« 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 09:30 AM |

November 15, 2006

Setting The Bar High

New right wing crazy Congresswoman-elect Michelle Bachman (MN-6) was asked about her goals as a new member of Congress recently.

“My No. 1 goal is to not go to jail,” Bachmann said, chuckling.

Good to see the few freshmen Republican members of Congress are going for the gold. We have hope that you can do it, Michelle!

Posted by Alan at 06:59 PM |

Abramoff to Tell on Democrats, Too

For a long time, Democrats have been able to say the Abramoff scandal was a Republican scandal. That may be about to change. Abramoff has reportedly spilled the beans to investigators about "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators." This is actually good news. It will give the Democrats an opportunity to prove they really are different from Republicans by taking appropriate disciplinary steps forthwith.

Abramoff is also said to have given information about Karl Rove's unethical (and perhaps illegal) acceptance of gifts. I was enormously shocked to learn that Rove is denying everything.

Posted by Becky at 09:30 AM |

This is Cool

KFC has just "unveiled" a new advertisement that is visible from space. The logo, made from one foot square colored tiles placed out in the wilderness of Nevada, is 87,500 square feet. Few of us will ever see this thing from space, but I do think it would be fun to see it from an airplane. I know some will say this is excessive advertising, but hey, I love creative advertising, and I think this is cool.

Posted by Becky at 09:13 AM |

Rich Man, Poor Man – Which Is It?

This is interesting. Bill Sizemore testified in court that he had "no income," which was why he could not pay the teachers' unions what he owed to them as a result of their successful racketeering lawsuit. So one wonders how he has apparently been able to afford to live in a mansion in Klamath Falls for the past year. I'd call him and ask him myself, but I don't think he would tell me. So let me just say right now that this is purely speculation on my part. But here's why I so speculate.

On several of the initiative petitions he has filed for 2008, such as this one, his address is listed as 2710 Vale Rd in Klamath Falls, OR 97603. Coincidentally, that very home is now listed for sale, and you can see it here. Not bad for a man with no income, a stay-at-home wife, and five kids.

Posted by Becky at 09:12 AM |

Iraqi Occupation costs by state

I just ran across these stats which show how much the Iraqi Occupation has cost each state.

Definition: "The state-level costs in the table are computed based on how much each state contributes in tax revenues, according to IRS data." -National Priorities Project

Oregon's share: $2.6 Billion

What else might Oregonians have done with $2.6 billion???

Posted by Kevin at 08:30 AM |

The "Liberal" media screws over the Dems again

One would think that the liberal media would be in a desperate hurry to bury Democratic Party rifts as we head into the Dem majority legislature for 2007.

Not so much.

The TV, radio and print news are abuzz about the John Murtha-Steny Hoyer fight to become Democratic House Majority Leader.

Its quite a melodramatic show, according to news accounts. Murtha's 20+ year old ABSCAM investigation is being tossed back up on to TV screens in all its grainy, video glory. Hoyer is being cast as the dark bad guy who is fomenting a wedge between himself and Speaker Pelosi.

Its all so very Peyton Place.

Meanwhile, the GOP get all sorts of chummy media coverage for their re-installation of Trent Lott as Senate Minority Leader and Lamar Alexander as Senate Minority Whip.

The internal GOP leadership squabbles all but go unreported in the large media outlets. Yet House GOP Whip race has its own nasty battle unfolding--apparently complete with lobbyist interference.

One might be led to think, based on the way these things are being couched, that the Democrats are an angry bunch of power grubbers who can't deal with their internal decisions, much less run government. While the well mannered Republicans dust themselves off and gently assign their positions in an orderly fashion.

The liberal media wouldn't do that now, would they?

Posted by Carla at 08:00 AM |

November 14, 2006

While other churches languish, Portland's Unitarian runneth over

Despite Ann Coulter's contention that liberals are a godless contingent of church spurning heathens, it seems Portland is a hotbed of Christianity:

While most of the traditional downtown churches have plenty of available seats Sunday mornings, at the First Unitarian Church on downtown’s western edge, congregants have to come early if they want to sit up close.

First Unitarian, under the direction of Pastor Marilyn Sewell, has grown to the point where its two services Sunday morning often can’t accommodate the nearly 1,000 people who arrive. The church is enlarging its facility, and Sewell is considering a third Sunday service. But she isn’t sure she’s up to conducting three in a day.

According to Sewell, First Unitarian has the highest attendance of any Unitarian church in the country. The next largest, she says, averages about 700 worshippers Sunday mornings.

I'm curious if other blue areas of the country are seeing a renaissance in liberal churches.

Still..I'm not crazy about liberal Christians involving themselves in government any more than I like conservative Christians doing it. It crosses a boundary for me that I think should never be crossed..both for the churches and for government.

Posted by Carla at 08:55 PM |

Commission Recommendations to Legislature: Good, So-So, and Ugly

After 15 months of meetings, a citizen commission is calling for a "cultural shift" in the Oregon Legislature and has offered legislators some ideas to help restore the Legislature's credibility and operate more efficiently. Some of the ideas make a lot of sense to me. I'm not so sure what to think about others. And one in particular I absolutely oppose.

I like it:

Making sure minority parties have a legitimate voice in the political process is essential and fair. Karen Minnis's habit of using parliamentary procedures and committee hearings to shut out Democratic voices while she was in charge was not cool at all. But I would warn Democrats not to be naively sweet to the Republicans. It's not like they're suddenly going to quit playing hardball, just because they have lost the upper hand.

I have no problem with increasing funding for legislative staff. Better pay will probably help attract better quality, more experienced staffers to help the legislators. A raise is also needed for the Legislators themselves. Last year, for 208 days, legislators earned $17,244 (approximately $79 per day) plus $99 a day for expenses. That's not great pay, especially considering what they have to go through.

I agree with the commission's recommendation of at least 48 hours' public notice before committee meetings. That is the least they can do to accommodate the public.

And I really like the recommendation that stable funding be established for the state ethics commission and that the commission be kept independent from legislative control. The ethics commission is currently understaffed and struggles to do its watchdogging job.

I don't know what to think of it:

The citizen group called for annual legislative sessions of limited duration rather than a single unlimited session every two years. On the one hand, there is a lot to be said for the fear that annual sessions will just turn legislative service into a full-time job when we really do not want our legislators to lose touch with reality. Additionally, some might not be able to serve if doing so cuts a big gap out of every calendar year, rather than just one. If either session is allowed to run long, either now or in future years, we could wind up with a body of law-makers with nothing else to do all year besides make up more rules for us to live by.

On the other hand, legislative sessions are currently unlimited in duration and have been getting longer every year. This proposal would limit the session to no more than 120 days in odd-numbered years and 60 days in even-numbered years, for a total of 180 days. In 2005, the session lasted 208 days all in one run, and in 2003 it lasted a record 227 days. The split session suggestion would certainly be an improvement over that, and might also eliminate the need for special sessions. Would the limits stick? I don't know.

I really have no idea what to think of the recommendation to create a nonpartisan office of "state controller." It seems to me the suggested duties of the "state controller" duplicate the job already being done by the Secretary of State – unless they are advocating replacing that position, which is currently partisan.

I hate it:

The notion of a nonpartisan legislature and open primaries does initially sound appealing to someone like me who doesn't fit into either party. Candidates would work to appeal more the center rather than the fringes from the very beginning.

However, I have two problems with this. First, people have a right to form parties if they want to in order to advance their beliefs. I don't see how it is fair to block that process. Besides, it helps voters understand the candidates' positions to know if they are affiliated, and with whom. Second, where elections are nonpartisan in a blue state like Oregon, often all of the options are Democrats and Republicans are left without a choice they can support. How is a right-winger supposed to choose between two liberal candidates, such as often occurs in Portland City Council races? The partisan system ensures that people of all viewpoints have a chance to vote for a candidate who represents them.

Posted by Becky at 03:53 PM |

Civil Liberties First

The Democratic Party, which has traditionally prided itself as the champion of civil liberties, finds itself at last in a position to demonstrate very clearly whether its primary interest is advancing its own strength as a party or preserving and protecting this great country. As Paul Craig Roberts writes, "The Bush regime was a coup d'etat against the Bill of Rights and the jurisdictions of Congress and the courts. Unless Democrats roll back this coup, Americans have seen the last of their civil liberties." But, he says, "Democrats are anxious to get on with their agendas and have shown no recognition that the first order of business is to repeal the legislation that permits torture, warrantless detention and domestic spying."

I agree. The very first order of business for the Democrats should be reversing the damage the Bush Administration has inflicted on Americans' civil rights. Like Roberts, I also believe that impeachment is in order. How can we look the other way at this Administration's devastating attacks on the very foundation of our way of life? How can we allow such treachery to go unpunished?

After the Democrats have saved America, they will have plenty of time to convince a grateful nation to joint them in their quest for a more liberal government – to deal with issues of poverty, health care, etc. But please, first things first.

Posted by Becky at 10:52 AM |

A new approach to the Iraq Quagmire

On the one hand things are clearly going badly and getting worse in Iraq. 150 people kidnapped in broad daylight in the middle of Baghdad by men dressed in the uniform of Iraqi special police pretty much underscores that fact. Our military is already strained by the existing deployments. 140,000 troops in Iraq clearly is not sufficient to change the situation and increasing the strain on our military by deploying more troops risks, as Carla notes, degrading our military further.

On the other hand withdrawing immediately or even in the near future poses the risk of Iraq imploding and that implosion spreading to neighboring countries. This is in my estimation a very real risk.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Here's what I propose:

1. Take back sovereignty.

2. Turn it over to the UN. Specifically to the UN Security Council.

3. Get Russia and China, both of whom have had their own struggles with armed Islamic rebels, onboard. Ditto for the French. Get every nation with veto power on the Security Council to deploy 50k troops under UN leadership and armed with a strong mandate from the council to deal decisively with violence.

4. Make the criteria very simple: a stable, non-genocidal government of the Iraqi's own choosing, whatever form of government that may turn out to be.

5. Then get the hell out and swear never to be fooled by NeoCons again!

Yes, tragically but inevitably some eggs will get broken. But I believe that something along these lines offers by far the best chance to salvage the world-class clusterfuck that president Bush has created there.

Posted by Kevin at 08:45 AM |

November 13, 2006

My Very Smart Kids

Yesterday my children and I were discussing how much better they have it than most everyone else in the world when one of my sons commented to me, "Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the world lived as well as we do?" I said, "Well, actually, that would be impossible." He asked, "Why?" I said, "Because if everyone in the world lived as well as we do, it would take at least four Planet Earth's to produce enough resources for all of us." His jaw dropped and his eyes got big, and then he asked a very astute question – one that so few Republicans seem to have ever considered. "Why, then, do people tell us we should be trying to help the rest of the world live like we do?"

Thus begins an intellectual and moral struggle for my children, one in which they will eventually have to decide whether to live a more frugal, earth-friendly lifestyle, or go to war and continue to take advantage of the world's poor in order to maintain the creature comforts and consumerism they have come to expect. While I believe they will eventually make the right choice, I must say I don't have nearly as much faith in the American public as a whole.

Posted by Becky at 10:36 AM |

November 12, 2006

Dissecting MTP & the election results

I watched MTP this morning too. Three things stuck out in my mind:

1. Nobody should assume that Lieberman will vote with the Dems on anything involving foreign policy.

2. McCain stated that he believes that "most Americans" are "right of center." Which is really a nonsensical statement if you think about it, although Rahm Emanuel apparently agrees with McCain.

3.McCain is polishing his mental knob if he thinks that Independents will turn out for him in '08 like we did in 2000. It ain't gonna happen! Guilliani has a much better chance in 08 than McCain does.

As Carla has noted many times in the past, the "center" is a constantly moving target. Which is something I agree with. And it's something that seems to get ignored in the various dismantlings of this past election.

It seems to me that one thing that this recent election demonstrates is that the center chose to redefine itself further to the left, whether McCain, Emanuel or any of the other self-styled experts wish to accept that or not.

That's not to say that those in the center really moved so much as we got tired of the pundits and politicians trying to tell us where the center really is.

The current TIME cover story Reaching for The Center cuts to some of the root issues that played out last Tuesday.

In a meeting with political columnists, Reid said, "It's not a time to get even with the Republicans; it's a time to treat them the way they didn't treat us." And then he announced that he and Nancy Pelosi, who will be Speaker of the House, had decided to open the House-Senate conference committees to the press. This may seem a small point, but it has great symbolic relevance. The conferences are where the most important legislative action takes place, where compromises are worked out between House and Senate versions of legislation and where, in the recent past, all sorts of nefarious special deals for lobbyists and pork for legislators have been inserted without public scrutiny. In the old days, the conferences were public. They've been closed for at least the past 10 years, and during that time, pork-barrel earmarks have increased tenfold.

I submit that most centrists understand that the long running debate over large or small government is completely unrelated to how wisely our government spends our money. If we as a country are going to spend the money then let's at least spend it in ways that get us the most bang for the buck. The choice between the financial emaciation of conservative theory and the pork-barrel free spending of conservative practice is a false choice. Rejecting the latter doesn't mean that we therefore support the former.

After a dark congressional session dominated by such pressing topics as the fate of Terri Schiavo, flag-burning and gay-marriage amendments--and the refusal to seriously address health care, energy independence, immigration or the war in Iraq--Reid's modest promise that his Senators will have some mud on the outside of their boots is realistic ... and also kind of exhilarating.

I would add lobby reform in Congress to that list. None of which are inherently Left or Right issues. They're common sense issues.

There's room for being both uncomfortable with pulling the plug on an individual who is technically alive and being even more uncomfortable with the notion of the government interferring into such deeply personal issues.

There's room for not wanting to see our flag burned in protest and still placing an even higher value on the individual's right to express themselves even though, or perhaps especially because, we disagree with what they wish to express.

There's room for not supporting gay marriage and vigorously disagreeing that the Constitution is an appropriate place to deal with it.

Posted by Kevin at 05:56 PM |

Bechtel Cuts and Runs

Bechtel, which probably should itself be included in the "Axis of Evil" for its long-time corruption, influence-peddling, and bleeding dry the poor in the world without a second thought, decided several days ago to pull out of Iraq. This despite its failure to complete much of the work it was paid to do. Left behind is a country of people who feel betrayed and are losing hope that Iraq reconstruction will ever be completed. Bechtel claims it failed because much of the $2.3 billion it received to complete a number of reconstruction tasks (water-treatment systems, electricity plants, sewage systems, airports and roads) had to be spent on security instead. But in the eyes of many Iraqis, the corporation is leaving Iraq worse off than it was under the rule of Saddam Hussein – including during the last twelve years of his rein under economic sanctions.

The average household in Iraq now gets two hours of electricity a day. There is 70% unemployment, 68% of Iraqis have no access to safe drinking water, and only 19% have sewage access. Not even oil production has matched pre-invasion levels.

The security situation is hellish, with a recent study published in the prestigious British medical journal Lancet estimating 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq as a result of the invasion and occupation.

The group Medact recently said that easily treatable conditions such as diarrhea and respiratory illness are causing 70% of all child deaths, and that "of the 180 health clinics the US hoped to build by the end of 2005, only four have been completed - and none opened".

A proposed $200 million project to build 142 primary-care centers ran out of cash after building just 20 clinics, a performance the World Health Organization described as "shocking".

Bechtel claims, by the way, to have completed 97 of the 99 projects it was asked to do. Funny that the people who would benefit from those projects don't see it that way. An engineer with the Ministry of Electricity said, "It is strange how billions of dollars spent on electricity brought no improvement whatsoever, but in fact worsened the situation." But to any who have watched Bechtel's actions over the past two decades, this is not strange at all. Bechtel has become very good at taking the big money contracts, then subcontracting them out to smaller companies who lack experience or integrity to do the jobs correctly for the price Bechtel is willing to pay them.

Such has been the case in the Big Dig debacle in Boston. Yes Bechtel was responsible for that mess. As if delays and massive cost overruns (a $2.6 billion contract under Bechtel's watchful eye became $14.6 billion), evidence has been found that reports and records related to the quality of materials and workmanship have been falsified. More than 1% of the concrete used in walls and roof slabs in the tunnel was faulty, and the company even double-billed for concrete. It is now being sued for tens of millions of dollars.

Bechtel recently won a $553 million annual management contract for the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. One wonders why anyone would allow Bechtel near a nuclear facility. In San Diego, Bechtel installed a nuclear reactor backwards at a power plant, resulting in massive cost overruns. At the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant in Washington, Bechtel's efforts to turn nuclear waste into glass have run into the now-typical cost overruns and delays, with costs expected to double original projections and completion date pushed out six years

A brief history of some of Bechtel's more egregious activities on the international front shows why some have come to the mistaken conclusion that capitalism itself is evil. The role of Bechtel and its cronies within the U.S. government in Iraq has for a very long time been disgusting. Bechtel also worked to screw over the Bolivian people by controlling their access to water and charging confiscatory rates for it. Eventually it got so bad that thousands rioted in the streets and forced Bechtel out. Of course, Bechtel is suing the country for damages, and the public has been excluded from those proceedings.

Having just finished reading Melissa Rossi's book, What Every American Should Know About Who's Really Running the World (an excellent primer for those who haven't followed the news very closely and want to be brought up to speed very quickly), the notion of rooting out such widespread corruption can seem a nearly impossible task. Let's hope our newly-elected Congress has the backbone to resist hearty corporate campaign contributions and undue pressure from corporate cronies within the government. It is not enough to root out the corrupt elected officials. Getting rid of the other rats who are manipulating world events for their own financial gain will be a lot more difficult, but it must be done. The more the public knows about what is going on and cares about it, the easier it will be for our leaders to act appropriately. Hence, it all comes back to where the buck really stops in a democracy that purports to dominate the rest of the world - with you and me.

Posted by Becky at 04:25 PM |

Time to End Oregon State Lottery

Lisa Lednicer of The Oregonian has written an excellent piece on the growing problem of women addicted to gambling. It is an issue that is near and dear to my heart.

I've never been even remotely interested in gambling, thanks to my father. I grew up in Reno, and he spent his career working in the casinos there. He would take me in to his offices, where he showed me the hidden cameras watching to be sure neither employees nor customers cheated. He told me stories of foiled robberies, employees caught working with customers to rip off the casinos, and poor sops who would gamble away their paychecks every payday. He also explained the odds of winning – or should I say, the strong odds that you would lose.

For some reason, my brother did not absorb the lessons and became addicted to gambling. He wasted countless hours hunched over machines, glassy-eyed, pressing the buttons and slowly losing everything he had.

I have a good girlfriend who is a gambling addict. Without her husband's knowledge, she managed to run up $50,000 in debt on their credit cards in a very short time. Now she is working three jobs to pay it off. Needless to say, it has put a strain on their marriage, but to her husband's credit he is willing to work with her and stand by her so long as she is willing to take responsibility for what she did to their financial health and work off her gambling debt.

What is very interesting is the way Oregon has itself, as a state, become addicted to gambling. We now need the nearly $500 million a year that it generates for the state to help pay for schools, economic development, environmental programs, and parks. Taverns all across the state are literally able to survive, even with poor management, simply because the lottery machines are so profitable. It is not unusual for a small, rural tavern to gross nearly half a million a year on a handful of machines. That is a lot of money being pulled out of a small, local economy where many households are already struggling to make ends meet. And funding public services that way is lazy and irresponsible.

I must admit I do not understand the pull of gambling. It does not tempt me in the slightest. But I know for many people, the pull is as irresistible as a fix to an addict. That this gambling addiction is being fueled by a government revenue-generating program is shameful. And that shame is not, in my opinion, mitigated by the fact that we use some of those proceeds to offer treatment to gambling addicts. Expecting them to call the helpline number on a sticker placed on the machine is as ridiculous as expecting smokers to quit because the Surgeon General placed a warning on every pack of cigarettes.

I do believe in personal responsibility and freedom, and many people gamble without ever becoming addicted to it. You could say the same exact thing about most recreational drug use. But we don't have the government selling drugs and using the profits to treat addicts, do we? And even if it would generate vast amounts of money to fund education, would we want that? I surely hope not.

Posted by Becky at 02:21 PM |

Integrity Chic

The story, originating in 1994, goes as follows: Upon hearing that former president Richard Nixon had just died, one of his political enemies of long standing is supposed to have said, "Really? I wonder why he did that?"

With Nixon, of course, the joke was obvious: The man didn't have a guile-less bone in his body. Anyone who knew him took it as axiomatic that even death by stroke simply had to be the result of political calculation by Nixon, not a natural or spontaneously occurring event.

So observers could be forgiven, perhaps, for taking the cynical view of the motives of the man who placed "I am not a crook" in the American political lexicon.

And if that were as far as it went, there probably wouldn't be much to write about here--it would be just one more way that Richard Nixon was one of a kind.

But Glenn Greenwald puts a sharp light on the self-congratulatory conventional wisdom of the Beltway Class, showing, as they scurry for dark corners, that such a level of cynicism is no longer an attitude reserved for the Nixons of our world, but Is instead their standard mode of understanding the world.

Nowhere is this clearer, says Greenwald, than in the case of Russ Feingold, who announced over the weekend that he won't be seeking the presidency in 2008.

Greenwald writes:

When Russ Feingold announced in March that he would introduce a resolution to censure President Bush for breaking the law by eavesdropping on Americans without warrants, a clear two-pronged consensus immediately arose among Beltway pundits and politicians -- including Republicans and many Democrats as well:

(1) Feingold had just disastrously handed a huge "gift" to Republicans, because opposition to Bush's warrantless eavesdropping would doom the Democrats politically, and,

(2) Feingold had introduced this resolution not because he really believed anything he was saying about it, but only as a "political stunt," selfishly designed to advance his own political interests (at the expense of his party) by shoring up the "liberal base" for his 2008 presidential run.

As for premise (1), Democrats spent all year opposing warrantless eavesdropping (mostly mild and reluctant opposition, though in some cases passionate). That opposition culminated in a House vote just 6 weeks before the election where 85% of Democrats voted against a bill to legalize warrantless eavesdropping.

Thereafter, Republicans did everything possible to make that an issue in the campaign, and Democrats just crushed Republicans in the election. As but one example, 12-term GOP incumbent Nancy Johnson made her support for warrantless eavesdropping (and her challenger's opposition to it) a centerpiece of her campaign. She was easily defeated.

As for premise (2), Russ Feingold announced today, definitively, that he is not running for President in 2008.

It is hard to overstate how ignorant and wrong Beltway pundits are about everything, and how barren and corrupt inside-Washington conventional wisdom is.

Russ Feingold has spent his entire idiosyncratic political career espousing views because he believes them, even when those views are so plainly contrary to his political interests. He infuriated his entire party by being the only Democratic Senator to vote against dismissal of the Clinton impeachment charges prior to the Senate trial. He pursued campaign finance reform hated by incumbents in both parties.

It's true--lord knows, some of Feingold's decisions have infuriated me. Even though I intellectually understood his reason for voting to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General, I found it astonishing that the man could draw his lines of principle so narrowly that the obvious disaster for law enforcement in America that Ashcroft represented would be left out of consideration. (And, in fairness, Feingold was among the first and fiercest to butt heads with Ashcroft once he was confirmed. Except that, by then, Ashcroft was no longer a political joke, a former Senator who lost his re-election to a dead guy; he was a sitting Attorney General.)

But as exasperating as that was, no one could doubt that it was, nevertheless, a matter of principle for Feingold, and not some Moriarity-like calculation to advance his own career.

Well, almost no one. Actually, quite a few can doubt that--the pundits, insiders, hacks and hangers-on who determine Conventional Wisdom in American politics. Those guys--yeah, they can doubt it. Energetically. With gusto. Greenwald continues:

[W]hen Feingold stood up and advocated censure -- based on the truly radical and crazy, far leftist premise that when the President is caught red-handed breaking the law, the Congress should actually do something about that -- the soul-less, oh-so-sophisticated Beltway geniuses could not even contemplate the possibility that he was doing that because he believed what he was saying. Beltway pundits and the leaders of the Beltway political and consulting classes all, in unison, immediately began casting aspersions on Feingold's motives and laughed away -- really never considered -- the idea that he was motivated by actual belief, let alone the merits of his proposal.

That's because they believe in nothing. They have no passion about anything. And they thus assume that everyone else suffers from the same emptiness of character and ossified cynicism that plagues them. And all of their punditry and analysis and political strategizing flows from this corrupt root.

Not only do they believe in nothing, they think that a Belief in Nothing is a mark of sophistication and wisdom. Those who believe in things too much -- who display political passion or who take their convictions and ideals seriously (Feingold, Howard Dean) -- are either naive or, worse, are the crazy, irrational, loudmouth masses and radicals who disrupt the elevated, measured world of the high-level, dispassionate Beltway sophisticates (James Carville, David Broder, Fred Hiatt). They are interested in, even obsessed with, every aspect of the political process except for deeply held political beliefs -- the only part that really matters or that has any real worth.

For that reason, when Feingold announced his censure resolution, the merits of it were virtually ignored (i.e., should something actually be done about the President's deliberate lawbreaking? What are the consequences for our country for doing nothing?). Instead, Feingold's announcement was immediately cast as a disingenuous political maneuver and discussed only in cynical terms of how it would politically harm the Democrats.

Republicans gleefully, bullyingly, viewed the censure resolution through the lens of political positioning; Democrats pusillanimously viewed it through the same lens. The conventional wisdom was incapable of considering any other possibility. Only a professional square peg like Feingold could see it, apparently.

Of course, that was then. Now, with Democrats having taken back control of Congress largely because of the convergence of voters' rejection of a failed war, disgust at rampant and casual corruption, and a growing personal dislike and distrust of Bush, we have what interventionists like to call "a teachable moment" for the chattering classes.

Like most of you, I've got my list of things I'd like to see the Democrats accomplish in the coming months. One of them--a fairly recent entry, but one that's rising steadily on the charts for me--is a return, however tentative, to the idea that principles still do matter, that not everything in Washington is reducible to the calculus of the horse-race.

The good news, such as it is, of Feingold's decision not to run in 2008 is that he'll be spending more time around the Capitol as an example to the rest of how it's done.

But until then, the conventional wisdom around the Beltway will be: "Feingold said he's not running? Really? I wonder why he said that?"

Posted by Nothstine at 01:33 PM |

In which Meet The Press drives me to drink

I sat down in my favorite chair this morning with a cup of strong coffee to watch Meet The Press. Instead of coffee I should have had a Bloody Mary.

Apparently the lessons of Vietnam are lost on McCain and Lieberman.

Think Progress: McCain and Lieberman Express Support For Sending More Troops to Iraq:

McCAIN: The question is, is what’s the solution? And I believe that a withdrawal or a date for withdrawal will lead to chaos in the region, and most military expercent think the same thing. I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops.

+++

RUSSERT: Should we send more troops?

LIEBERMAN: I think we have to be open to that as a way to succeed, to achieve a free and independent Iraq, which would be an extraordinary accomplishment.

Yes, I know that McCain has unimpeachable cred with his military and POW status in Vietnam. But unless we're planning on installing a draft (which neither McCain nor Lieberman appear willing to support) then all we will do is further degrade the US military.

Its time to redeploy out of Iraq. It was a mistake to invade. Its a mistake to continue to occupy.

Notice I didn't say this is a war. Its an occupation. We're not at war. We're at occupation.

Posted by Carla at 10:11 AM |

November 11, 2006

Gates Appointment Displeases Many

Several people over the past two or three days have written about Robert Gates, whom the President has chosen to replace Donald Rumsfeld. Some of what they say contradicts what Robert Parry had to say, particularly with regards to his involvement in Iran-Contra. No one seems particularly thrilled about it, even though their reasons differ wildly, but one thing seems clear: no matter how you look at it, his appointment is significant.

The Hill is reporting that Republicans are seriously angry at the President for dumping Rumsfeld immediately after the election. If you believe this is because they support Rumsfeld and the war and feel the President is caving in to Democrats, you would be wrong. The reason they are angry is because the President said he was committed to keeping the GOP in the majority, and getting rid of Rumsfeld before the election could have helped Republicans win. Bush's apparently speedy selection of Gates – announcing Gates's appointment and Rumsfeld's resignation just half an hour after Nancy Pelosi called on him to do so as a gesture of cooperation with Democrats - could not possibly have been so speedy; therefore, they ask, why did he wait and allow Rumsfeld to continue to damage their re-election chances? Some have gone so far as to say Bush was more interested in protecting himself than in protecting the majority.

Gerald F. Seib blogs at the Wall Street Journal about what he sees as a conflicting viewpoint on Iran between Gates and the Bush Administration. Gates has a history of pushing for dialog with Iran, rather than the more aggressive approach pursued by President Bush. Seib's article provides links to a 2004 report by a task force Gates chaired that said America's interactions with Iran had harmed our interests, as well as to excerpts of Gates's writings on Iraq, Iran, terrorism and intelligence.

FrontPage Magazine says the claim that Gates was involved in Iran-Contra has never had much of a foundation, and that evidence of any direct role by him is "conspicuously lacking." It also says Gates "specifically distanced himself" from support for the Contra rebels, saying that our involvement there would destabilize Central America. The article also looks at Gates's task force report on Iran, and says the report's conclusion, calling for "constructive dialogue," is contradictory with the report's acknowledged facts about Iran. Chiding Gates's status as a "realist," the article also notes that the report holds the "fatalist assumption" that nothing can prevent Iran's nuclear program, and then goes on to say Gates's addition to the cabinet is "the most serious threat to the Bush administration’s muscular foreign policy."

Will Republicans who are angry at the President for stubbornly holding on to Rumsfeld for so long and who believe Gates will be responsible for a policy of appeasement of Iran vote to support his appointment? Will Democrats who believe, rightly or not, that Gates was an insider in Iran-Contra support his appointment? Will Americans who have been duly terrified by Iran's nuclear intentions and equally exhausted by war and death support a softened approach toward Iran – one that even Gates compares to Clinton's approach ten years ago to North Korea? What does Papa Bush's insertion of Gates and his old friend, James Baker, to the current political situation say about his opinion of the foreign policy job his son is doing? Interesting questions, all – and I do hope the answers don't get lost in the midst of all the forthcoming subpoenas and investigations of corrupt Republicans. Something tells me this appointment, and its timing, has significance. I would like to know what that significance is.

Posted by Becky at 03:40 PM |

Veteran voices in the blogosphere

On this Veterans Day I'd like to simply suggest that you go check out a couple of our favorite bloggers who are veterans and write mostly about veterans/active duty issues and related issues. When I want some insight into how veterans view an issue or individual I invariably turn to one or both of these two blogs.

Voice of a Veteran

Pen and Sword

Posted by Kevin at 12:49 PM |

14 For The GOP

It looks as though the Dems are going to hold a 231-204 majority in the House of Representatives, meaning that in 2008 the GOP will need to pick up 14 seats to take the majority.

Being the nice guy that I am, I am going to list the 14 most vulnerable members on the Dem side. These will be the seats that they start targeting the day after the new Congress is sworn in.

The press release will read "(Fill in the Blank) votes for extremeist Pelosi for Speaker with first vote."

Expect most of these members to be on the DCCC Frontline list in 2007.

Joe Courtney (CT-2) - Courtney won this seat in a nailbiter, and the GOP will not be able to help themselves in going after him.

Tim Mahoney (FL-16) - Mahoney won because Foley's name was still on the ballot, and they will target him with a vengence.

Ron Klein (FL-22) - This is a swing district in Florida, but Klein is going to be tough to bring down.

Jim Marshall (GA-3) - Marshall ran an inept campaign and barely held on to this seat. There are rumors of him running for US Senate. If thats true, this will be an open seat the the GOP will need to win.

John Barrow (GA-8) - The GOP did their best to defeat him this cycle, even drawing his base out of this district. But because its Georgia, they'll go after him again.

Baron Hill (IN-9) - Hill lost this seat in 2004, and won it back in 2006. Indiana always had the "Bloody 8th". Its been replaced with the "Bloody 9th".

Dave Loebsack (IA-2) - There is not one person on either side in DC that is not shocked that he pulled of this race. The GOP will definitely go after him.

Nancy Boyda (KS-2) - Dennis Moore used to be the perennial Kansas target for the GOP. Nancy will take his place. A former Republican, she may be able to hold this seat for some time.

John Yarmuth (KY-3) - The race that told everyone that the Dems were going to have a big night was this one, and the GOP will try to do the same thing in the same district in 2 years.

Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1) - She may be a bit too liberal for the anti-tax people of this state. At least the GOP is hoping so.

John Hall (NY-19) - The former lead singer of the 70's group Orleans is smarter and harder working than anyone seemed to know. He, like Sonny Bono before him, allowed everyone to underestimate him and got the last laugh. They won't misunderestimate him in '08.

Jason Altmire (PA-4) - He's a strong campaigner and beat another strong campaigner. A pro-labor Republican will be recruited to take him on.

Patrick Murphy (PA-8) - He won a nailbiter in the Philly suburbs, and will definitely be on the '08 list.

Steve Kagen (WI-8) - Kagen bought this Green Bay district in a Dem year, but this is a GOP leaning district, and they will go after it again.

Posted by Alan at 10:15 AM |

November 10, 2006

Meme-ing me into the ground

I'm getting a headache reading from the glorious punditry how the Democrats went headlong to the right in order to win the election.

New Dem Senator John Tester from Montana is supposed to be one of those neoDem conservowankers. Oddly, Atrios is finding the new conservative agenda rather liberal:

Apparently John Tester's a big hunk of conservatism, at least that's what I keep hearing. So, I bring you the conservative agenda:

Supporting renewable and alternative energy sources (biofuels, bitches!)
Raising automobile mileage

*Pro-choice
*Protecting public lands
*Country of origin labels for food imports
*Affordable health care
*Enforcing immigration laws for immigrants and employers
*gun rights
*A plan to end the war in Iraq
*Increasing the minimum wage
*Repealing the Patriot Act
*Changing Medicare D to allow price negotiation with drug companies
*No to social security privatization
*Pro stem cell research
*Middle class tax relief

Maybe its the flat top that's throwing them off.

Posted by Carla at 05:56 PM |

Carville is pissing me off

Even when Dems win, they still have to say loser shit like this from Carville:

Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.

The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.

Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, "Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager."

Without Howard Dean insisting that Dems contest every race, James Carville would be looking at another business end of an electoral loss.

This is why I have such a love-hate relationship with the Democrats. The people who are insulated in DC (like Carville) have no fucking idea what's going on out in the real world.

And then there's Dean--who travels around the country listening to candidates and party chairs. Dean gets the responsibility for much of Tuesday's victory.

I dare James Carville to come out to Oregon and talk to us about challenging every race..and why it doesn't work. Especially given that the Dems just took back the Oregon House (for the first time in 16 years), won the Governorship and held the Oregon Senate. They did so by mirroring Dean's strategy.

Bring your bald Cajun ass here to the Pacific Northwest, Carville. I dare ya.

Posted by Carla at 01:56 PM |

Lieberman to pull a Jeffords

Senator Joe Lieberman, who won reelection as an Independent after being defeated for the Democratic nomination, is apparently intending to pull a "Jeffords" and switch party allegiance (or lack thereof in this case...) and reenter the Senate as a Democrat rather than as an Independent. This will give the Dems a 50-49 advantage with the sole remaining Independent (Bernie Sanders) caucusing with the Dems for a paper 51-49 advantage which effectively neuters VP Cheney's role as a tie-breaker.

Posted by Kevin at 12:20 PM |

Is This Why the Dems Say They Won't Impeach?

Whoa. Looks like Rumsfeld is about to be criminally charged in Germany for prisoner abuses. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff David S. Addington, and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers will also be charged in the next few days for their roles in the torture scandal of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. 11 prisoners from Abu Ghraib and one from Guantanamo Bay (Mohammad al-Qahtani) are to be the plaintiffs in the case. Rumsfeld personally authorized the interrogation techniques used on al-Qahtani and has been accused of being intimately involved in designing the torture program for detainees. Former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, once the commander of all the U.S. prisons in Iraq, will testify on behalf of the detainees.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

"The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Could it be that the Democrats won't need to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney because they know the two will be dealt with by a war crimes tribunal? In any case, it looks as if the next year or two will be one set of fireworks after another, as the chickens at last come home to roost.

Posted by Becky at 11:52 AM |

NPR needs to get on the liberal media train

Cuz its apparent that they've strayed:

In his "Morning Edition" report on Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates and his options on Iraq, NPR's Guy Raz interviews four people for their opinions:

Gen. Jack Keane (ret.), a former Army vice chief of staff who was involved in the planning of the Iraq war; Richard Pearle, the former Pentagon advisor who was one of the chief proponents of the Iraq war; Danielle Pletka, a fellow at the "center-right" American Enterprise Institute who argued in January 2003 that an invasion of Iraq was needed to show al Qaeda that the "U.S. is a power to be reckoned with"; and Gen. Joseph Hoar (ret.), a former CENTCOM chief who -- while a critic of the war currently -- says "getting out is not the answer".

Not exactly a Murderer's Row of Iraq War opponents.

Apparently getting a quote to balance this shit was just too much to ask.

Posted by Carla at 10:58 AM |

Robert Gates: Good for Bush, Bad for America

Robert Parry, who uncovered much of what we know about the Iran-Contra scandal, has written a fairly comprehensive article about Robert Gates, the man President Bush has chosen to replace Donald Rumsfeld. In it, he looks at Gates's collaboration with Islamic extremists in Iran, his arming of Saddam Hussein, and his doctoring of intelligence to please the politicians. Parry also cautions that the speedy confirmation schedule laid out by the President will not allow Congress to seriously investigate the man's past.

Some of the interesting tidbits from Parry's piece:

- In 1993, the Russian government told a House investigative task force that toward the end of Jimmy Carter's term, Gates had been involved in the effort to convince Iran to delay releasing the hostages in order to benefit the Reagan/Bush campaign.

- Gates was involved in secret military assistance efforts in the Iran-Iraq war. He helped Saddam Hussein buy cluster bombs, ammunition, vehicles, and chemicals needed to build chemical weapons.

- Gates pressured CIA analysts to exaggerate Soviet support for terrorism in order to match intelligence with the Reagan Administration's political perspective. Politicization of the CIA from then on became increasingly systemic.

Clearly, Gates isn't constrained by the law. He does what the politicians in charge want done. Parry sees the selection of Gates as a sort of circling of the wagons by the Bush Family in an effort to save the presidency of their son. Of course, the rest of us just couldn't care less about the presidency of George W. Bush, nor are we particularly impressed with what he seems to want to get done in Iraq. So while Gates may be good for Bush, I'm not so sure he's good for America. We're more looking for someone who can get the mess in Iraq under control so our young men and women can come back home to their families where they belong.

Posted by Becky at 09:36 AM |

What to do about the Christian Right?

The Republican Party is in a quandary over how to win back the center and still hold on to the religious right. After gladly accepting their money and grassroots support over the past several years, Republicans are now taking a lot of heat from the evangelical Christian community for not having fulfilled their promises on abortion and gay marriage. At the same time, the political center is fed up with the perceived theocratic bent of the GOP and has increasingly looked to Democrats for leadership. Now the GOP is trying to figure out how to do what appears to be the impossible: hold on to one group and not let go of the other.

I would advise them to forget about the fringe groups and their issues and just be conservatives. Where else can the Christian Right go? White evangelical Protestants voted 72% Republican, a drop of only 2% from 2004. In other words, even with all of the corruption, even though they viewed the Republican party as the lesser of two evils, they still voted Republican. They may not be there with massive enthusiasm for the grassroots support, but wouldn't the trade-off – in which the center had a little more respect for the party and possibly turned back to the Republicans – be worth that loss of enthusiasm from the Christian Right?

Naturally, the Christian Right is going to use the house-cleaning Republicans endured on Tuesday to try to push its own agenda. Among other Christian leaders, Focus on the Family's James Dobson blamed Tuesday's losses on Republicans' having left the Religious Right behind and said if the party moves to the center it will be making a grave mistake.

"The unfortunate thing is that Republican leaders still don't appear to get it. Sen. Arlen Spector, R-Pa, said on Wednesday that the election results represented a 'seismic earthquake' and that his party must become 'a lot more progressive and a lot less ideological.' Dick Armey emerged from four years in the wilderness to blame conservative Christians for Tuesday's defeat. They were, he said, 'too involved' with the party. He can't be serious! Someone should tell him that without the support of that specific constituency, John Kerry would be President and the Republicans would have fallen into a black hole in '04. In fact, that is where they are headed if they continue to abandon their pro-moral, pro-family and pro-life base. The big tent will turn into a three-ring circus.

If that is the course the party takes, he said, "Values Voters are not going to carry the water" for the party anymore. Sounds very Limbaughesque, somehow. I think that what Dobson doesn't understand is that we're all tired of the water-carrying. We'd much rather see some straight-shooting.

Posted by Becky at 09:07 AM |

November 09, 2006

Communists prefer Republicans!

Ha! This is so fraught with irony I can hardly stand it.

It seems that the Chinese Communists are worried about Nancy Pelosi becoming the new Speaker of the House. The Hastert-led House turned a blind eye to both human rights abuses in Communist China and to the humongous trade deficit, which continues to grow. Pelosi has long championed both issues and now them Commies are worried.

Posted by Kevin at 08:14 PM |

GOP back-biting marked by finger pointing hypocrisy

Steven Thomma of the Miami Herald offers an interesting commentary on how Republicans blamed their party leadership in Congress for Tuesday's losses at the polls.

WASHINGTON - Republicans turned on one another Wednesday after losing control of power in Congress -- blaming an out-of-touch, self-promoting party leadership for abandoning ethics and conservative principles and turning off the country.

That's all fine and good and not entirely unexpected. But the utter failure to accept personal responsibility betrays the feigned indignation at the ethical failures of their leadership as little more than posturing.

Veteran conservative strategist Richard A. Viguerie was especially caustic.

''Every single member of the Republican leadership in the House should be replaced. They have failed the conservatives who put them in office, and they have failed the people of this country,'' Viguerie said. 'This election was also a referendum on the so-called `neoconservatives' -- the big-government Republicans who took us into a nation-building war while they busted the budget and enriched big business and its K Street lobbyists.''

I'd like to believe that Viguerie speaks for the majority of conservatives because I really think he "gets it". But others clearly don't:

In one of the most stinging indictments, David Keene, the longtime president of the American Conservative Union -- the nation's oldest grass-roots conservative lobby, founded in 1964 -- ripped Republicans for spending more taxpayer money than Democrats had and for weak ethics.

''We have watched Republicans elected by promising the highest standards in terms of integrity come to Washington to do good and stay to do well for themselves, their families and their friends, and demean the offices to which they were elected in the process,'' Keene said.

``We have witnessed the hypocrisy of Republican leaders who came to Washington swearing an allegiance to upholding traditional values work to protect those among their number who have flaunted those values, morals and standards.

''We have stood by as Republicans have flaunted, twisted and ignored rules to achieve their own partisan, rather than principled, ends; leaders who have used earmarks to seduce reluctant members to vote for legislation they knew was wrong and kept votes open for hours while they and their White House allies bludgeoned their colleagues into line in support of such legislation,'' Keene said.

Yes, Mr. Keene... you stood by and let it happen. That makes you, all of you who did the same, complicit in everything that you're trying to lay at the feet of just those politicians. They couldn't have gotten away with it without the tacit approval of their base.

If you actually had even a passing grasp of the morality and values that you all claim to represent then you'd already know from the Biblical story of the Good Samaritan that those who could have helped but chose not to are as guilty as those who inflicted the harm.

You wanna find who bears ultimate responsibility for the moral and ethical failures of Republican leadership? Go look in a mirror!

Posted by Kevin at 12:48 PM |

CREW Celebrating Voter Rejection of Corruption

CNN's exit polls showed that the number one issue on voters' minds Tuesday was corruption – it ranked higher than terrorism, the war in Iraq, or the economy. And Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Government could not be happier at the results of voter angst over corruption.

Eight of the Congressmen CREW had identified as the "most corrupt in Congress" were voted out: Sen. Rick Santorum, Sen. Conrad Burns, Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Rep. Richard Pombo, Rep. Don Sherwood, Rep. John Sweeney, Rep. Charles Taylor, and Rep. Curt Weldon. Well done, America!

Posted by Becky at 09:43 AM |

About that $8.8 Billion

We've known about it since late 2004, so why is the BBC reporting today that the Coalition Provisional Authority can't account for $8.8 billion in cash that we gave it to help build Iraq? Because the guy responsible for it – David Oliver – says he does not think it is important what happened to the money.

Oliver was responsible for at least six plane-loads of $2 billion each in shrinkwrapped pallets of cash. He was the CPA's first head of finance and he refused to allow outside auditors to be brought in to assure accountability for that money. When asked about the missing $8.8 billion, Oliver sad:

Billions of dollars of their [Iraqi] money disappeared, yes I understand, I'm saying what difference does it make? I chose to give that money to the Iraqis, they got the power working within eight days in the major hospitals in Baghdad. … I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it is important. … I'm saying what difference does it make?

It makes a big difference to those of us whose money it was. And it makes a big difference to Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, whose job was secretly eliminated by a late-night insertion into a bill Congress passed recently. Bowen is the man responsible for finding out about the missing $8.8 billion, as well as a number of other scandals that have actually landed some officials in jail.

But at least now we have found out who slipped Bowen's job elimination into the Defense Department funding bill. It was none other than congressman Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who also has just announced he is running for President. Hunter had a staffer insert the elimination of Bowen's job into the bill literally in the middle of the night, after the House-Senate conference committee had already completed its reconciliation of the bill. That is why no one knew the provision was there. And without it, Bowen would have been investigating fraud in Iraq for at least another two years.

Incidentally, Bowen is a loyal Republican from Texas who, unfortunately for the defense contractors who are busy profiteering from this war, actually thought the President wanted him to do the job to which he was assigned. A bipartisan effort by Susan Collins and John Warner is underway to reverse what Congress was tricked into passing, and with any luck Bowen will be able to continue his work.

Presidential wannabe Hunter is an interesting character when he's not busy sneaking provisions into bills. He has received more than half of his campaign funds from major defense contractors. He was very outspoken against the Detainee Treatment Act because he thought we were being too soft on the detainees. And he's that moron who called the press conference some time back to praise the five-star cuisine at Gitmo.

[T]he inmates in Guantanamo have never eaten better, they've never been treated better, and they've never been more comfortable in their lives than in this situation. And the idea that sometime -- that somehow we are torturing people in Guantanamo is absolutely not true, unless you consider having to eat chicken three times a week real torture.

Oh, and Hunter thinks Rumsfeld has done a "great job for our country." According to Hunter, Rumsfeld "leaves America with the strongest military we've had in our history. That's a good legacy." Fortunately, the Democratic sweep on Tuesday means Hunter will very likely lose his chairmanship of the House Armed Service Committee, so it will be a little more difficult for him to sneak secret clauses into bills for the benefit of his contributors. But keep an eye on this one. He seems to be all too willing to kiss the right asses.

Posted by Becky at 09:31 AM |

November 08, 2006

Howard Dean vindicated

Understand that I'm not a Democrat nor am I likely to ever become one. However I do admire Howard Dean, have met him (at a book signing) and watched him debate Richard Perle a year and a half ago. And I also very much wanted him to be the 2004 Democratic nominee.

That said, it seems to me that Howard Dean has been vindicated on several fronts.

1. I don't see how the Democrats could have accomplished what they just accomplished yesterday without Dean's strategy of contesting every race.

2. It seems to me that the 2004 Rovian spin about Dean being a far Leftist who is outside of the mainstream, which many, many Democrats promptly bought into, has proven to be bunk. As head of the DNC I think Dean deserves some of the credit for yesterday's results on that basis alone.

3.His record as Governor of Vermont, the only record he has as an elected politician, is decidedly reasonable. One might even call it moderate or centrist. And with the airwaves are full of pundits commenting on the "rise of the moderates" to exact vengence upon the radical right I think there is a certain corrolation between Dean's actual record, his current position with the DNC and how many Republicans are hunting for new jobs now. With just under half of voters nationwide reportedly self-identifying as "moderates" in exit polls I don't see how anyone can fail to connect the dots on this.

Posted by Kevin at 07:08 PM |

Rush Limbaugh Admits He's a Liar

Throughout the campaign season, Rush Limbaugh has steadfastly defended Republicans and worked to win votes for them. He has repeatedly supported their crazy-ass bills and said they should be re-elected, and he has mercilessly attacked those who disagreed. But now that the losses are in, Limbaugh says he feels "liberated." Why? Because now he no longer has to "carry the water for people who I think don't deserve having their water carried." Yes, that's right. He admits he advised his listeners to vote for people who he really did not think deserved to win. He also lied about the issues he told his listeners to support:

"There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress. Some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at. And it has been difficult coming in here trying to make the case for it when the people who supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves."

That's why smart people don't listen to Limbaugh.

Posted by Becky at 01:44 PM |

What It All Means: An Independent's View

Today, Republicans and Democrats are both making statements about what the elections yesterday mean and don't mean. As I read through them, I hear a lot of wishful thinking, of people desperately holding on to what they want to believe and refusing to see what really happened. As an Independent, I probably am guilty of a fair bit of wishful thinking myself, but I'm going to give you my opinion of what it all means anyway. And, like everyone else, I fully believe I am correct.

Turn out was a big factor, in my opinion. I think Democrats had every reason to come to the polls, and come they did (that is why state legislatures and governorships across the country moved heavily Democratic). And I think Republicans, particularly Christian Republicans, had every reason NOT to be enthused about voting this year and may very well have stayed home or voted for third party candidates. Not only has Republican corruption become unbearable to watch, but in addition to the fact that Republicans never accomplished any of what they promised Christians they would do, Bush and his Administration were recently revealed as actually deriding the Christian community behind their backs. But if anyone expected Christians to turn en masse to Democrats as a result of that, they don't understand this group of people at all.

It's been humorous to hear the Republicans spinning the results when we all know exactly what happened. People don't like the way the War is going and they're sick of the corruption, so they voted for a change of direction. Ken Mehlman, Chair of the RNC, told Republicans, "I think the American people clearly sent a message, and it's a message we need to understand and we need to listen to." He's right about that. But I'm not really sure he "got" the voters' message. He says voters told Republicans to do three things:

1. Rededicate themselves to their "conservative reform principles." If he means true conservatism, as eloquently spelled out by the Kirk Center, then he may be onto something, generally. But this will not happen if the Republican Party continues to allow the religious right to dictate the specific implementation of the great conservative philosophy. That is obvious if look at the fact that voters rejected key right-wing ballot measures in conservative South Dakota (abortion ban) and conservative Arizona (gay marriage ban), and approved stem cell research in conservative Missouri.

2. Try to work on a bipartisan basis with Democrats. There is no "try" about it. Voters do want the parties to work together. They understand that each brings important insights to the table. Americans tend to agree with both parties on certain issues. They want a balance of power and they want all their representatives to work through the issues for the good of the country.

3. Lose the taint of corruption. We are far less concerned about the "taint" of corruption than the actual corruption. Republicans have needed to clean house for a long time. They wouldn't do it, so the voters just did it for them.

I think Marty Kaplan at The Huffington Post hit the nail square on the head. The Republicans lost because they left the center behind.

The center is not where the Republican Party has been, and not where they have moved it. The center is not the average of Orrin Hatch and Hillary Clinton. The center is not Joe Lieberman. The center is where most of the country actually is, right now. Don't listen to the gasbags and the losers. Look at the exit polls.

The center is opposition to Bush Iraq policy, opposition to Bush dismantling Social Security, opposition to Republican earmarking, opposition to the Bush transfer of wealth from the middle to the top, opposition to the politicization of science, opposition to wedge-issue culture wars. The center's platform is accountability, competence, pay-as-you-go, constitutional civil liberties, affordable health care, living wages, a planet that's not dying, and a response to terrorism that doesn't create more of it.

Please, Democrats, now that you have all this power don't make the same mistake the Republicans made. Don't move all the way over to the left and leave the center behind. We're putting what little remains of our hope in you to set things right again and bring balance back to government. Work with conservatives and find the happy middle ground where America can flourish and we can start worrying again about silly trifles like Brittney Spears divorce announcement.

Posted by Becky at 11:29 AM |

Rumsfeld out; American wins--or does it?

Hey..hey..hey..goodbye:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said Wednesday.

Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld.

America wins? Not so fast:

Robert M. Gates was the Central Intelligence Agency's deputy director for intelligence (DDI) from 1982 to 1986. He was confirmed as the CIA's deputy director of central intelligence (DDCI) in April of 1986 and became acting director of central intelligence in December of that same year. Owing to his senior status in the CIA, Gates was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment of Gates for his Iran/contra activities or his responses to official inquiries.

Uh...didn't we just vote to throw the corrupt bums out?

Posted by Carla at 10:31 AM |

Ballot Measure Losses Could Send Wrong Message

It would be very easy – and emotionally satisfying – for Democrats to look at yesterday's ballot measure election results and conclude that voters just aren't going for the big-money, out-of-state influenced measures anymore. To the Howard Riches and Loren Parkses of the world, it very much feels as if we said, "take your out-of-state money and shove it up your ass." To the Bill Sizemores and Don MacIntires, it feels as if we said, "find a real job and leave us the hell alone." But I don't believe that is what has happened at all. And if Democrats believe it is, then I think they are setting themselves up for failure for lack of understanding who Oregonians are.

Like much of America today, Oregonians believe in government. That is why they, like Maine and Nebraska, rejected TABOR, which would have hamstrung our government. Oregonians also reserved to themselves the right to vote out the jerks and keep the good guys in the Legislature for as long as they want them there - we trust them and ourselves enough to resist hamstringing the legislature with arbitrary term limits. Along the same lines, Oregonians rejected the I-have-no-faith-in-government measures that would have required Supreme Court justices to be elected by district (which would have been a statement that we don't trust our Supreme Court to be unbiased) and further cut state tax revenues (which would have been a statement that we don't trust the government with our money).

But we also have a very independent streak here in Oregon, and that's what Democrats need to understand. It was part of the rejection of term limits. We also slammed the door in the face of those who would insert the government into girls' private lives by rejecting the abortion notification act, we told government to butt out of the way private companies do business (by refusing to dictate how insurance rates would be set), and we told government once again that they really, REALLY better leave our property alone.

In fact, this may be the most important statement Oregon voters made yesterday. The whole world knows we love our environment and our public transit, but we also hate being told what to do. Planners are incredibly adept at coming up with things they want to tell us to do and Oregonians do not like it. Out-of-state money and people who make their living putting measures on the ballot brought eminent domain ballot measures to several states this year. Arizona barely passed it, California barely rejected it, Washington turned it down, and conservative Idaho kicked it's butt straight out the door. But liberal Oregon, despite hating the out-of-state influence, embraced it wholeheartedly - just as we did Measures 7 and 47.

I've been hearing a lot of talk from Democrats about how they want to "fix" Measure 37 now that they have the power to do it. I would advise serious caution here. If Democrats really want to stay in power for the long term so they can do all the good things for Oregonians that we voted them in there to do, then they will refrain from undermining property rights. Oregonians don't like that. Oregonians don't want the government messing in their business. And if pushed again on property rights, they very well may push back a fourth time, even if it means taking money from a wealthy asshole and hiring a shady bunch of ne'er-do-wells to collect the signatures to do it.

Posted by Becky at 08:53 AM |

GOTV

Posted by Carla at 08:30 AM |

Karl Rove can kiss my lilly white liberal ass

Today is perhaps the best day of my progressive life. There haven't been enough victories in the last 20 years--so this one is especially sweet.

If you're a Republican today--its very, very bitter.

So bitter in fact that many are still in the first stage of grief: denial.

Hugh Hewitt is making me spit out my coffee:

President Bush will not flag in the pursuit of the war, and Senator Santorum is now available for a seat on the SCOTUS should one become available. GOP senators will have the chance to select leadership equal to the new world of politics which, as the past two years have demonstrated, does not reward timidity.

Earth to Hugh: I will be a Supreme Court Justice before Rick Santorum. Lawdy.

Redstate:

The United States did not reject the agenda of the right tonight. I know the media very badly wants to say that. I know the left wants to think that. But the fact is that this is not true. Had either the left or the media paid attention, they would have heard that the right was angry about Medicare Part D. They would have heard that the right was angry about government spending. They would have picked up on the disgust the right has shown to the congressional leadership.

Last night, the American people soundly rejected the Republican agenda. Period. They've been living with it since Reagan and they've had it. We went too far to the right and last night--it was yanked back toward the middle, even leaning a bit to the left. Welcome to the pendulum.

My favorite is Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters, who--like a good goosestepping righty blogger--spins himself into the ground trying to couch last night as a Republican loss not a Democratic victory:

One has to recall the 1994 Republican "revolution", which resulted in a much more sweeping victory than the Democrats had last night (right now, they have gained 28 seats with four more still in play, while the GOP took 54 that year). Democrats had built what looked to be a permanent majority, and that led to astronomical amounts of hubris and no small amount of corruption. The GOP successfully ran on those themes in 1994 because nothing resonates like corruption and unchecked power with the American electorate.

Poor Ed. Its delusion like this that will continue to allow the Dems to erode Republican power.

Hubris is in the mirror, hon. Its time to take a long, hard look.

Posted by Carla at 07:43 AM |

November 07, 2006

A great big BLUE Tuesday

A very good day to be a progressive, indeed.

Posted by Carla at 11:11 PM |

Democrats Caught in Voter Suppression!

Documentation of Republican efforts to suppress the Democratic vote is coming out from everywhere and I simply don't have the time to do as I wish I could and provide you with a detailed guide to the many outrages. But I thought you all might get a kick out of this whiney accusation by Republicans in Maryland that Democrats are trying to suppress turnout. When the Democrats complained about the Republican Party's guide for poll watchers, which instructs poll watchers to challenge every possible voter, the Republican response was just precious:

"It's the Democrats who [have] gone throughout this campaign and told Democrat voters that they can't vote for Michael Steele because he's a Republican. That's voter suppression."

Don't you just love it?

Posted by Becky at 09:55 AM |

November 06, 2006

Dave Johnson Tracking Republican Voting Scam

Seeing as how I was so mean to Dave Johnson the other day (he did deserve it) and he's being so good natured about it (and refering dozens of new readers to our blog), I'm going to refer you to his blog where he is running a very important story about a Republican dirty elections trick that you should know about, with updates and what to do if it happens to you. Clearly, Dave Johnson isn't always full of shit. At least not on this one.

Posted by Becky at 01:26 PM |

When Idealism Blinds You

I hope I don't step on any toes with this post, but geez, sometimes you just have to shake your head at how far ideologues can get carried away with their pet issues and eventually lose touch with reality. In this case, the carried-away ideologue is Martina Navratilova, who is calling gay sheep research being done at OSU and OHSU "homophobic and cruel."

The researchers are looking for a biological difference in sheeps' brains that might explain why 5-8% of the rams will only mate with other male rams. I would have thought homosexuals would be happy about this study. It could produce more evidence that being gay is nature, not nurture. But because the researchers have another motive in mind, Navratilova is outraged.

Their motive is to help ranchers save money by avoiding purchasing gay rams who won't give them their money's worth in baby sheep production. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. But Navritilova says this is akin to sexual eugenics. I'm sorry, I have to take a break to regain my composure. It's just too funny.

Okay, the reason why we don't believe in sexual eugenics in people is because people have a right to live a fulfilled life and pursue happiness regardless of the circumstances of their birth. People also have a high enough level of consciousness to understand whether or not they are gay and to feel hurt when they are rejected because of it. We're all bound to each other and we all benefit when we take care of each other. It's basic sociology, religion, and whatever else matters to you.

Sheep don't have any of that. Sheep are raised for food and wool. Period. I don't agree with mistreating them, but if a gay ram goes to the butcher instead of the breeding farm, it's just not going to keep me awake at night worried about his feelings. I'm much happier knowing that the sheep rancher is going to have a more profitable business.

If Navratilova believes that discriminating against gay rams will somehow make it easier to accept discriminating against gay people, then truly, she has lost touch with reality. It seems to me that if these researchers do indeed find the precise biological difference in the brain that explains homosexuality, it will greatly benefit homosexual people by further undermining support for discrimination based on the misconception that being gay is an immoral choice.

Posted by Becky at 10:55 AM |

Republicans Find New Money for Campaigns

I heard about this a couple of weeks ago, but didn't have enough information (or energy) to follow through on it. Now Steve Law at the Statesman Journal has filed a report on it, laying out a new method Republicans have developed for infusing political campaigns with unreportable, unlimited cash while giving their candidates a fluffy, feel-good platform to stand on.

Using a strategy that was developed last year in Texas, Oregon Republicans in key competitive state House races are campaigning on behalf of a proposed 2008 ballot measure that hasn't even qualified to the ballot yet. The sweet part for Republicans is they can talk about the proposed initiative's issue (school funding) all they want, getting lots of face time in television commercials funded by the initiative campaign, and that campaign is not required to file any report of its contributions and expenditures until September, 2007. Nor does any of it count as in-kind campaign contributions because the House candidate's campaign itself is not actually mentioned.

Campaign organizers, operating as First Class Education for Oregon, say they're spending $100,000 on cable TV ads and fliers that feature supportive lawmakers. They've dubbed about 10 Republican legislative candidates as "honorary co-chairmen" of the campaign, including incumbent Rep. Billy Dalto, R-Salem, and GOP challenger Carl Wieneke of Woodburn.

The Texas group that came up with this scheme is selling the idea based on several "political benefits." One, of course, is being able to raise unlimited contributions from any source and use it for "political positioning advantages." Another of the listed benefits sounds remarkably like the strategy that got Bill Sizemore into trouble: forcing the unions to spend so much money fighting your proposal that they don't have any money left to pursue their own agenda. The group says, "Every day and every dollar the education establishment uses to defeat this proposal is a day and a dollar they cannot spend on other political activities." The Oregon Courts did not particularly like that strategy. But unless these Republicans are engaged in racketeering activity, their motive alone is probably not enough to nail them.

All this is leading some to doubt whether the Republicans behind the proposed initiative really believe in it, or whether they actually are using it merely to enable covert funding of political campaigns. Of course, initiative backers say they aren't trying to hide anything, it's just that the state doesn't require them to file reports right now. Don't be fooled by that. There is no reason they couldn't ease all our minds by releasing the information to the press. For now, all they're saying is the money for the TV ads came from the same groups that started up the committee for the initiative drive. Those would be Kroger, the owner of Fred Meyer, WinCo Foods, and Oregonians for Affordable Housing (a homebuilders trade group).

Seeing as how none of these groups has any obvious interest in education funding, but all have an interest in Republican control of the House, I have to join the skeptical who are doubting the veracity of the Republicans' interest in this initiative as anything other than a clever new political campaign tool.

Posted by Becky at 10:34 AM |

Cheney Would Defy Dem Congressional Subpoena

Well, now, if this isn't the height of arrogance:

US Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday said he would likely refuse to testify before Congress if he is faced with a subpoena from the opposition Democratic party. The Democrats say if they prevail in tomorrow's legislative elections they may launch investigations into past actions taken by President George Bush's administration, possibly even issuing subpoenas to compel prominent officials to testify.

Asked if he would testify before Congress if he received a subpoena from legislators, Cheney said it was unlikely he would comply, as it would break with American political tradition. "I have no idea that I'm going to be subpoenaed, and obviously, we'd sit down and look at it at the time," he said. "But probably not, in the sense that the president and the vice president are constitutional officers and don't appear before the Congress," Cheney said.

Back during the Clinton pre-impeachment scandal, Michael Gerhardt, an impeachment expert, said that the President, if subpoenaed by Congress, could have refused to testify. He would, however, have done so at his own peril. Nixon refused to testify before Congress, and Gerhardt says that was used to support the articles of impeachment. So while it is true that Cheney does not have to testify before a Democratic Congress if subpoenaed, it would certainly send a message that he has something to hide (as if we didn't all know that already).

Posted by Becky at 09:29 AM |

All we have to do now is take these lies...

..and make them truth somehow

(via Mercury Blogtown)

Posted by Carla at 07:53 AM |

When Extremists Attack

Ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel are rioting in the streets over the upcoming gay march in Jerusalem, and the Israeli Attorney General is beginning to buckle out of fear because of it.

A Justice Ministry statement said Attorney General Meni Mazuz ordered police to meet with gay activists "to work out a reasonable alternative proposal" for the march, set for Friday on a route through the middle of the city. The meeting is to take place Monday, gay activists said, and a compromise was likely.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews have rioted in Jerusalem nearly every night over the past week, burning garbage cans, blocking roads and assaulting police officers in an attempt to get the authorities to call off the march, approved months ago by the Supreme Court. Many religious Jews, Muslims and Christians see homosexuality as a sin and the march as an affront to the sanctity of the holy city.

Why do gays have to compromise? We're not rioting in the streets. We're not claiming that the Israeli-Lebanon War was started because G-d was angry that the march was going to happen.

This quote from the police is telling.

Police said Sunday that the danger of violence was too great to allow the march to proceed, but left the final decision to Mazuz.

"We understand that the potential danger to life and bloodshed is greater than that to free speech," said police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld.

This is a bad precedent for Israel. If they are going to buckle to the demands of Orthodox extremists now, what else are they going to riot in the streets for? And will the Attorney General cave because of the threat of violence?

Posted by Alan at 05:21 AM |

November 05, 2006

Big Brother Comes to the Cafeteria

I know some people think it's crazy to worry about "Big Brother." They're happy to see new technologies that make life safer and easier, and they are willing to trust that our government will not abuse its access to volumes of information about each one of us. I'm not one of those people. I've been very upset by the government's purchase and compilation of scads of electronic data about all Americans in its effort to track terrorist activity. I've been upset by the Bush Administration's use of wiretapping without warrants. I don't even like this stuff in the private sector. For example, I didn't like it when I heard some stores were testing new fingerprint readers to allow shoppers to buy groceries with a simple finger swipe. And I'm really upset to learn that three California elementary schools will soon require students to use fingerprint swipes to buy lunch in the cafeteria. Starting this month, fingerprint scans for cafeteria purchases will begin at Monte Vista, Vieja Valley and Hope elementary schools.

Here's the (so-called) thinking behind it. You see, there is a real problem with cafeteria lines moving too slowly. After scores of years of wasting time shuffling children through the cafeteria line, processing paperwork, and handling money, it's high time we did something about this serious problem. So now the check-out person will simply have the student press their index finger on the scanner and in addition to automatically deducting the cost of the lunch from the student's account, up will pop the student's name, ID, teacher, how much the student owes, and whether the student receives government assistance to buy school lunches. And as a side benefit, this handy new system will teach the children to accept the use of biometric data for making purchases. Because the system used in other Santa Barbara School Districts, in which students type in their own six-digit code on a keypad, just isn't quite intrusive enough.

I have had the same sense of alarm watching the development of "Big Brother" under Tony Blair. For instance, just last week we learned that within ten years all British citizens may be forced to accept implanted microchips. The chips will contain personal information and allow each individual to be tracked. Of course, these are all for benign purposes – things like companies tracking where their employees are, for example. Lest you think this can't happen here, guess what – it already is starting in small tests. Seventy mentally-ill elderly people were implanted with chips to track their movements, and an Ohio security company chipped two employees so they could enter a secure area. Then there are the security cameras being used in cities all over America – and I'm not talking about private ones in front of businesses. I mean the government cameras that just watch what's happening on the street. In Britain, the cameras are so prevalent that the average citizen is caught on camera 300 times a day.

That's not enough for Tony Blair. Last month he called for an expansion of the national DNA database to include forced DNA samples of every citizen. Currently, Britain takes DNA sample from every person who is arrested, and those samples remain on file even if the person is cleared of wrongdoing. It's all about making sure those murderers and rapists know they'll be caught, don't you know. Even if Blair doesn't get his wish for universal DNA sampling, he will get universal eye scans and fingerprints as part of the country's new passport and national ID card plan. The same is being considered for the USA.

Biometric data is only part of the government data-collection effort. Here in the USA, the FBI is setting up a special lab to collect and study digital evidence. You know, cell phones, blackberries, etc. Apparently, most crimes these days involve some sort of digital evidence. I suppose the next step is mandatory tracking of all our digital activities. But then I suppose to some degree they're doing that already in their search for terrorists.

Should we be concerned about Big Brother? Even if you don't subscribe to the Christian prophetic view of the "mark of the beast" – a prophecy which is a shockingly accurate description of the Big Brother state – you ought to be deeply concerned. We cannot count on our government always having benevolent motives. We used to be able to say, "Such a thing couldn't ever happen here." Now, the hopeful among us say, "Such a thing wouldn't ever happen here." I liked the "couldn't" a lot better.

Posted by Becky at 10:34 AM |

November 04, 2006

Don't Miss "Hacking Democracy"

I just finished watching Hacking Democracy, which I recorded from HBO on my DVR for later viewing. It's a documentary that is showing all this month on HBO and looks at how Bev Harris and her organization, Black Box Voting, discovered that Diebold voting machines could be hacked in any number of ways and found voluminous evidence that, in fact, they were being hacked. The documentary contains several shocking sequences of video - actual footage of machines changing votes, Bev and her team pulling actual voting tallies out of trash cans when those very tallies were the subject of public records requests, and the emotional moment when some elections officials first realized their system was so insecure that democracy was broken.

TiVo, video record, or in some other way record this documentary and share it with your family and friends as soon as possible. It will be showing on the Pacific coast on November 5, 7, 13, 18, and 26 - but see it Sunday the 5th if at all possible. Because stories of voting machine fraud in this election are already beginning to filter out. We must no longer be skeptical by the time election day rolls around. If the American people are to respond appropriately, it is essential that they understand what can be done - and what is being done with our votes.

Posted by Becky at 05:14 PM |

Iraq Auditing Terminated by Secret Clause in Bill

I can hardly believe this one. Apparently, a clause to eliminate the auditing of reconstruction projects in Iraq was secreted into the military spending bill without anyone noticing it. Yes, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which has brought repeated embarrassment to the Administration by revealing corruption, is about to be shut down by a Congress that didn't even realize it was voting to do that. The office has recently pissed off Halliburton and KBR (formerly Kellogg Brown & Root) by revealing that these friends-of-Cheney were hiding information from U.S. officials. It is responsible for us knowing that 14,000 weapons we sent to the Iraqi government ended up in the hands of insurgents. I has sent 25 criminal cases to the U.S. Department of Justice. And it will soon be dismantled.

And no one seems to know how the clause made its way into the bill.

Posted by Becky at 10:30 AM |

The Science Behind Negative Advertising

Like it or not, negative advertising affects your brain and influences your vote. You can't help it. That is the conclusion of a UCLA-based study using brain imaging, which has found that the effects of negative advertising on the brain "are actually shocking." Among the findings: after viewing a negative campaign ad, you will lose empathy for your own candidate, and worse, negative advertising tends to polarize voters and make it less likely that you will vote at all if your candidate was attacked. That might explain why political parties are spending ten times as much money on negative ads as they are on positive ads. The researchers have been so amazed by their results that at least one of them is asking just "how much of a free will do we have?"

Interestingly, researchers found that negative ads affect Democrats and Republicans much more than they do Independents. Perhaps that is because we Independent voters are already so disillusioned that we're not surprised by anything a negative ad says – and are perhaps less emotionally attached to a major party candidate so that we are more able to hold on to rationality when viewing attack ads.

Posted by Becky at 10:01 AM |

Just Tell Us the Truth, Already

The CIA is arguing that Majid Khan, a suspected terrorist who spent three years in a secret CIA prison, should not have access to a civilian attorney because he might disclose the interrogation techniques to which he was subjected – and the CIA wants its techniques kept secret. The CIA says if those techniques become public, terrorists will be able to get training on how to resist those techniques and make it harder for the CIA to extract information from them. This is particularly interesting because his current attorneys, who are not civilians, believe he was tortured.

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, responded in court documents Friday that there is no evidence Khan has classified information. Gutierrez accused the administration of using national secrecy concerns to "conceal illegal or embarrassing executive conduct.''

I, for one, am sick and tired of the constant use of the "national security" excuse as a reason for our government (which, last time I heard, was supposed to be us) to hide from us and our duly-elected representatives what it is doing. If the federal government has engaged in activity that we the people would not approve of its having done, then it is all the more important that we know about it so we may act appropriately. This administration, however, seems hell-bent on hiding as much as it possibly can from us so that we cannot hold it accountable.

Posted by Becky at 09:59 AM |

Time to Win It or Get Out

Pat Buchanan has some interesting things to say to Republicans in his latest op-ed. Democrats won't like his message any more than Republicans, but will certainly agree with his assessment of the dilemma we all face about the war in Iraq.

By two to one, Americans have reached the conclusion that the war was a mistake, that taking down Saddam was not worth the price in blood, that the management of the war has been as botched as John Kerry's joke, that it is time to bring the troops home and let Iraqis do the fighting for their own freedom, democracy and independence.

And the more seats Republicans lose Tuesday, the greater will be the pressure on the party and president to find an early exit.

Yet about the war, America remains divided and conflicted. For the roaring Republican reception to Bush's calls for "victory" testifies to another truth. While most Americans wish we had never gone in and want out, America does not want to lose the war as we lost Vietnam.

Neither party knows a way to accomplish what America wants: to leave Iraq without losing the war. And the reason neither party knows how to do it is because it cannot be done.

This is a harsh truth, but one we'd better come to terms with pretty soon. If we don't, Iraq really could become another long, drawn-out Viet Nam-style war with tens of thousands of our young people sent to die and nothing good accomplished as a result of it. We need to either set a clear plan for what we intend to accomplish and commit the quantity of troops, weapons and supplies needed to get that job done quickly or cut our losses, get out now, and let it all just go. Right now it seems we're just treading water. No one knows why we're there or what we're trying to do. All we know is our young people are dying, Iraqi civilians are dying, and the world is hating us more with every passing day.

Posted by Becky at 09:56 AM |

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Ted Haggard continues to try to lie his way out of what he must perceive as a career & life altering situation.

The Rev. Ted Haggard said Friday he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a male prostitute. But the influential Christian evangelist insisted he threw the drugs away and never had sex with the man.

I'm going to tell you why I know he's lying and give the Reverend some unsolicited advice on what he should do at this point.

Reverend,

I've heard the voicemail tapes. As a recovering addict, I know that you know much too much about the "leave a message to get drugs" lingo for you to be getting meth for the first time. I also know that the quantity you are asking for is more than any "first time user" would be buying.

And the fact that you are using a psuedonym (in my day, I used my middle name in the gay community before I came out, as well) with an escort leads me to believe that you are, indeed, having sex with the guy.

Now, for some unsolicited advice. First, in John 8:32, Jesus tells his followers "The truth shall set you free". So, my first bit of advice is to be honest.

I know that it seems like honesty is going to hurt you, and it will hurt in the short run. It will hurt you, your family, your congregation, and the evangelical movement that you lead.

But that's just the short run. If you are painfully honest with yourself, you will have an opportunity later to make amends.

Which leads me to my second bit of advice. Get away from the crystal meth. From the amount you are buying, I am going to guess that you may have an issue with addiction. Only you know for sure, though. If you do, get yourself to a CMA or NA meeting as soon as you can. And don't worry - you will be welcome with open arms and be given the seat. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using.

And, finally, Reverend, take a step back from the evangelical movement while you sort this out. I don't know for sure if you're gay or bi or what, but if you are, no amount of praying or exorcism or laying on of hands is going to change that. And you don't have to give up spirituality or Christianity to reconcile your orientation, either. There are plenty of spiritual gay people in the world. In fact, one of my best friends is a former evangelical minister who is now openly and happily gay. He went through this same process that I'm suggesting for you, and it has changed his life.

So, Reverend Haggard, we are here for you if you need us. Your life isn't over. Your spiritual life isn't coming to an end. But in order to lead the life that Jesus would prescribe, you need to live by His words, and tell the truth. Until you do, freedom is just a word.

Posted by Alan at 05:49 AM |

November 03, 2006

Muslims "are here to take over our country"

... said Rev. David Clippard, executive director of the Missouri Baptist Convention at their annual convention Monday, where Sen. Jim Talent, R.-Mo. is scheduled to speak today.

This of course is the same old song and dance from the Rabid Right. Scare the bejesus out of a bunch of unquestioning rubes and then send them off to vote.

All these people have to offer America is FEAR.

Posted by Kevin at 12:56 PM |

Show the Fish a Little (Dis)Respect

Deanne Stillman today offers an interesting take at the Huffington Post on the AP story in the New York Times saying that by 2048, the world will no longer have any seafood left. I happen to disagree with her take on it.

The AP put it this way:

Clambakes, crabcakes, swordfish steaks and even humble fish sticks could be little more than a fond memory in a few decades. If current trends of overfishing and pollution continue, the populations of just about all seafood face collapse by 2048, a team of ecologists and economists warns in a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Stillman objects to the demeaning use of the word "seafood" to describe all the living creatures in the sea that are dying off. I say Stillman is stuck in a liberal environmentalist fantasy land and her attitude is symptomatic of why we haven't been able to convince conservatives of the importance of the environmental movement.

Here's why. You can talk all day in respectful terms about marine life and the need to preserve ocean habitat and you will always reach your liberal audience and never reach your conservative audience. Liberals have known for a really long time that the environment is in trouble and something has to be done about it. But liberals aren't in charge of the environment.

Who's in charge of protecting the environment right now? Conservatives. You want to reach them about why they should save the environment? Then you'd better learn how to talk to conservatives. You have to show them how it's going to affect their own lives. Saying that marine life is in danger won't break through to them. They'll just think, "So what, some pretty little fish down there somewhere might die. I never see those fish anyway." But telling them that someday very soon they won't be able to eat crab, lobster, sushi, salmon, etc. ever again is going to make them sit up and say, "What?!" And that's precisely what we need them to do.

Look, you can't communicate with people unless you understand what they can and can't hear. So bravo to the author of the AP article that showed some disrespect to marine life, warning about the demise of "seafood," rather than going all environmental on us. This message is one that just might get through.

Posted by Becky at 12:10 PM |

Scathing Rebuke of Bush Administration

You've got to read this scathing rebuke of the Bush Administration by Michael Carmichael, a historian and author, and the founder and Chief Executive of Planetary Movement. Big-time ouch. It hits on everything from the economy to voting machines to the war in Iraq. Here's a little taste, but you must read the whole thing:

If the American elections were fair and honest, the Republicans would be routed for a decade – or more. Fifty seats would turn over in the House, and the Senate would turn blue. That is not the case. Gerrymandering, poll-jacking, hacking and e-vote rigging, racism and sexism will reduce the Democratic gains considerably. In 2002, Bush had an approval rating of 62% compared to his 37% rating today. In 1994, Bill Clinton’s approval rating was 41%, and the Republicans gained 52 seats in the House. Today, 80% of Americans will be required to use touch-screen voting machines, and twenty-seven states cannot provide a paper trail to recount elections reliably. God Bless, America.

Posted by Becky at 09:19 AM |

He's No FDR

The GOP, lead by George W Bush, has broken into its bag of election tricks and come up with a familiar one. Not only is it us vs. them, but "us" needs to actually fear "them".

Bush openly accused those who disagree with his policy in Iraq of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," he said the other day.

Call me naive, but I never thought a president of the United States would stoop so low as to accuse current and prospective members of Congress -- a number of whom, by the way, are decorated war veterans, unlike Bush or anyone in his inner circle -- of being pro-terrorist. But this administration has so lowered the bar on political discourse in this country that it's now more of a limbo stick: How low can you go?

Bush and Rove will go as low as necessary to win, because this isn't about America, this is about power. And once we've crossed that line, I must say that I worry about the future of this fragile experiment that we call Democracy.

Posted by Alan at 04:54 AM |

November 02, 2006

Shocked, shocked I say!

Christian bigwig quits over gay sex scandal

The president of the 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals resigned his post and took leave from his church Thursday, one day after a gay male escort claimed having a three-year sexual relationship with him, the Associated Press reported.

...

Haggard, also 49, is married with five children and stringently anti-gay. He supports Amendment 43, a harsh marriage ban that is one of two gay-related measures on next week's Colorado ballot.

How many times do we have to see this same dynamic play out - the more stridently anti-gay in public, the more likely they are to be engaging in gay sex in private - before most people can connect the dots for themselves?

Posted by Kevin at 05:57 PM |

GI commits suicide rather than torture...

... and the Bush Pentagon didn't want you or anyone else to know about it.

Army specialist Alyssa Peterson, 27, a Flagstaff, Ariz., native serving with C Company, 311th Military Intelligence BN, 101st Airborne, committed suicide after objecting to "interrogation techniques" in the first year of the Iraq War.

She was only the third American woman killed in Iraq, so her death drew wide press attention. A “non-hostile weapons discharge” leading to death is not unusual in Iraq, often quite accidental, so this one apparently raised few eyebrows. The Arizona Republic, three days after her death, reported that Army officials "said that a number of possible scenarios are being considered, including Peterson's own weapon discharging, the weapon of another soldier discharging, or the accidental shooting of Peterson by an Iraqi civilian."

But the Army knew how and why she died because she reportedly left a suicide note.

But in this case, a longtime radio and newspaper reporter named Kevin Elston, unsatisfied with the public story, decided to probe deeper in 2005, "just on a hunch," he told E&P today. He made "hundreds of phone calls" to the military and couldn't get anywhere, so he filed a Freedom of Information Act request. When the documents of the official investigation of her death arrived, they contained bombshell revelations.

Keep in mind that this is the same Pentagon which recently set up a special Media Ops center. The Pentagon says it set up the operation to counter "inaccurate" news stories and editorials and exploit "new media" to get its message out.

One of the compelling aspects of this story is that you'd normally expect that a person who commits suicide was mentally or emotionally unstable. But Ms. Peterson's friends, family and colleagues describe a very special person.

Daryl K. Tabor of Ashland City, Tenn., who had met her as a journalist in Iraq for the Kentucky New Era paper in Hopkinsville: "Since learning of her death, I cannot get the image of the last time I saw her out of my mind. We were walking out of the tent in Kuwait to be briefed on our flights into Iraq as I stepped aside to let her out first. Her smile was brighter than the hot desert sun."

All of which puts Patrick Henry's infamous quote, "give me liberty or give me death" into a whole new light.

Being at something of a loss as to how to tie this up I'm going to end with another quote. This one from the famous ancient Roman poet Horace

It is not the rich man you should properly call happy, but him who knows how to use with wisdom the blessings of the gods, to endure hard poverty, and who fears dishonor worse than death, and is not afraid to die for cherished friends or fatherland.

It would seem that Ms. Peterson preferred death to dishonor.

Update: The Daou Report has a post on this story. And the second commenter raises some very compelling questions which beg the question of whether Ms. Peterson actually took her own life. She's dead. Nobody disputes that. Rather was it an act of suicide or...?

Posted by Kevin at 12:47 PM |

One in Four War Vets Disabled

For every four soldiers we send to Iraq and Afghanistan, one returns home disabled. That's the bad news straight from the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs in documents obtained only after nine months of stalling in an effort to get around a Freedom of Information Act request.

Initially, the VA had said no such documents existed. Recently it was learned that this was a game of semantics. The FOIA request asked for records of veterans from "Operation Enduring Freedom" (Afghanistan) and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (Iraq); the "magic" name, however, was "the Global War on Terrorism." Once they asked the right question, they were given the data.

If this trend continues, the VA could be burdened with trying to care for 400,000 new disabled veterans and nowhere near the budget it needs to do so.

Project Censored reports that Iraqi civilians are suffering the same debilitating symptoms as our troops and in very elevated numbers – and says these symptoms are the effect of exposure to depleted uranium.

Posted by Becky at 12:01 PM |

U.S. Army Most Violent and Murderous

Any time someone comes forward with a newsworthy story, their words are rightfully judged based on their character, their credentials, and their facts. Unfortunately, too often their stories are judged based on the pre-conceived opinion of the reader. If a person's message does not fit with one's core beliefs, the first reaction often is to look for reasons to discredit the messenger. Such has often been the case with Sy Hersch, a Pulitzer-winning investigative journalist who has repeatedly uncovered the horrid truth in his news stories (such as the My Lai massacre and details of the torture at Abu Ghraib). His latest comments are not likely to win any conservative hearts and minds, but based on his track record, it seems appropriate to me that we take what he has to say very seriously even if we find it painful to do so:

“There has never been an American army as violent and murderous as the one in Iraq”

You would be hard-pressed to find many Americans more supportive of our military than I am. I have many uncles and cousins who served in Viet Nam. These men paid very dearly on a personal level for their service. And I have gone out of my way to thank every serving or returning soldier I have come across over the past four years for their brave service even though I don't support the war in Iraq. So what Hersch has to say is terribly, deeply upsetting to me. Nonetheless, based on his long-standing reputation, I feel we had better pay attention to it.

If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.

“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation,” he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”

I'm not saying we should resume spitting on returning soldiers. But we sure had better make sure the Democrats win subpoena power in Congress on Tuesday so we can get to the rotting root of this problem.

Motives are everything in a story like this. As for Hersch's motivations, he explains them thus:

"My parents were immigrants," Hersh said. "They came here because America meant something…the Statue of Liberty and all that stuff, because America always was this bastion of morality and integrity and a place for a fresh start. And it's right in front of us, not hidden, that they've taken this away from us."

Posted by Becky at 11:10 AM |

Taking The Helm

The first woman bishop in the Episcopal Church is going to be installed this weekend at the National Cathedral in Washington, and its just widening the gap between the progressives and the conservatives within the denomination.

Jefferts Schori, who will be installed this weekend at the National Cathedral in Washington, starts her nine-year term during one of the most trying periods in the church's history. Rifts over church teachings on gays threaten to divide the 2.4 million-member denomination.

About 10 Episcopal dioceses -- including the diocese of Central Florida -- have rejected her authority, arguing her support for same-sex blessings and the ordination of gay clergy runs counter to biblical morality. In her first sermon following her election at the church's general convention in June, Jefferts Schori angered the church's conservative wing by referring to ``Mother Jesus.''

I can't even imagine what conservatives were doing when she said "Mother Jesus". I'm sure packing and preparing for the apocalypse.

But she has been named Bishop, and I imgaine that she's not going anywhere soon.

Another wedge in the split of the Anglican Church that I can't imagine won't be coming soon.

Posted by Alan at 05:08 AM |

November 01, 2006

Denny Kulongoski and Neil Foley

Oh, my. A major scandal has hit Ted Kulongoski just as Oregonians are filling out and mailing in their ballots. Fresh from their soapbox speeches about how Denny Hastert should resign for failing to do anything to stop Mark Foley from sexually harassing young boys working for Congress, Democrats have been hit with the news that their Oregon gubernatorial candidate knew about Neil Goldschmidt's repeated molestation of his children's 14-year-old babysitter – and did nothing. So says Fred Leonhardt, a former senior speech writer for Kulongoski back in the late 1990s and the man who finally took the story to the press.

The similarities between the Goldschmidt case and the Foley case are interesting. In both cases, the pedophile focused special attention on legislation to protect children. In both cases, partisan associates protected the pedophile and continued to publicly support him. In both cases, the press sat on the story until forced to publish it. And in both cases, the story could impact the outcome of the elections.

According to Leonhardt, he told Kulongoski about the molestation – or child rape, if you will – in 1994. Kulongoski referred to Goldschmidt as "shit" and Leonhardt thought Kulongoski would also shun the creep. Apparently, he was able to shun him until 2001, when the campaign for his first term as governor kicked off. Leonhardt says Kulongoski said it would be difficult, but necessary to keep "Neil at arms length because he asks me to do unethical things." Kulongoski apparently was not up to that challenge, and for whatever reason, Goldschmidt ended up assisting his campaign in strategy and fundraising.

I could forgive our good Governor up to this point. After all, there was quite a machine around Goldschmidt and it was a machine that one had to utilize to win the governor's race. But what happened next is a bit different. Not only did Kulongoski shower favors on Goldschmidt's clients, but he also appointed Goldschmidt to the State Board of Higher Education. I'd like to know why he did that. Was he somehow coerced? Did he lack the backbone to keep from doing the "unethical things" Goldschmidt asked him to do? What was it?

I've heard Kulongoski describe how he felt when he first heard what Goldschmidt had done. It sounds as if he truly was sickened and devastated. But is Kulongoski too much of a softie, too much of a compromiser, too weak, or too scared to stand up to a pedophile and tell him to get the hell out of his face and stay away from him? If so, then he's too much of a softie, too much of a compromiser, too weak, and too scared to be governor. Maybe that's why nobody has been all that impressed with him over the past four years. Sure, he's a nice guy, but we need results.

Please, Governor, tell us what happened - and fast.

Posted by Becky at 07:42 PM |

Bush abdicates command to Islamofacist cleric, Sadr

Andrew Sullivan:

While the media is obsessed parsing the ad libs of someone on no ballot this fall, something truly ominous has just happened in Iraq. The commander-in-chief has abandoned an American soldier to the tender mercies of a Shiite militia. Yes, there are nuances here, and the NYT fleshes out the story today. But the essential fact is clear. In a showdown for control of Baghdad, the Iraqi prime minister took orders from Moqtada al-Sadr, and instructed the U.S. military to withdraw from Sadr City.

In practical terms that means that president Bush is merely the titular Commander-in-Chief (i.e., in name only) while everyone else from Rumsfeld on down the line had to jump when Sadr said to jump. Abandoning a soldier in the process!

Sullivan continues...

The U.S. military does not have a tradition of abandoning its own soldiers to foreign militias, or of taking orders from foreign governments. No commander-in-chief who actually walks the walk, rather than swaggering the swagger, would acquiesce to such a thing.

Damn straight!

Meanwhile Digby asks:

Try to imagine what would happen in a Democrat did such a thing.

Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, James Dobson and the rest of the rightwing shills would be foaming at the mouth in feigned outrage if a Democratic President abdicated command of our forces to an Arabic Islamic cleric, much less to one with the blood of so very many on his hands, including the very likelyhood of the impending bloodshed by the American soldier Bush left behind.

Posted by Kevin at 05:57 PM |

Messed up priorities

Today Bush said that he doesn't foresee raising or lowering the number of troops in Iraq, saying that his Generals have assured him "they've got what they can live with."

It doesn't take much of a skeptical mind to see understand that "what they can live with" isn't necessarily what they want. After all, it doesn't take as many forces to hold a static position as it does to gain ground. So much for the much ballyhooed "victory" he keeps talking about.

During the same speech Bush took another poke at Senator Kerry.

"It didn't sound like a joke to me," the president said. "More importantly, it didn't sound like a joke to the troops."

Does anyone really believe that the troops in Iraq care more about a botched political joke than they do about being stuck in the middle of a chaotic civil war foisted upon them by Bush's incompetence?

Posted by Kevin at 02:18 PM |

Two kicked out of Bush event win court order

Two kicked out of Bush event win court order

(hat tip: Daou Report)

Posted by Kevin at 10:42 AM |

Delay Hasn't Had No Ethical Problems

When I read this morning that Tom Delay had told Alan Colmes on Fox News Tuesday night, "I haven't had no ethical problems," I just had to laugh. Because either he's a hick who can't speak proper English (which is hard to believe, considering his Bachelors Degree in Biology), or he used a double negative on purpose so he could make you think he was saying one thing (I have had no ethical problems) when he was really saying another (I have had ethical problems). Using the double negative could, therefore, allow him to lie and tell the truth at the same time, thereby easing his guilt (actually, a typical tactic of serial Christian liars). Of course, there is always the possibility that he was just drunk during the interview.

Posted by Becky at 09:40 AM |

Flatscreen Energy Hogs

If you're like me, you assume that when it comes to appliances, new technology is more energy-efficient than old technology. But that isn't always the case. Take flatscreen televisions, for example. Researchers have concluded that flatscreen televisions over 24 inches use more than three times the electricity of their conventional counterparts. In Britain alone, the flatscreen television will be responsible for increasing television-caused emissions by 70%, or an additional 700,000 tonnes per year, by the time 2010 rolls around. Perhaps it's time for energy ratings on televisions. Or maybe we should just turn them off and go do something real.

Posted by Becky at 09:37 AM |

Empty outrage

Yesterday in email, I received a press release via Standard Newswire from the National Commander of the American Legion, Paul A Morin. The release expressed outrage at the flubbed joke made the other day by John Kerry:

"As a constituent of Senator Kerry's I am disappointed. As leader of The American Legion, I am outraged," said National Commander Paul A. Morin. "A generation ago, Sen. Kerry slandered his comrades in Vietnam by saying that they were rapists and murderers. It wasn't true then and his warped view of today's heroes isn't true now."

While addressing a group of college students at a
campaign rally in Pasadena, California, Monday, Kerry
suggested that they receive an education or "if you
don't, you'll get stuck in Iraq."

"While The American Legion shares the senator's
appreciation for education, the troops in Iraq
represent the most sophisticated, technologically
superior military that the world has ever seen," Morin
said. "I think there is a thing or two that they could
teach most college professors and campus elitists
about the way the world works.

"And while we are on the topic of education, why
doesn't the senator and his comrades in Congress
improve the GI Bill so all of today's military members -
reserves and guard included - can achieve the
educational aspirations that the senator so highly
values?" Morin said. "The senator's false and
outrageous attack was over-the-top and he should
apologize now."

This is the first press release that's ever come to me from the American Legion. When American soldiers weren't getting proper body armor or armored vehicles, Commander Moran wasn't sending out press notices to bloggers. When it became evident that we went to war and put our soldiers in harm's way based on trumped up intelligence, Moran wasn't notifying bloggers of his outrage. This morning I heard Ann Curry make note that 104 US soldiers were killed in Iraq during the month of October. Yet the thing that's got Moran sending out notices is an obvious misstatement by John Kerry.

This shameless act of blatant maneuvering by the head of the American Legion (not to mention the conservative punditry and the Republican establishment) deserves a serious blowback.

Especially given the fact that the Bush Adminstration has essentially hung a US soldier out to dry and is apparently allowing our military to take orders from a foreign government, one would think that Paul Moran would have bigger fish to fry. Much bigger fish, in fact.

Posted by Carla at 08:46 AM |

Shorter John Cole

It sucks to be a Republican these days.

You have my sympathies, John.

Posted by Carla at 07:19 AM |

Democrats Aren't Liberal

At least according to Jonah Goldberg. After railing for years about how Democrats are liberal monsters, the right apparently is preparing for a Democratic majority in the House, and is trying to pin Democrats into a corner by laying what it means out before anyone has a chance to even vote.

Liberal elites will be eager to cast the predicted Democratic gains in next Tuesday's election as vindication of blue-state sanity over red-state religious radicalism. They will proclaim a new mandate for everything from fast withdrawal from Iraq to embryonic stem cell research to gay marriage. Ironically, the only way Democrats can actually win is by sounding an awful lot like President Bush. But the truth is that if they take back the Congress, they will have exhausted their mandate simply by being ``not Bush.''

Actually, liberal elites (I assume that I'm one of those, even though I'm actually quite moderate) will have a bit of a mandate on Iraq and embryonic stem cell research. The only ones talking about gay marriage in this election, though, is the right. I don't think its actually part of the Democrats federal agenda, to be honest.

But it gets better. Jonah went out and found four - count 'em, four - conservative Dems that he expects to win to show that this isn't a liberal victory.

Even many Democrats running against the war are not your typical McGovernites.

• In Illinois, Tammy Duckworth's congressional campaign is based almost entirely on her service in the Iraq war (in which she lost both legs). On virtually every other issue, however, she tries not to say anything that sounds too liberal.

• In Virginia, Senate candidate James Webb -- who sounds like a Republican on affirmative action -- is so atypical that his opponent, GOP incumbent George Allen, is running as the more ''pro-woman'' candidate, thanks to Webb's salty past comments on women in the military.

• In Pennsylvania, Robert Casey Jr., who's running for Senate against incumbent Republican Rick Santorum, offers little more than inarticulate fog on most issues, but his reputation (mostly inherited from his former-governor father) as a social conservative and pro-lifer has him in the lead.

• In North Carolina, former Washington Redskins quarterback Heath Shuler is running as a Democrat and an anti-abortion, pro-gun National Rifle Association member.

Actually, there are more than that, Jonah. Brad Ellsworth in Indiana 8 comes to mind, but that's not the point. Democrats in red states tend to be more conservative. As for Casey in Pennsylvania, that has more to do with his opponent and Casey's family name than anything else.

My point is this - we on the left cannot allow the right to frame what I hope is a victory. So I ask you this - what would a Democratic victory of the House signify, and what should their agenda be?

Posted by Alan at 04:58 AM |