congress has just branded animal rights activists as "terrorists."

I have a soft spot for animal rights activists because I happen to agree with them in large part about the inexcusably cruel nature of much of our animal testing, animal farming, and fur industries (fortunately, we treat animals better than many other countries in the world; unfortunately, we allow those countries to import the products of their horrific depravity). I can't help but wonder what is mentally wrong with a person who can go to work every day and basically spend their day torturing animals and feel nothing. So I find myself cheering for those animal rights activists who sneak in during the night and sabotage businesses that profit from animal suffering.

Of course, it is preferable for animal rights activists to stick with non-violent protests, and when property is destroyed I agree that standard criminal charges should follow. But I've got to tell you, if I saw an animal suffering, I think I would break the law to help it, too. And I wonder what is wrong with Congress that it would brand as a "terrorist" someone who is trying to relieve the terror experienced daily by captive animals?

Animal rights activists must be making a real difference, because somehow the industries that profit from animal exploitation convinced Congress to brand them as terrorists even if they are engaged in non-violent civil disobedience – a move that is sure to chill even peaceful protests. If they engage in any activity that appears "threatening" and "interferes" with the profitability of the animal-exploiting company, they can be arrested as a terrorist. That is just wrong.

Posted by Becky at 09:32 AM |

Happy Birthday, Howard!

Posted by Carla at 09:12 AM |

How To Save A Life

This is cool:

PORTLAND, Oregon - Neurosurgeons and physicians at Doernbecher Children's Hospital, Oregon Health & Science University, Nov. 14, performed the first transplant of purified human fetal neural stem cells into the brain of a study participant with neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL), also known as Batten disease. NCL is a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disorder that affects infants and children.

The transplant is the focus of a Phase 1 clinical trial to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of HuCNS-SC(TM) - a proprietary human central nervous stem cell product developed by StemCells, Inc., Palo Alto, Calif. This one-year trial will involve up to six children with NCL.

"Doernbecher's specialists are privileged to care for this child and family and to push forward groundbreaking work in degenerative brain diseases," said co-principal investigator Nathan Selden, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S., F.A.A.P., who performed the surgery. "Our team is pleased that our patient's recovery thus far has been as expected."

The research team will continue to concentrate their efforts on the health and well-being of the study participant and family and will, along with Stem Cells, Inc., provide periodic updates as appropriate until the trial is completed.

Oregon needs a ballot measure in 2008 that would provide state funding for research on additional stem cell lines.

These doctors were able to use fetal stem cells to save the life of a child. I can't think of anything more "pro-life" than that.

Posted by Carla at 09:07 AM |

Bill O'Reilly and O.J. Simpson

Yesterday I posted about my opinion that every good, moral Republican ought to boycot the Fox Network because Fox television is running a sweeps week special on O.J. Simpson and how he would have killed Nicole and Ron. This morning I read Bill O'Reilly's latest talking points and about swallowed my teeth. O'Reilly, a Fox News employee, is bemoaning the horror of the "elite media's" story on O.J. and urging viewers to boycot any advertisers on the program - but says nothing of the network that produced it. This is Fox creating a storm of controversy on one channel and feeding the fears of conservatives about the collapse of our culture on another. So again I say, Republicans, you cannot trust Fox. You've just got to shut them off altogether.

Posted by Becky at 06:23 AM |

November 16, 2006

When Republicans Don't Understand Science

Quick, before it disappears, check out today's Drudge Report to see where he has actually highlighted on his front page a story about a cat-owner's claim that her pet gave birth to cat-dogs. The "proof" is a photo of the mother cat with two puppies (obviously not half-breeds) held up beside her. The owner claims the cat gave birth to half-cat/half-dog mongrels after mating with a dog.

This is why it is so important that our children learn about science in school. Matt, this is not possible. And if you folks would start studying science you would realize that a lot of other things you claim have happened are impossible, too.

Posted by Becky at 02:28 PM |

A fine line of distinction

The other day after I blundered through my post on the growth of the Unitarian Church in Portland, I noted in comments that there's a difference between Christian individuals being involved in politics and Christian churches being involved in politics.

NancyJ commented that this was a "fine line of distinction".

I've been thinking about Nancy's comment for awhile. It bugs me to know that some people think there's a hare's breath of difference between a religious organization involving itself in politics and religious individuals doing the same.

In my view, Christians (as individuals) should be actively involved in politics. Its their duty as citizens..just like it is for NonChristians. They have a right and a responsibility to be active in the process.

Churches are another matter entirely. They are an organized structure with a whole different set of resources and tax exempt status. Its outside of their moral and ethical purview to involve themselves in politics. Once churches involve themselves in government, both government and the church are eroded.

I don't see this as a "fine line", whatsoever. I think there is in fact a very broad chasm of difference between individuals and churches in this matter.

Posted by Carla at 01:55 PM |

Why Don't They Just Go Away?

In a Statesman Journal op-ed entitled, "Bad outsiders, deplorable insiders," Gene McIntyre is asking some questions about right-wing initiatives – questions I'll bet a lot of Oregonians are asking - and I think I have some answers.

McIntyre's sentiments are clear:

Would it not be the greatest of developments if those persons who keep spending their big bucks to pay for the gathering of signatures, so they can place their favorite anti-government measures on Oregon's ballots, found something else to do with their time and money. Gees but they are a tiresome bunch while their activity in this matter grows more and more weary for a majority of us with each passing election.

Understandable, of course. But let's suppose for a moment that you were to ask a conservative in Oregon what issues on the ballot they find "tiresome." I'll bet you the overwhelming answer would be government requests for more money. You see, Oregon is engaged in a lengthy struggle between those who believe in local government and want to generously support it, and those who don't trust government and would prefer that the private sector took care of things on its own. Yes, it is a tiresome struggle, but it isn't likely to go away soon. McIntyre seems to see the struggle is there, but doesn’t understand why it must continue:

And then there are the people who help them gather these signatures and presumably make some of their living serving as the puppets to those who seek us out as something to them resembling laboratory animals on which it's appropriate to practice social experiments? What's their problem?

Again, looking at the situation from the conservative point of view, initiative activists typically take the opposite point of view. They see the liberal programs funded by taxation, such as mass transit and urban growth boundaries, as social experiments that treat people like laboratory animals. They put government-limitation measures on the ballot as a means of ending the social experiments and returning the state to what they see as rationality. You can agree or disagree with their point of view, but the fact is the debate is far from over, even if, for the time being, the left appears to be winning the debate in Oregon.

The motivation behind the ballot measures seems to particularly bother MacIntyre:

What they're about reeks of self-centeredness, exploitation of fears and ignorance, and backward-looking politics.

This reaction is the very reason why Bill Sizemore is so disliked even by other conservatives who put measures on the ballot. His own self-centeredness and exploitation have given the whole bunch a bad name. He exploits the process by filing dozens of initiatives, most of which he never intends to actually pursue, just hoping one or two will receive a magic ballot title that will enable him to convince some wealthy Republican to give him more money. This is absolutely not the case for people like Don McIntire or the folks at Oregonians in Action. I am entirely convinced that they are driven purely by a desire to right wrongs they believe are harming Oregon, and not at all to "make a living" off the initiative process.

Russ Walker, another right-wing initiative backer, is an entirely different matter. Peter Wong and Steve Law at The Statesman Journal don't understand his "disappearing act" this year after his previous ballot successes. What they don't seem to realize is that Freedomworks is not a local organization, and Walker has no real independence. He does what the guys back east tell him to do and collects his paycheck. Obviously, he was not authorized to do anything other than lend his name to Bill Sizemore's ballot measures; therefore, he could not spend money campaigning on them, even if he had wanted to (though they may have allowed a campaign had Sizemore been able to bring in money for one). Walker is not in the same category as McIntire, the folks at Oregonians in Action, and other independent ideology-driven conservative activists. He's a face for hire.

In any case, you don't have to agree with these various conservative activists' points of view to acknowledge that they believe what they are saying, they have a right to say it, and our initiative process is theirs, too.

Back to Gene McIntyre and his editorial, the poor man wonders why, despite repeated rejections at the polls, the conservative ballot measures continue unabated:

Oregonians have time and again had to deal with their half-baked ideas that usually end up in litigation and protracted court proceedings, costing a lot of money and going nowhere: In most cases they've been way-off-the-chart wrong and the state's voters have defeated their efforts at the polls. Yet, seemingly in mindless cadence, they keep regurgitating the same old garbage.

I'll tell you why. These people are true believers. They honestly believe that if they get the chance to really explain their position to you, you will see that they are right and at last vote for their measure. Sizemore is an exception here. He may truly be conservative, but his most pressing ideology is scamming money, and if he can change the world to be more conservative in the process, all the better. And year after year, he seems to be able to convince someone that his idea is so beautiful and its ballot title so perfect that no campaign is needed and the measure is an automatic shoe-in. He then takes their check, subcontracts the actual work out to some poor petitioner, keeping a nice profit for himself, of course, and lets the ballot title do the rest. After all, campaigning is hard work, and it's awfully hard to skim money off of a campaign.

Not so the rest of the people involved in conservative initiatives. And whether you agree with their ideas or not, whether you find them "tiresome" or not, they have a right to try to convince you of their point of view, just as you have a right to work with your local school or library to convince voters to pass a bond measure for facilities expansion. As we saw in Forest Grove and Cornelius, sometimes the voters say no to liberal ideas, too, and just like the conservatives, these ideas' supporters often claim, as Russ Dondero and Jim Moore did, that better communication would have made a difference. See, we all are so sure we are right that we believe others would agree if we could just explain our positions better. So the attempt to convince, to reword, and to try again continues indefinitely.

I don't know whether the two Oregons will ever stop struggling to convince each other of their positions, but for now I would advise McIntyre to let go the angst and just continue to be an informed voter. Dondero and Moore may believe the election means "the end of an era dominated by anti-tax activists Don McIntire and Bill Sizemore," but I don't.

Posted by Becky at 01:08 PM |

Moral Republicans Should Boycott Fox

Republicans have long been complaining about the moral decline in America and blamed it in large part on the media for producing garbage that pulls down the culture. And they certainly have a point. Some of what is on television these days sickens me – for instance, I detest even the commercials for "Drawn Together" and "Freak Show" that inevitably play during "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report," two of my favorite programs on Comedy Central. My goodness, my children are in the room with me and the darned commercials are making me blush. But with a lineup that also includes "South Park," another of my favorites, I doubt many moral Republicans are watching Comedy Central. However, they are watching Fox. Faithfully. Because Fox is on their side, right?

Fox News brings them biased right-wing news, Fox Reality has all those empty-headed reality garbage shows they love, Fox TV has some of the top-rated shows (though they're not very moral), and Fox Sports has, of course, sports. The enlightened among us recognize the down side to the Fox addiction already. For instance, Fox News keeps Republicans very ill-informed, and Fox News addiction (quite common, actually), as well as persistent viewing of other Fox programming, wastes their time on vapid, frivolous and empty garbage when they could be reading informative books, enjoying the outdoors, or playing a board game with their kids.

But the real point here is the morality issue. And at this time, Fox is offering what perhaps is the most egregious example of immorality on television that has ever been broadcast: a special on O.J. Simpson, in which he will discuss how he would have killed his wife, Nicole, and Ron Goldman – if, of course, he had killed them (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). This is a line that we should not be crossing, and it's time for Republicans to step up to the plate and do something real for morality in media.

As David Hinckley writes in the New York Daily News, "If O.J. show is unfit, the channel we must quit."

It's Fox, Simpson and producer Judith Regan laughing at their own audience, fully confident that even though we know their project is off-the-charts offensive, we will watch it anyway.

Republicans, you may not really like Geraldo Rivera. God knows, he's not been a beacon of morality. But even he can see how completely revolting this is:

"I think it's disgusting. I think he's a murdering liar. I think he's demonstrating that he made a fool (sic) of the jury in Los Angeles and all the black community across the country that supported him. This sleazy, low-down murdering dog who killed his ex-wife, the mother of his children, as they slept upstairs, who almost cut her head off, who killed Ron Goldman, an innocent man, who owes a 33.5 million dollar civil judgment against these families, now he's doing this trick....This guy doesn't cease to insult our intelligence. I think it really is the most appalling thing I've ever seen."

So Republicans, I'm issuing you a challenge. Are you going to let Geraldo Rivera out-moral you, or are you going to take a stand for morality in America? I'm asking you to prove to the people over at Fox that you're not as brain-dead and addicted to sensationalist crap as they think you are. Send Fox a message that is clear and strong – one that they can't ignore. It is not enough to just refuse to watch the O.J. special. You need to refuse to watch the entire Fox Network. Because really, it is all immoral garbage. People who would bring you this O.J. show cannot be trusted with anything else. You know it's true, and now it's time for you to actually act on your convictions and take a stand for the America you've so long been saying we should be.

Posted by Becky at