« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »

January 31, 2007

ACLU Loses One, Wins One

A federal judge has struck another blow against Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist gay-hating church, ruling that the "God Hates Fags" activists cannot shout out their beliefs at the funeral services for our fallen soldiers. The group had taken to protesting at these services, claiming the soldiers' deaths were God's retribution on the U.S. for tolerating homosexuals. The Court in essence ruled that one person's rights under the First Amendment can't be allowed to negate another's right to the "free exercise of religion." Because the homophobes had plenty of other times and places in which they could express their views and the state's law barring protesters from military funerals did not reference the content of the speech to be regulated, the Court ruled the state can rightfully deny Phelps's followers (and everyone else) the right to protest at soldiers' funerals. I believe the Court made the right choice here, even though the ACLU sided with Phelps.

Courts have ruled similarly in the past in cases where the recipient of the speech was unable to escape or avoid the speech (a captive audience), such as when protesters gathered on a sidewalk in front of someone's home, directly outside abortion clinics, in or near a courthouse, in or near a polling place, or on public transportation vehicles.

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to mean that speech may be lawfully regulated as to time, place and manner, but that regulation must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to address a provable significant governmental interest, and may go no further than necessary to achieve that interest. Additionally, the government must opt for the least speech-intrusive means possible to achieve that interest and leave open ample alternative means for the speaker to effectively speak.

The Westboro Baptist Church case is a very different one than the the other anti-gay free speech case the ACLU was involved in and won this week. It the second case, the ACLU defended a Christian protester carrying a sign in front of Wal-Mart that read, "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Lifestyles and Marriage. Don't Shop There." The protester was ordered by a police officer to stop until he had obtained a permit. The permit application languished for weeks and the mayor failed to approve it, so the man sued. The Court determined that his right to free speech was infringed.

The key difference between these two cases is that in the first, the speakers' message interfered with the First Amendment rights of others, while in the second, no one's First Amendment rights were harmed in any way by the protester's expression of his opinion.

Judicial Watch, which successfully challenged the ACLU in the Westboro Baptist Church case, is, of course, trumpeting its defeat of the ACLU, but has remained mum in the second case. To tout it would not help their current message that the ACLU is a radical group that has no sense of decency. And it would certainly not help them prove that the ACLU is anti-Christian.

Posted by Becky at 02:12 PM |

January 30, 2007

SDA Opinion Piece Faces an Ugly Truth

Here's an awesome article written by some folks from the religion of my childhood – Seventh-Day Adventists – about how the mixture of politics and religion is betraying the Christian message. For all of you who have been interested in our frequent discussions about the issues of theocracy, right-wing Christian Republicans, and what is true Christianity, this article is one you don't want to miss. It is good news indeed to see this matter frankly addressed in a Christian publication. I hope their readers hear the message.

Posted by Becky at 01:53 PM |

Environment All Over the News

Four environmental stories caught my eye today. In the first one, we have just learned that – surprise – the Bush Administration has been lying to us about global warming. According to the scientists whose papers have been relied upon by the government, the Administration has been subjecting them to political pressure to downplay the threat of global warming. Two-fifths of the 279 climate scientists surveyed (who work for NASA, the EPA, and departments of Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, Defense, and the Interior), said their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Almost half of these scientists said they were told to eliminate phrases like "global warming" or "climate change" from their reports.

The second story is an update on the complaint filed with the USDA by the Cornucopia Institute two months ago that Wal-Mart was using the placement of "organic" signs in its produce section to mislead people into believing foods were organic when they were not. Guess what. Wal-Mart hasn't stopped its mis-labeling, and its buddies at the USDA have done nothing about it. The Cornucopia Institute is asking consumers to boycott Wal-Mart. If you're not into boycotts, perhaps just don't buy your produce there – after all, it isn't really organic.

The third story really frightens me. It would seem that we are 2-5 years away from being able to synthesize any virus. In other words, very soon we will be able to create designer self-replicating viruses that never existed before. And within 5-10 years we can expect that this technology might either fall into the wrong hands or even be used by our own country to create horrible bioweapons that could threaten the entire planet. The ETC Group has released a new report that is free to download from theirwebsite called "Extreme Genetic Engineering: An Introduction to Synthetic Biology."

Finally, if you want to do your part to stop global warming, becoming a vegan will help even more than buying a Prius. The UN is reporting that livestock production creates more greenhouse gases than automobiles. Every calorie of meat you eat uses ten calories of fossil fuels to produce it. Even if going vegan is over the top for you, simply reducing the amount of meat you eat will make a tremendous difference. To give you some idea of what we're up against, the 10 billion land animals slaughtered for food every year in the U.S. produce 5 million tons of manure every day. So stop the bullshit and eat a vegetable - it's good for you and for the planet!

Posted by Becky at 01:41 PM |

January 29, 2007

Walker Not Walking the Christian Line

Knowing that the man who heads up FreedomWorks, Russ Walker, is a devout Christian, I am certain his testimony in opposition to the Healthy Kids Plan on Friday must have been misunderstood. Walker says he opposes the plan to use cigarette taxes to pay for children's health insurance because he doesn't think it's fair to target people who smoke cigarettes and leave other unhealthy activities alone. It sounds to me as if he is advocating for sin taxes on all unhealthy activities to pay for children's health insurance. What a wonderful idea! We'll have plenty of money for the effort that way!

What's that you say? That's not what he meant?

Yep, the fact is that Walker, in a wonderful example of Christian principles in action, is heading up a group that has been secretly taking vast amounts of money from Phillip Morris, and as a result he is compelled to make a priority of what is good for Big Tobacco over what is good for Oregon's children. Maybe he misunderstood Jesus's admonishment to "suffer the little children…" and thought it meant "let the little children suffer."

Posted by Becky at 03:30 PM |

Hartmann Interview Does Libertarians a Disservice

I heard about the latest escalation in the infighting in the Libertarian Party of Oregon this morning on Thom Hartmann's show in an interview he had with Wes Wagner, who has filed a lawsuit over what he feels are illegal and unethical goings-on in the party's state committee. Hartmann didn't seem to know anything about the history of the Libertarian Party of Oregon or the players involved and did not even seem know what sort of meaningful questions to ask Wagner. It almost seemed to me that he was uncharacteristically taken in by Wagner. The complaints may or may not have merit, but I am troubled over the lack of appreciation that both Hartmann and Wagner displayed for what Richard Burke's Mainstream Liberty Caucus has done for the Libertarian Party – progress that could never have been achieved through politeness and open arms to those who wanted to keep the status quo (think about the hardball politics that go on between the Democrats and the Republicans in the State Legislature, and how the process is used to keep power in the hands of the majority and you can understand what has occurred within the Libertarian Party).

Back in 1998, at a gubernatorial debate that included Bill Sizemore and John Kitzhaber, I heard Richard Burke, the Libertarian candidate, speak for the first time. I had never previously been exposed to the Libertarian philosophy, and was fascinated to hear what seemed to me at the time to be real common sense, offered in an engaging and intelligent manner. I felt then that Richard Burke had real political talent and I wanted to learn more about the party. Eventually, Richard convinced me to switch my party affiliation from Republican to Libertarian. I then became involved, albeit rather casually, in his Mainstream Liberty Caucus and efforts to take control of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in order to move it forward. Eventually, I realized the Libertarian philosophy was not a good fit for me, and I have not been involved in the party for about four years now. But that does not dim my respect for the dedication of many of the activists involved in the party. They are often underestimated by the general public, who still often view Libertarians as being a bunch of pot-smoking anti-establishment types.

It has been Richard Burke's burning desire to change that misperception and to make Libertarians relevant in the public debate. My recruitment by Richard Burke was part of a greater effort in which he and several other very bright individuals were engaged to try to bring some credibility and forward motion to the Libertarian Party. Because of this effort, Libertarians were represented in statewide elections in recent years by such quality candidates as Mitch Shults and Tom Cox, both of whom would probably have been in the midst of outstanding political careers by now had they been willing to compromise their political views by joining one of the major parties instead of devoting themselves to the advancement of the Libertarian philosophy. In fact, Shults, while running for State Treasurer, actually won the endorsement of The Statesman Journal - a very proud moment for the Mainstream Liberty Caucus (MLC).

Under Richard's leadership and the prominence of the MLC, the Libertarian Party has undeniably influenced Oregon elections – by throwing its weight one way or the other, or threatening to do so, it has been able to advance its limited government agenda. In other words, it has become meaningful, as opposed to the pre-Burke days when the party was too often disorganized or ineffective so that it was simply laughed off or ignored by most people.

The MLC, at the time I was involved, was a group of very dedicated individuals who, under the leadership of Richard Burke, used the process and some very clever maneuvering to take over the party and turn it around. Old school Libertarians, who it seemed to me viewed the party as more of a club of ideologues than an agent for real change in the real world, were taken by surprise and quickly became very resentful. I was uncomfortable about some of the tactics we used and voted against some of the agenda items of the MLC because I'm actually uncomfortable with confrontation and overly-concerned with fairness, but I never believed legal lines had been crossed. Of course, Burke was not opposed to pushing right up to the line. Nothing is wrong with that.

Richard soon became the paid Executive Director for the party in Oregon. Two of his closest allies, Adam and Chris Mayer, eventually became Chair and Treasurer of the party. Adam and Chris both supported Richard faithfully. Chris, a very loyal and sincere person who worked for a short time as my secretary at Oregon Taxpayers United, was unflinching and enthusiastic in her devotion to the cause. All three were determined to take the Libertarian Party to the next level – making it a party that actually mattered and was credible. For some time, that seemed to be occurring.

I have lost touch with the party in recent years and from an outsider's point of view it seems to me the party has nearly dropped off the face of the earth. Perhaps it never gained the credibility I thought it had when I was involved, I don't know. But certainly the current lawsuit and squabbling within the party will not help its image unless Burke and the MLC are able to use the lawsuit to frame their efforts for the public. Unfortunately, the Mayers have resigned, for reasons I do not know, meaning their ability to continue to advance the vision that Burke has symbolized is significantly diminished. At the same time, Wagner has been granted a golden interview opportunity with a nationally-known radio celebrity who apparently did not do his homework.

Wes Wagner is complaining that the party's state committee has no principles and is unlawfully manipulating the process to retain power. He claims bylaws were ignored to preserve the existing power structure and claims Richard Burke and Chris Mayer have manipulated campaign finance reports to cover up Richard's improper personal use of the party's debit card. Wagner has plainly stated that he does not care if his lawsuit destroys the party. A former Secretary for the Party, Jerry DeFoe, recently posted an open letter to the party's members defending himself against Wagner's "unjust and wrongful dirty tricks and character assassination tactics." He says when Wagner convinced Libertarian hero Tonie Nathan to join his effort, it was the last straw (Tonie Nathan was the first woman to ever receive an electoral vote during her run for Vice President of the United States in 1972).

This is a stain I surely intend to clean. Now I am standing up. I will defend my reputation and honor by marching on a road of bones and squashing these evil demons like puny warm grapes. I am wound up and I’m not going to slow down. I am one who has been first drawn upon so I have the responsibility to myself to press my rights by defending these principles of reputation and honor that mean much more than mere words to me.

As you can see, passions in the party run deep, and you can't piss off a life-long Libertarian activist and former member of the Army like DeFoe, for whom freedom, loyalty and country are everything, and expect not to face consequences (incidentally, DeFoe was the only candidate for Congress in the 5th District in 2004 to take a public stand against the Iraq War). Both sides in the struggle for control of the Libertarian party are passionate about how best to advance their beliefs. Hence, the ten-year effort by Richard Burke to mainstream the party, despite the opposition by some of the more traditional members, was destined for a major explosion at some point.

Thom Hartmann would do well to read DeFoe's treatise and see what level of dedication is involved in this debate, rather than readily accepting the word of one individual who is willing to see the party destroyed to get what he wants – and who, as it turns out, seems to be quite two-faced in the process, not to mention unwilling to gracefully accept defeat.

Wes Wagner and the “Oregon Libertarians for Reform” have not utilized proper, prudent procedural use of the LPO State Committee, the Judicial Committee, Conventions, Bylaws, etc.. Wes Wagner and “Oregon Libertarians for Reform” have chosen not to utilize LPO procedures or anything near due process such as making productive motions, building coalitions, organizing members and obtaining the votes necessary to shape the change they desire. Instead they choose to make a “dirty politics” video for general public consumption, send out press releases meant to damage individuals via various media outlets. They frivolously overload LPO Officers, Staff and Judicial Committee members. They issue numerous edicts and statements meant to induce fear concerning issues with what they want the membership to perceive as having grave ramifications for the LPO to further their own agenda. And anyone who disputes them on their use of methods must side with their enemies. Remind you of McCarthyism?

One of the more interesting portions of DeFoe's post has to do with the supposed pending "criminal investigation" of Richard Burke that Wagner has emphasized at every turn:

How has “it become known that the executive director is under criminal investigation is by the Secretary of State” as Wes Wagner’s petition states? This is a bald faced lie. I surely do not know of any criminal investigation underway. Can Wes Wagner tell us what he knows so that we too can know too? I'm feeling left out of the loop on this one. I've questioned numerous people in Salem but can't find anyone that seems to have any clue. These are some pretty serious allegations Wes Wagner is perpetuating and I will try to get to the bottom of it down here.

What I have been able to derive and if I understand correctly, is any time that a complaint is filed it is sealed for obvious reasons and the Secretary of State has a responsibility to investigate all complaints. What this means is that if someone were to file a criminal complaint against you, you too would be under criminal investigation as well one would suppose.

After reading DeFoe's post, I admire him. He actually does not support the positions of Richard Burke's Mainstream Liberty Caucus. But he is outraged by the refusal of dissenters to use the process to make legitimate change. I am outraged that such efforts would rise to the level that people like the Mayers felt they had to resign their positions in the Party. And I am, again, very disappointed that Thom Hartmann did not dig deeper into this story before putting Wes Wagner on the air this morning. No matter what you think of the Libertarian Party and its views, the devoted activists who work within the party deserve more respect than that.

That said, I am troubled by some of what Wagner reports. If events did, indeed, transpire as he says, then perhaps the individuals involved should be investigated – perhaps they went a little further than right up to the line, though I personally doubt it. Wagner's group, Oregon Libertarians for Reform, offers links to several documents, including a recall letter for Adam Mayer. It lays out several incidents in which proper procedure may not have been followed by Adam Mayer. A second recall letter lays out complaints against Richard Burke. Having been involved in many political disputes, both within the traditional political realm and within the corporate political realm, I know that even seemingly good people will lie, exaggerate, and hide the truth. But generally, the duly elected power structure of the organization dealt with the incidents as they saw fit and their decisions were not to Wagner's liking.

If he does not like the decisions that have been made by the individuals his own party has elected to represent it, he and his allies should take DeFoe's advice and use the legitimate process to form a coalition and attempt to retake control of the party, as the MLC did several years ago under the leadership of Richard Burke. They should not undo the heroic efforts of thousands of dedicated people by trashing the party in public. Such behavior is shameful.

Posted by Becky at 01:06 PM |

January 28, 2007

Tourism the Jesus way

Not being a Christian perhaps my lack of understanding when it comes to these tourist destinations is simply born of ignorance.

After all, what vacationer doesn't long to experience the threats of burning in Hell at the Cross Garden or sink a hole in one at Golgotha Biblical Mini Golf while a staid figure of The Christ watches lovingly over the cup?

And nothing says fun like watching costumed Romans whip the crap out of Christ while munching down a foot long hot dog and a scoop of delicious Edy's ice cream.

Posted by Carla at 04:24 PM |

January 27, 2007

When racism isn't exactly racism

I've long maintained that at least some of what gets popularly labeled as racism in America is actually classism revolving more around issues of relative economic wealth than issues of ancestory. Ironically, much of the supposed anti-classism rhetoric coming from the ideological right is itself inherently classist prejudice. But that's another issue entirely.

A new study by Joni Hersch, a law and economics professor at Vanderbilt University, appears to show a skin tone prejudice in America which isn't racist.

Joni Hersch... looked at a government survey of 2,084 legal immigrants to the United States from around the world and found that those with the lightest skin earned an average of 8 percent to 15 percent more than similar immigrants with much darker skin.

"On average, being one shade lighter has about the same effect as having an additional year of education," Hersch said.

The study also found that taller immigrants earn more than shorter ones, with an extra inch of height associated with a 1 percent increase in income.

Still seems like racism, huh? That's what I was thinking too. But read on...

Hersch took into consideration other factors that could affect wages, such as English-language proficiency, education, occupation, race or country of origin, and found that skin tone still seemed to make a difference in earnings.

That means that if two similar immigrants from Bangladesh, for example, came to the United States at the same time, with the same occupation and ability to speak English, the lighter-skinned immigrant would make more money on average.

"I thought that once we controlled for race and nationality, I expected the difference to go away, but even with people from the same country, the same race — skin color really matters," she said, "and height."

Although many cultures show a bias toward lighter skin, Hersch said her analysis shows that the skin-color advantage was not due to preferential treatment for light-skinned people in their country of origin. The bias, she said, occurs in the U.S.

I wonder if this bias plays into our attitudes towards Europeans too? How often have we seen the socialistic tendencies of France, Italy and even Spain highlighted by conservatives while other arguably equally socialistic nations which just happen to be dominated by lighter skinned citizenry are virtually ignored? By any measurement I would think that Sweden is every bit as socialistic as France is, yet conservatives never cite Sweden when they want to demonize socialists. They usually pick on France with Italy and Spain appearing to be close seconds.

Is it just coincidence that the French, Italians and Spanish have darker skin tones then the Swedish?

Just to add a possible twist... When was the last time you saw a Swedish restaurant? An Italian or French restaurant? Admittedly there don't seem to be many Spanish restaurants. But I wonder if that can be at least partially attributed to the popularity of hispanic restaurants. To take the cuisine of another very light skinned people, Germans; we do see German restaurants. But they are vastly outnumbered by Italian and Mexican restaurants.

Hypothesis: At some level we tend to equate darker skin with being both "different" (along with whatever prejudices are involved with that) and also somewhat exotic, and thus desirable.

Of course one would think that if it were just skin tone then we should be awash in African restaurants. We aren't, although I suspect that Soul Food restaurants are more popular in other parts of the country. But look at the popularity of Asian restaurants, hispanic restaurants, Southern European cuisines and even Middle Eastern restaurants.

There is something there. Not sure exactly what or that all of these issues are necessarily related. But it seems clear to me that, with the possible exception of Africans and Native Americans, we white Americans seem to have a clear love/hate relationship with darker skinned people. For all that we seem to view ourselves as superior to them, we also find them fascinatingly exotic and spend lots of time, energy and money attempting to vicariously experience this exoticness via cuisine at the very least.

Further hypothesis: If the preceeding makes sense then I wonder if Africans and Native Americans are gastronomically treated differently then other darker skinned people because we view them as indigenous and thus somehow less exotic?

Your thoughs?

Posted by Kevin at 01:43 PM |

January 26, 2007

Washington State grapples with banning paying by the signature for initiatives

On the other side of the Columbia River, Washingtonians are beginning to tackle something we Oregonians dealt with a number of years ago: banning the practice of paying initiative signature gathers by the signature.

In November of 2002, Oregonians passed Measure 26, a constitutional amendment banning the "pay by signature" initiative process.

The bill in Washington had a committee hearing today in which testimony was taken from a raft of folks who are in no mood to have their gravy train of pay by signature halted:

Word is that the hearing room is packed with opponents of the bill, a crowd organized by Tim Eyman and his signature gathering contractors at Citzens Solutions. Of course they’re crowding the hearing room. This isn’t democracy or free speech that’s at stake for them, it’s their livelihood.

And apparently their arguments on the topic are as shallow as their motives for appearing:

There are really only two arguments against HB 1087. 1.) There is no evidence of signature fraud in WA state, and thus this bill is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech; and 2.) this bill is intended to destroy the initiative process.

The "no evidence of fraud" argument has also been buffetted by Oregon's own initiative scammer Bill Sizemore:

Before Measure 26, when initiative sponsors were allowed to pay circulators by the signature, Oregon had a small problem with petition signature forgeries. During a typical election cycle, two or three forgers would be caught; the other 99 percent of petition circulators played by the rules. Professional circulators knew that they would be blackballed if they were caught forging signatures -- their careers would be over.

Measure 26, on the other hand, has attracted a whole new breed of petition circulators. During this election cycle, nearly 20 signature forgers have been caught and turned in. That's approximately 10 times more forgers than when petition sponsors were allowed to hire professionals who were paid by the signature and had reputations to maintain.

The problem Sizemore (and Eyman in Washington) have is the phrase "were caught". Prior to Measure 26, it was the campaigns who were scrutinizing their signatures. Once people were caught from outside the campaigns forging the signatures, then it became obvious that the "pay by signature" was simply feeding that beast. Oregon's Attorney General has said as much. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals happens to agree.

Its laughable for Sizemore to make the argument that pay by the hour is bringing in more forgers. The reason more people are caught is because of the scrutiny that M26 has brought to the process. Grassroots organizations are paying much closer attention.

Posted by Carla at 03:35 PM |

We Know it's a Lie, But ...

Here's a big surprise for you: Sean Hannity of Fox News is going to feature the deleted portions of "The Path to 9/11," a made-for-TV docudrama that aired a few months ago, on his show "Hannity's America." I guess he has his own country, so he can do whatever he wants. Never mind that the deleted scenes were pulled specifically because they were inaccurate; they help deflect blame for 9/11 from President Bush and place it all back on President Clinton. And never mind that former national security advisor Sandy Berger said the unedited film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions," and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said it was "false and defamatory." Fox News and Sean Hannity know the material is dishonest, but they want their loyal right-wing viewers to see it anyway. The propaganda must go on.

Posted by Becky at 01:08 PM |

A Call for Intellectual Honesty

If the tax-activist, limited-government right-wingers were being intellectually honest, they'd be raising holy heck about this. But seeing as how it's one of their own doing it, they will no doubt find some way to justify taxpayers funding a biased political blog.

Posted by Becky at 12:41 PM |

Bush's Grammar Improves

President Bush, who a while back used a made up word to describe himself ("I'm the Decider"), has apparently been the recipient of a much-needed grammatical lesson because now he is calling himself "the Decision-Maker." Whew, that's a relief. Now if we can just get him to stop saying "nukular."

Posted by Becky at 09:03 AM |

Coddling of Parents' Beliefs Goes Too Far

The reaction of some parents in Washington state to the announcement that their children would be shown Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," in school brings up a fascinating question: at what point does society have a responsibility to insert itself into the parent-child relationship?

One parent, a Christian named Frosty Hardison, protested loudly when he heard his daughter would be shown the film at school. "Liberal left is all over Hollywood," he said. In an email to the school board, he wrote, "No you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation -- the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet -- for global warming." Forget science; he says he believes that global warming is "one of the signs" of the impending Second Coming of Jesus. I know many good people who hold that view. Are they right to protest the teaching of science in their children's school?

No question, the film is controversial. But why is it controversial? Two reasons, neither of which is fully understood by most Republicans: first, it is associated with that flaming liberal Clintonista, Algore, an association that carries an entire package of prejudices along with it; and second, a whole lot of corporate polluters have managed to find unscrupulous "scientists" to write "scientific" papers arguing against the theory that man's activities have resulted in rapid climate change and that the situation is urgent. Your average Republican, like most people, doesn't realize that real science is peer-reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals. If a person claiming to be a scientist says that global warming isn't occurring, or that what we are experiencing today is a purely cyclical, natural phenomenon, most Republicans will accept it as truth it because that's what Republicans are supposed to believe, and to think otherwise is to be a traitor to all that is good in America.

The interesting question here, really, is whether it is appropriate, when the future of the planet is at stake, for schools to continue to coddle right-wing parents who rely so heavily on faith or biased partisan views that they will flatly deny sound science and refuse to allow their children, whose responsibility it will be to deal with the problem, to be exposed to the information that will help them deal with it. You could ask similar questions in the debates over homosexuality and discrimination, birth control education and abstinence education, and evolution and intelligent design.

Here's my opinion. The school system has no business interfering with what a parent teaches a child about these controversial issues until high school. But at that point, parents need to recognize that their children are about to enter the real world where they will be exposed to all sorts of ideas. If they have not by that time taught their children how to think critically and argue convincingly for the positions they hold dear, if they have not developed the sort of relationship with their child that would result in their child discussing controversial issues with them at home and asking them questions about what they are being taught in school, then too bad. That simply indicates that the parents gave up their parental responsibilities long ago. If they want to shelter their children from reality into their teen years, parochial schooling or home schooling are available. But in the public school system, it is appropriate to teach kids what peer-reviewed, reputable scientific research has to say about these controversial issues. Too much is at stake to allow another generation to grow up ignorant of the facts.

Posted by Becky at 08:11 AM |

January 25, 2007

Say what?

Saturday is Holocaust Memorial Day in Britain and elsewhere around the world. Not surprisingly some enterprizing pollsters decided to survey British opinions and knowledge of the Holocaust.

Forty-one percent of Britons believe that an event like the Holocaust could happen in the country today, given the depth of intolerance and prejudice, according to a new survey.

Furthermore, 36 percent thought that most people would do nothing about it if it did happen, in a poll released ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day on Saturday.

The YouGov poll of 2,400 Britons found that 50 percent did not know that as well as Jews, homosexuals, disabled people and the Roma community were also targeted by Nazi Germany.

A further 79 percent were unaware that black people were persecuted and killed under the Nazi regime in Germany, which ruled from 1933 to 1945.

The "alarming" results beg the question "have we really learnt anything from the genocides of our recent past?", said Stephen Smith, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust chairman.

Indeed! Didn't somebody once say something along the lines of, those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it?

I wonder how American views and knowledge of the Holocaust stack up compared to the British?

Posted by Kevin at 02:46 PM |

Of Honor Killings and TheoConservative notions

For a long time now I've found it both perplexing and amusing that president Bush has so often touted "liberal democracy" as a value to be striven towards around the world while he and his political base remain steadfastly dedicated to a brand of TheoConservatism which has more in common with those pesky "islamofacists" than with anything resembling a liberal value.

A disturbing news report this morning got me to thinking about this issue once again. A father in Jordan shot to death his 17 year old daughter whom he suspected had been engaging in premarital sex. This despite the fact that doctors had examined her the week prior and vouched for her virginity. An autopsy on the dead girl confirmed that she in fact had never had sex.

Now I know that the popular conception in America, particularly among conservatives, is that this kind of honor killing is an Islamic issue and just one more evidence of the uncivility of Muslims. But in fact not only is it "the antithesis of Islamic morality", but it's far from limited to just Islamic cultures.

In several of the overwhelmingly Christian nations in Latin America one can find similar honor killings. Mexico in particular has a culture which places a very high value upon family honor in the context of women and sexuality. And even where there are laws against such gender-based violence the courts are often reluctant to do anything to enforce those laws.

In Brazil up until 1991 killing one's wife for any reason or for no reason at all was legally considered "noncriminal." In just one year nearly 800 Brazilian men killed their wives. In Columbia, until 1980, a husband could legally kill his wife for adultry without any legal onus to prove her guilt. Legislative decisions allowing a partial or complete "honor" defense could be found in most Latin American countries as recently as 2002 and perhaps still can be today.

Even here in the United States it was perfectly legal for most of our history to mistreat wives and daughters, from severe beatings all the way up to murder. Again, for any reason or for no reason at all. He was the husband/father and that was all the right that his Christian neighbors considered necessary.

Mind you, those are the good ol' days which a multitude of American TheoConservative groups swear that we as a nation must get back to for "moral" reasons.

The irony here of course is that moving away from such archaic views on women in America was an act of liberal democracy.

If allowed free reign to impliment their TheoConservative ideas, how long do you suppose it'd be before it was once again legal to abuse and murder wives and daughters in America?

Posted by Kevin at 02:45 PM |

Obama Takes on Fox News

Barack Obama has come out swinging against Fox News's repeated assertions that he is a closet Muslim. Though CNN has already debunked the false rumors about his childhood education in a Muslim madrassa, Fox News has continued with their attack. Finally, Obama's staff today issued a memo calling the statements "malicious, irresponsible charges" that "are precisely the kind of politics the American people have grown tired of, and that Senator Obama is trying to change by focusing on bringing people together to solve our common problems."

Insight Magazine, which is owned by the Moonie Times, published an article last week erroneously claiming Obama had spent "at least four years" studying in a madrassa that espoused Wahhabism. Despite any sources for such assertions, Fox News picked up the story and ran with it, never even attempting to verify it independently. So much for "fair and balanced."

From Obama's press release:

To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa.

The article offers some great new links that help debunk the Fox News take.

So why is Fox News so focused on smearing Barack Obama? Obviously, it is because Republicans view a Hillary Clinton candidacy as their best hope for winning the White House in 2008. They are completely focused on ensuring Hillary Clinton is hated and, at the same time, nominated as the Democratic candidate because they know nobody can rile up the right and get them motivated to work for their candidate like Hillary. Honestly, why else would Rupert Murdoch be helping her?

Obama has begun to peel off financial support from Clinton, and though he hasn't yet managed to top Clinton in the polls, at least not according to TIME, he has a real shot at taking her out if he plays the game correctly.

[T]he survey found that Senator Clinton would beat him for the Democratic nomination by a margin of 40% to 21%. Senator John Edwards is a distant third with 11%. Obama clearly suffers a disadvantage in profile among likely voters, with only 51% indicating that they knew enough about him to form an opinion, compared with 94% saying the same of Hillary Clinton. In Obama's favor, however, is his far lower negative ratings. While 58% of voters familiar with Hillary Clinton have a positive view of her, 41% give her negative marks, for a net favorability score of +17. By contrast, Obama's net favorability score is +47. …

Clinton's popularity within her party does not translate as easily across party lines as Obama's does. Only 58% of the total sample of respondents had a very or somewhat favorable impression of her, compared with 82% for Giuliani (including 7 out of 10 Democratic voters), and 70% each for Obama and McCain — both of whom showed strongly among independents.

Note that this poll was conducted before a clear debunking of the madrassa story had occurred (and, of course, it has yet to occur on Fox News).

Posted by Becky at 01:23 PM |

The Vanguard Takes on MoveOn

A new conservative effort to take back Congress in 2008 is quietly underway in the form of a website called The Vanguard, which is intended to be the Republican's counter to MoveOn.org. Like MoveOn, The Vanguard was started by Silicon Valley talent and money. The site is headed up by Rod Martin who, by all accounts, is a charismatic rising star on the right. He is joined by an impressive Board that includes Grover Norquist, Marvin Olasky, and Jack Wheeler, among others. And just this week, he has been joined by Jerome Corsi, the man who wrote "Unfit for Command," the book that unraveled John Kerry's presidential campaign. Corsi will be focusing his efforts on bringing down Hillary Clinton.

Martin is a true insider on the right. He is a member of the Board of Governors of the Council for National Policy – a group that was founded by Tim LaHaye (author of the Left Behind books) and was called the "club of the most powerful" by the New York Times. Martin also, thanks to the personal recommendation from James Dobson, is a member of the Arlington Group, which coordinates the most senior leaders of the Christian Right. So it is no surprise that Norquist's desire to keep Christians in the Republican fold is shared by Martin. This morning, the sparse offerings featured on the front page of the website include an article advocating for Congress to "uphold the partial birth abortion ban" and an advertisement for the book "Help! Mom! The 9th Circuit Nabbed the Nativity." Yes, the phony War on Christmas continues to work its organizational wonders.

Martin offers an interesting quote: “The left has always been better at coalition building.” I've heard Democrats say the same thing about Republicans. If you want to know a little secret, the right isn't any more organized than the left. They just know how to use multiple entities, their noise machine, and a blustering air of confidence to make it look like they have their act together. But the grassroots are simply not there. The one exception is the Christian right. They are activated at the grassroots level. That is very likely a big part of why they matter so much to people like Norquist.

It doesn't take long to see that The Vanguard is offering the same core rallying messages as all the other leading right-wing Republican efforts – support the President's "war on terror," protect gun rights from the rabid liberals who want to take them away, stop killing pre-born babies, and return our culture to one based on Christian values as overtly expressed by government. What fascinates me is that these people actually believe that simply working harder and smarter at conveying the same tired messages they have delivered for years will somehow win them back Congress. Perhaps they convinced themselves that President Bush has messed everything up for them at the ballot box simply because he's a moderate; therefore, the electorate's rejection of the Republican party has actually been a rejection of moderation and the answer is a return to far right conservatism. How that explains the move by swing voters to the left last November is beyond me. But looking back over my life, I see now that I really never have thought like a Republican. That's probably why I don't get it.

Posted by Becky at 09:32 AM |

January 24, 2007

Beaverton Replica Toy Gun Ban a Good Idea

It looks like Beaverton is getting closer to banning toy guns that look real. I am very much a gun rights person. Our family has a lifetime NRA membership and we give to the Oregon Firearms Federation every year. We have a membership at a rifle range. Both our boys have been taught how to respect and handle a gun properly from a very young age. But I don't have any problem with Beaverton's proposal. I have always thought it was a bad idea for kids to be carrying real-looking toy guns around in populated areas.

The only concern I have with it is based on the comments of the Beaverton Police Department spokesman, Sgt. Paul Wandell, regarding the question of whether the proposed law goes far enough: "It's a start," he said.

My kids have airsoft guns, both the handgun variety and the automatic rifle variety. Since the only real damage the guns can do is sting your skin or put out an eye, they wear protective glasses whenever they use them, as do all their friends, and they have to promise not to be a baby when they get hit. The latter is usually no problem, as both are having too much fun to worry about it. We have always stressed gun safety with our kids, whether they are playing with water guns, potato pellet guns, paintball guns, pop guns, nerf guns, or real guns – all of which they own and enjoy. They are naturals at proper gun handling and know never to touch a real gun when they are not under our direct supervision. I do not believe my children are in any danger from guns and our family has a lot of fun with guns. So I don't want to see a law banning toy guns go any further than banning the ones that look real from public spaces. Anything more would be paranoid, intrusive overkill.

A strong case can be made for banning the real-looking toy guns:

Online retailers brag about the authenticity of the reproductions. Many are so close to the real thing that police agencies use them for training. And criminals use them in robberies.

The fakes are often mistaken for real weapons by police responding to calls from worried residents.

And there have been numerous cases in which police have shot people because they mistook their toy guns for real ones. In Beaverton, police have received several calls from concerned citizens about young people carrying weapons near schools, only to find the weapons were realistic-looking toys. There is simply no reason for parents to put their kids in a situation where a mistaken report of an armed youngster results in that youngster being shot by a cop.

Funky multi-colored or clear toy guns work every bit as well as real-looking guns and prevent tragic mistakes. I see no reason why this reasonable law shouldn't be passed – so long as it isn't carried to the next level down the line with a banning of all toy guns in public.

Posted by Becky at 12:44 PM |

Come to Jesus for Better Sex

Well, if this isn't one of the oddest things I've seen lately: disgraced evangelical pastor, the Rev. Ted Haggard, who was booted out of his position of leadership for having gay sex with a gay prostitute and using meth, is now claiming in a documentary that Christians have the best sex life of all groups. If that doesn't bring people to Jesus, I don't know what will.

Haggard appears in Alexandra Pelosi's new HBO documentary, "Friends of God." Pelosi, incidentally, is the daughter of the new speaker of the House and has done two political documentaries prior to this documentary on Christianity. She says her motivation was to find out how the "other side" lived – the other side being those who live opposite to her liberal "blue" upbringing. Haggard acted as her tour guide through the evangelical community.

I just have to wonder how he got that gig. Did either Pelosi or HBO approach him, or was he recommended for the job by someone else? Because if Pelosi and/or HBO approached him and said, "Hey, Teddy boy. You're obviously a hip and happenin' dude. Hows about you show me around and tell me about what it's like to be a Christian?" then I have to wonder about Pelosi's and/or HBO's motives here. Did they want to show off the seamy side of the Christian right? Did they honestly believe Haggard was representative of Christianity? Did they see him as a conveniently needy vehicle that would enable them to get an inside peek at the workings of a particular theocratic-political group? Or did they want to portray Christianity as offering no greater level of morality than agnosticism?

If, on the other hand, someone from the Christian community recommended Haggard for the job, then one must wonder whether his personal troubles are an indication of a serious problem within the evangelical movement. Either the individual who recommended him is so naïve as to be unable to recognize the damage Haggard did by cheating on his wife and using illegal drugs while professing to be living a godly life, or that person is consciously working to undermine and smear true Christians, for whom morality actually still matters.

No matter how I look at this, it feels very wrong.

Posted by Becky at 11:27 AM |

January 23, 2007

Dig a Little Harder

I had to chuckle when I read Dave Hogan's article about Sizemore's new ballot measures and new home in Klamath Falls. First, it was funny that Patty Wentz did such a better job at uncovering what's up lately with Sizemore than one of The Oregonian's top reporters. Plus, I've been doing some digging of my own. It's not that difficult to do.

So the big news Dave Hogan reported was that Sizemore has moved his family to Klamath Falls because "his wife wanted to try living east of the mountains," and Sizemore earns enough money to pay for his 3,000 square foot, $600,000 home by selling real estate in the Southern Oregon and Portland area. Wrong and wrong again. As Patty found out, Sizemore moved to Klamath Falls because Jeld-Wen owner and gazillionaire Dick Wendt is almost certainly paying him to advance Wendt's own conservative and self-interested political agenda. Moreover, the real estate market has cooled significantly, so that I doubt Sizemore, a newbie in real estate, could actually afford the lease on the $750,000 home (not $600,000) he is currently occupying.

Hogan also reported on Sizemore's new corporation – the Oregon Homeowners Association, Inc. – and his new LLC – The Oregon Homeowner. Sizemore says he has not decided what he will do with those entities. Can you believe that? He sets up a company but doesn't know what it's going to do. Right.

I don't know what Sizemore's plans are, but I do know that he is tucking himself nicely into bed with Dick Wendt and his good buddies Ted Abram and John Courtney. Back in the day when I was working with Sizemore, I heard these names quite frequently, so this relationship has been a long time in the making. But what is really interesting to me is the Howard Rich-like web of entities surrounding this bunch.

Sizemore's Oregon Homeowners Association is registered at 2636 Biehn St. in Klamath Falls. So is Dick Wendt's American Institute for Full Employment (AIFE), a non-profit headed up by Ted Abram and focused on welfare reform. So, too, are Transition Wear, a thrift store that is tied in with AIFE, and Jeld-Wen Public Affairs, both of which list John Courtney as the contact person.

Wendt has some friends in common with Sizemore. For one thing, his AIFE is listed on Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform state groups page – a list of like-minded astroturf groups around the country. And Ted Abram serves alongside Dick Armey and Steve Forbes on the FreedomWorks Foundation Board. FreedomWorks and Wendt – and, of course, Abram - share a few legislative priorities: privatization of Social Security, loosening environmental regulations, and welfare reform.

In case you've forgotten, FreedomWorks in Oregon is headed up by Russ Walker, a party loyalist who teamed up with Sizemore on two ballot measures in the 2006 general election - using funding from ATR and FreedomWorks. Coincidentally, before FreedomWorks and Citizens for a Sound Economy merged and before Russ Walker became the brown noser for the boys back east, Cathy Epley, who had worked on Sizemore's gubernatorial campaign, which was funded by a good chunk of Wendt money, headed up the organization.

To give you some perspective on who this Abram character is, he was an advisory board member of Brainstorm Magazine, a conservative news magazine in Oregon, for a long time. And he is a Senior Advisor to the Center for Global Economic Growth, which works to push the free market limited government philosophy all over the world and works closely with groups like the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and many others.

So back to the interconnected entities. Sourcewatch puts it like this:

Boundaries between Jeld-Wen, JOBS Plus and AIFE are very blurry. Jeld-Wen executive Hobbs, a former Reagan Administration official, described AIFE as a "not-for-profit subsidiary of Jeld-Wen." Phone calls to the AIFE phone number are sometimes answered "JOBS Plus." Anita Moore, a Jeld-Wen employee, works full time recruiting businesses to JOBS Plus. Jeld-Wen executive Bob Kingzett also has a voicemail box at AIFE. When AIFE staffers lobby in Salem, they speak as Jeld-Wen employees. Bill Early, executive vice president of Jeld-Wen, has served as chair of the state JOBS Plus advisory board from the beginning, and Richard Wendt himself sits on the Klamath County JOBS Plus advisory board.

Other examples include:

Allan Craigmiles posts a message claiming to be a Fellow with the American Institute for Full Employment and provides his email address at Jeld-Wen.

Craigmiles had a different email address when he responded to a survey for the Manhattan Institute in 2005 as a representative of AIFE. This time his email address was at Hire Calling. More on that entity in a minute.

Both Craigmiles and John Courtney, attorney for Jeld-Wen, serve as contact people for AIFE and list their Jeld-Wen email addresses for events at which AIFE is hosting the author of "Release of Street Saints: Renewing America’s Cities And Equipping the Saints: A Guide to Giving to Faith-Based Organizations."

John Courtney – Jeld-Wen Attorney – also serves as the contact person for Hire Calling Public Affairs – which incidentally is also at 2636 Biehn St – the same location as Sizemore's new business. Hire Calling (a double-entendre with religious overtones) is a placement agency for temporary low-wage workers. Other related entities include Hire Calling Staffing Solutions and Hire Calling Inc., both located at 3815 S 6th St. in Klamath Falls, and Calling Inc. and Hire Calling Holding Co. and Hire Calling Staff Solutions, both at 720 E Jackson St. in Medford.

Allan Craigmiles is a retired bank president who writes about why we need to privatize Social Secuirty. He is also the head of a non-profit called Good Soil Ministries Inc. at 5009 Bryant Ave. in Klamath Falls. His wife, Jane, is vice president of Oil of Grace, located at the same address. Oil of Grace sells anointing oils "with fragrances that come directly from the Word of God" and, when accompanied by a special "designer vessel," make an "excellent gift to your pastor or church." Another company, J and J Creative Associates, is also located at 5009 Bryant Ave. in Klamath Falls. It appears to sell fragrances.

Craigmiles brings to Wendt access to the national Christian movement. He is the National Facilitator of City and Community Ministries and National Resources for the Mission America Coalition.

The Coalition is developing effective regional and local leadership toward the goal of identifying and equipping key leaders in each of the 2,600 cities of over 10,000 people in population. As leaders are identified, they are networked with other leaders for encouragement, collaborative projects and the exchange of ideas.

Mission America Coalition partners and staff are strengthening grassroots efforts by offering monthly communiqués to these city leaders (550 local pastors and leaders of citywide ministries). Over 75 of these leaders have consistently participated in monthly conference calls offering training and equipping opportunities. In addition, city/community leaders receive regular email updates.

National Coalition initiatives are impacting local areas by generating enthusiasm, providing resources and launching citywide efforts. Key collaborative efforts include Coalition partners bringing churches together in 29 cities to distribute over six million Scripture portions with an invitation to local Easter Services and equipping seminars in 151 cities for church leaders committed to strategic partnerships in prayer and evangelism. Under the name City Impact Roundtable, a learning community of national and local ministry leaders has formed to seek sustained spiritual, moral and socio-economic transformation in American cities.

It's fairly easy to see why Sizemore wants to tap into a group with connections to FreedomWorks, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Mission America Coalition. Obviously, Wendt has lots of money, and Sizemore loves other people's money. But there's also something else. Sizemore, who earned a degree in Theology at Portland Bible College, considers himself a deeply committed Christian (part of that cognitive dissonance thing) and loves to be around other believers. It makes him feel better about himself. All of the players in this group are also overtly Christian – Russ Walker, included. Even Dick Wendt is a gung-ho Christian. He and his wife gave a very substantial endowment to the University of Dubuque to create the Wendt Character Initiative (to help instill a good Judeo-Christian character in young people). But why would Wendt want to bring Sizemore on board?

Sadly, things have gone very wrong at Dubuque since Wendt donated all that money and some at the university have become disillusioned as to the sincerity of Mr. Wendt's Christian belief. This may be part of why the What Wendt Wrong blog was established.

It seems that Richard Wendt, multi-millionaire and benefactor of UD's Wendt Initiative, has been involved in many other sorts of initiatives, many of which seem to be quite opposed to the Christian social justice mission.

In 1999, the Northwest Labor Press (NLP) reported that Wendt was intimately involved in passing the so-called "JOBS Plus" measure in Oregon: "[T]he measure, as written, was to abolish unemployment benefits, food stamps, and welfare benefits, and use the money to put the former recipients to work in subsidized or unsubsidized jobs at 10 percent less than the minimum wage. Wendt gave over $180,000 in cash and in-kind contributions to the campaign for the measure" (emphasis added). The measure was "[b]ased on an idea Wendt had been mulling over for 20 years [...]."

The arguably immoral and economically dubious plan was slightly modified after Barbara Roberts was elected governor. "Under the terms of the compromise," NLP reports, "unemployment, welfare and food stamps would not be abolished. Instead, a portion of their funding would be diverted to fund a subsidy for employers who would hire from the unemployment and welfare rolls."

One such employer was JELD-WEN, Inc., the company founded by Richard Wendt in the 1960s, and the source of his wealth. According to NLP's 1999 report, "Since the statewide JOBS Plus program began in July 1996, 130 workers have been placed in 13 Jeld-Wen companies. That amounts to between $600,000 and $800,000 in welfare, food stamp and unemployment benefits converted to a wage subsidy for the largest privately-owned company in Oregon. Just under half of the JOBS Plus placements were hired permanently by the Jeld-Wen companies at the expiration of their subsidized term; most of the remainder have found jobs elsewhere."

It certainly seems that Dick Wendt recouped his $180,000 investment in the measure.
It is striking that this shrewd business move was the brainchild of the man who is effectively bankrolling the University's "ethics across the curriculum" initiative. Would our UD business professors, who are to incorporate ethical teaching in their class sessions, recommend such a cunning and profitable maneuver? We certainly hope not.

Now I think it becomes more clear why Wendt would be interested in bringing Sizemore on board - particularly in light of Patty's article. A pattern has emerged – one that involves multiple entities, some of which are designed to convince people that Wendt's effort is moral and good, and some of which are designed to capitalize on the efforts once they have been successful. Sizemore fits in between, taking Wendt's ideas and converting them to legislation. And Sizemore's a man with conveniently flexible personal principles. It's probably a lot less expensive to buy Sizemore and set him up in a mansion than to have to lobby a lot of politicians to write those "common sense" laws that the voters are so much more likely to approve. With all that money behind him, Sizemore might very well be right when he says 2008 will be "the most interesting initiative year in the last 20 years."

Posted by Becky at 03:18 PM |

The Onion of all YouTube videos

Lyrics excerpt:

“Lord you are my strength, fill me with your love, help me fight these feelings… God hates a fag, God hates a fag, God hates a fag… To enter heaven, there is no back door…. Righteous man, get on your knees, there is no virtue in sodomy! Jesus my savior is the only man for me!”

Its got a great beat, you can dance to it AND kick ass lyrics!!

Posted by Carla at 01:33 PM |

Christian=Nigger?

This headline seems to suggest as much.

(Via Furious Nads)

Posted by Carla at 01:26 PM |

2008

As the race for the White House in 2008 begins to percolate have you wondered just who all is running or who all is considering running? Oh sure we hear of the big names on the news and on a wide variety of blogs. But those are just the famous ones. Whom else do we have to choose from?

Well look no further than Next Prez. There you'll find that Doug has a comprehensive listing broken down by party affiliation, status and links to official web sites where those exist.

On the Dems side I like Bill Richardson. On the Republicans side I like Chuck Hagel. I'm honestly not familiar enough with any of the others at this point to venture an opinion of any kind.

I would point our Oregon readers to a local candidate: Michael Smith, a Republican from Corvallis. Smith floated a very intriguing idea this past May of MicroCampaigns. The gist of which is centered around the idea of eliminating the winner takes all model of selecting convention delegates. Imagine a convention hall full of delegates belonging to dozens of different candidates... Heady stuff!

Posted by Kevin at 09:20 AM |

January 22, 2007

Hillary and me

Hillary Clinton entered the race for President on Saturday. She enters the contest as the apparent Democratic front-runner.

Unfortunately, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

My disdain for Mrs. Clinton stems not from the fact that I find her stated stance on the Iraq War cowardly. Nor from her other stated positions on various issues.

I can't vote for someone who I perceive as so cravenly hungry for power that she'll do absolutely anything to obtain it.

Back in the late 90s, Hillary Clinton's husband had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. I'm not going to rehash the details here as I'm sure its unnecessary. But as that story unfolded, Hillary Clinton was publically humiliated in such a devastating manner--and her husband allowed it to go on.

Bill Clinton allowed his wife and the mother of his child to undergo a brutal and ugly humiliation when he could have stopped it.

I can't pretend to understand the goings on in people's marriages. Each of us makes our choices for whatever reasons. If Hillary Clinton wants to stay with her husband after having been the beneficiary of such abuse, that's her perogative. But I can fathom no reason for staying in such a dysfunctional situation except to stay next to power.

I've considered that this is an unfair and judgemental assessment of the situation. Maybe Hillary feels that she has no choice--that she couldn't make a go of it on her own. But that leads me back to the issue of power--she wants to be next to power and she'll do anything to ensure that she is.

This is a trait that I find unacceptable in a Presidential candidate.

I recognize that people who run for President of the United States are likely in general to step on a few heads to get to where they are. But to ruthlessly sacrifice oneself in an effort to build a power base demonstrates to me an ugly characteristic that we can't have in the Leader of the Free World.

It seems to me (based on past history) that if Hillary Clinton becomes President and is forced to choose between what will give/keep her power and what is best for the United States of America--Mrs. Clinton will choose power.

We've spent the last six years with a President who has ignored what's best for his country to assuage his personal demons. We can't endure more of it.

Posted by Carla at 10:30 AM |

Will "Zoo" End Zoo Taboo?

A new documentary on bestiality has just premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. And interestingly, it is being described as "remarkably, an elegant, eerily lyrical film" and "a poetic film about a forbidden subject." This review of the film seemed particularly apropo, considering the discussion last week about people and dolphins and whether such unions would ever become socially acceptable. The director himself said of the film, "I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it."

"Forbidden subject" sounds to me like a phrase one would use to describe a film about an older woman and a younger man, or maybe even a gay love affair. Perhaps that is merely a sign of my naivete. Bestiality always seemed to be beyond forbidden to me. The filmmaker decided to explore the psychology of "zoos" - people who have a thing for animals - after hearing about the man in Seattle who died in 2005 after having sex with a stallion at an animal farm for people who love animals a little too much. He defends his documentary by saying he thought artists had a right to explore whatever they wanted to. I'm an artist, and I have never seen it that way. I think artists ought to work to uplift, not degrade the human race.

It seems to me we are hearing more and more about bestiality and I must say I have often wondered lately whether an effort is underway to make it more socially acceptable. Mini-clips are circulated widely by email showing attractive women getting it on with various animals, and jokes about it are becoming more common, too. I fear films like "Zoo" will take away some of the taboo that prevents people from trying it. And it is the animals that will pay the price.

I don't much care to understand the psychology of zoos any more than I do pedophiles. They're sick. They should not be allowed to do what they do - have sex with partners who cannot consent.

Posted by Becky at 06:07 AM |

January 21, 2007

Are Hate-Crimes Laws Inherently Biased?

The Catholic League is making a very interesting observation: that hate-crime laws demonstrate a certain inherent bias. After reading their rationale, I think they may have a point.

Yesterday, the New York Times ran a story about two 20-year-olds, and an 18-year-old, who were arrested for stealing statues of baby Jesus from nativity scenes over the past two years. They hit the New York-suburban communities of Suffern and Haverstraw several times in 2005 and 2006. The police said they will not charge them with committing hate crimes; each is being charged with 14 counts of petty larceny.

Yesterday, WNBC.com reported that a 20-year-old was arrested for kicking a menorah in the New York suburban community of St. James. He is being charged with a hate crime and could face seven years in prison. He is being charged with a felony.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented as follows:

“This is so interesting. The reason the menorah is allowed in New York City public schools is because the authorities have branded it a secular symbol, and the reason the crèche is barred is because the same authorities have branded it a religious symbol. Yet when a 20-year-old man vandalizes a menorah outside New York he is charged with a hate crime and may spend seven years behind bars for his felony, while three others of the same age who vandalize several crèches outside New York—over a two-year period—are given a slap on the wrist.

“We have long maintained that hate-crime laws evince a bias of their own. This proves it.”

What do you think? Is this merely an anecdotal case, and meaningless in the big picture, or is it typical and significant?

Posted by Becky at 08:33 PM |

Impeach the "Insane Criminal"

Paul Craig Roberts has dropped yet another bombshell on President Bush with his latest editorial, in which he asks, "When are the American people and their representatives in Congress and the military going to wake up and realize that the US has an insane war criminal in the White House who is destroying all chances for peace in the world and establishing a police state in the US?" This new editorial is extremely disturbing, explaining the Bush Administration's manipulation of the Iraqi people and the propaganda being dished up to the American people in an effort to prepare for war on Iran. If Roberts is right in the details of his argument, then one has no choice but to answer his opening question by agreeing with his conclusion that it is time to impeach the President.

Several people have guessed at what the war is all about. Some say it's about oil. Others have said the Saudis are in control. Roberts offers his own conclusion:

Nothing can stop the criminal Bush from instituting wider war in the Middle East that could become a catastrophic world war except an unequivocal statement from Congress that he will be impeached.

Bush has made the US into a colony of Israel. The US is incurring massive debt and loss of both life and reputation in order to silence Muslim opposition to Israel's theft of Palestine and the Golan Heights.

That is what the "war on terror" is about.

Personally, I am less concerned about why we are at war than I am about the damage the war is inflicting on the world and the desperate need to stop it from growing any worse. Worrying about why our President is busy destroying our freedoms and peace in the world is as pointless as trying to determine why a serial killer kills. What matters is that he kills and he must be stopped. Sure, our economic future is growing bleaker by the day, but that is nothing compared to the human toll of depleted uranium on the people of Afghanistan and Iraq and the likelihood that our President is willing to inflict that horrific damage on the people of Iran and Syria, as well, sentencing most of the Middle East to a virtual eternity of cancer, lethal disease, and ghastly birth defects. If impeachment is what it will take to end this madness, then bring it on!

Posted by Becky at 08:18 PM |

A surfin' we will go, a surfin' we will go...

One of the interesting things about being associated with this blog and with being a compulsive hit counter watcher has been the slow but steady trickle of hits coming to PK from folks surfing through Carla's Progressive Women Bloggers Ring.

Not being vaginally endowed, or self-identifying as a Progressive, I've never had the time or the inclination to personally surf through the (currently) 397 member sites in her Web Ring. But as I say, I do like to watch our hit counter here to see where our traffic is coming from. And so it is that my native curiosity has led me to follow the odd hit back to a member blog of her Ring. And the one that I found this morning has impressed me.

In general terms I've long been pretty open and relaxed, not to mention curious, about human sexuality (how can one improve one's own skills without being curious and open to new ideas?). That trait led me some months back to follow a hit back to Feminism Without Clothes - the blog of a young woman who is both an interesting and provocative writer and who also intersperses her posts with nude pictures of herself from her vocation as a nude model.

So this morning when I was looking through PK's hits I saw a visit from the URL: http://www.padandpanty.blogspot.com/

My first thought was, "oh... how kinky. This could be interesting." It also seemed a self-evident hit from another of Carla's sister Progressive Woman Bloggers. So I clicked on the link to check it out.

Not exactly on par with Feminism Without Clothes. Which is to say that my initial assumption proved incorrect - no kink. But I was curious about the URL because I'm familiar enough with Blogger and BlogSpot to know that a person creating a new blog has complete control over what to name it and, except for the obligitory proprietary suffix, complete control over what the URL will be. So I looked around and read some of the posts by Working Girl, the nom de plume of the apparently sole author of this blog which is actually named Mostly True Stories.

It turns out that Working Girl is apparently a student in Nursing School and appears to be specializing in obstetrics. She writes quite frankly about all kinds of things revolving mostly, but not exclusively, around obstetrics. Things like Trimming the Hedges which is largely on the topic of the trimming (or lack thereof) of a pregnant woman's pubic hair and what the Nurses who take care of her might think of her style.

What really struck me though, and served as the impetus for me to write this post (which really is out of character for me here at PK) is that Working Girl is a truly gifted story teller. Most of the posts there, written more dryly, would have quickly bored me and I would have moved on to something more interesting elsewhere. But this woman writes in a very engaging manner which just sucks you into the post as if reading an interesting story. It's a gift that I recognize from my own father. Not everyone tells a good story (whether fact or fiction). In fact, few people seem to possess the natural ability to tell a story in a manner which keeps the audience riveted, almost regardless of the content of the story. Working Girl, like my own father, clearly has this gift.

For example, she has a post up from a week ago called Code Brown which is about poop in an obstetric setting. Now scat just is NOT something that interests me at all. So my first thought upon seeing this particular post was, "ewwwww... gross!" But the next thing I knew I was reading the last sentence of the post! I thought, "damn! She's pretty good. Few writers could have sucked me into reading something like this." But not only did she manage to hook me but I found it entertaining to read! I even identified with it in my own way, having had limited experience with being all doped up post-surgery. LOL I even paused to wonder if I'd inadvertantly made life unpleasant for the professional nursing staff who took care of me after my back surgery a decade ago.

So at any rate... for those of you PK readers who enjoy reading a really well-crafted post by a truly capable writer, regardless of what is being written about, go check out Mostly True Stories. I still don't know how she came to choose such an interesting and provocative URL. But I suppose that's just more incentive to follow her writing and perhaps she'll eventually reveal the connection.

Enjoy!

Posted by Kevin at 01:15 PM |

January 20, 2007

My Pet Peeve

It seems more and more often these days I find myself looking at menus, signs, blogs, and advertisements in which people have misused apostrophes, and it really makes me crazy. I have been known to decide not to eat at a restaurant or buy from a business simply because their apostrophe ignorance has irritated the hell out of me. So here is a little lesson in proper use of apostrophes.

The most common misuse of the apostrophe is when people use it in plural nouns. For those of you who don't know what "plural nouns" are, they are multiple persons, places or things. Too many would write that as "person's, place's and thing's." Down the street from me is a place that sells "box's." I cringe every time I drive by. It's "boxes," dammit!

Okay, so here's how it goes. If you have more than one thing, you NEVER use an apostrophe. You just add an "s" or an "es" to the end (of course, there are exceptions, but generally this is the case). If you have more than one cat you have cats. If you get more than one kiss you get kisses. More than one house makes houses. More than one mouse makes mice. Oops. But you get the idea – no apostrophes!

Apostrophes are used to fill in spaces for missing letters (for example, "have not" becomes "haven't") or to show possession (if it belongs to Mary, it is Mary's). The cat that belongs to Jim is Jim's cat. If Jim has more than one cat, they are Jim's cats (not Jims cat's). The only common exception here is with pronouns – he, she, and it. If he owns something it's "his," not "he's." If she owns something, it's "hers," not "she's." And if it owns something, it is "its" not "it's." "It's" means "it is."

The most confusing use of apostrophes comes when you have multiple owners or the owners have a name that ends in "s." If you have one owner whose last name ends in "s" you would add an apostrophe and an "s" to show ownership. For example, the reindeer that belong to Santa Claus are Santa Claus's reindeer. For multiple owners, you want to make the word plural first and then deal with the apostrophe, which always goes after the "s." For example, if several cats share the same dish, it would be the cats' dish. If the reindeer belonged to both Santa and his wife, they would be the Clauses' reindeer.

I hope that clears this matter up for everyone out there. Maybe I can convince the Legislature to pass a law requiring this concept to be mastered before one can receive a high school diploma. Then I wouldn't have to be driving down the road and see a nice company truck going by with a logo on the side reading, "We mow lawn's."

Posted by Becky at 12:28 PM |

January 19, 2007

Conservative Kulongoski comes out of the closet.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski intends to fight hard this session to raise cigarette taxes a whopping 70% to provide health insurance for 117,000 low- and moderate- income children who now are uninsured. Over at Blue Oregon they have a poll on the subject which is currently running in favor of Kulongoski's proposal 77% to 23%.

Normally one wouldn't associate regressive taxation with a Democrat, particularly one in such an overwhelmingly Blue state. But that's exactly what this new tax is. Oh sure, it sounds all warm and fuzzy on the surface. I mean, who wouldn't want to help those poor underpriviledged kids enjoy the benefits of health insurance? And don't cigarettes cost about $3.50 per pack (2002) in medical expenses? Seems like a slam-dunk... right?

But, why don't those kids already have health insurance?

Well, because they're in the low and moderate socio-economic demographic which can least afford to pay for health care. And this is where Kulongoski's proposed regressive tax rears it's ugly head.

According to Oregon's own statistics (pdf warning), which mirror national statistics (pdf warning), smokers are disproportionately financally poor and under-educated compared to nonsmokers.

29.9% of Oregonians who smoke earn less than $15 k per year and another 30.2% earn between $15k and $25k. At the other end of the spectrum, among Oregonians who earn $50k or more per year only 11.4% smoke.

Compounding this data is research showing that the gap in smoking cessation rates between those below the poverty line and those above it actually increased between 1983 and 2002, with those above quitting at an increasing rate while those below quit at a decreasing rate. Which gets us well within the modern move to use cigarette taxes to reduce smoking. So draw your own conclussions.

Not surprisingly the Oregon educational stats correlate strongly with the income stats. 29.5% of HS drop-outs smoke and 28.4% of those who only achieved a HS diploma or GED smoke. While only 9.6% of college graduates smoke. Not only that, but the cessation rates (nationally) are progressively tilted in favor of those with a higher level of education too.

But at least increased taxes on cigarettes prevent kids from becoming smokers in the first place, right? Wrong. Studies show that higher cigarette prices simply cause many teens to put off starting smoking until they are adults.

Turning back to the official Oregon stats, among those who have health insurance 17% smoke compared to the 33.6% of uninsured who smoke.

So essentially what Governor Kulongoski wants to do is to force economically disadvantaged Oregonians to pay for health insurance which many of them couldn't afford in the first place.

I thought those kind of tactics were the domain of conservatives...

Posted by Kevin at 03:45 PM |

Two Birds with One Stone

Last week I received an email on the right-wing forwarding chain about the terrifying prospect that Barack Obama was a closet Muslim and implied that he was even intended to be a Manchurian candidate. Fortunately, Snopes has debunked the email very well. Unfortunately, the right wing isn't done with the story - and now they've even found a clever way to use it to make Hillary Clinton look bad.

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.

An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia. …

Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.

It's hard to believe that Hillary Clinton would dig up dirt on Barack Obama, give the scoop to the right wing media to break, and then claim to have discovered it herself. However, by claiming she was the origin of the research, the right wing can wash its own hands of the dirty politics and make Hillary out to be a bitch who so wants to be the first female President that she would do anything to stop us from having the first black President. Not that I would put it past her, but really, the right wing had this story first. It's been a wonderful addition to their "Osama – Obama" thing, and their "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" thing.

And it's a nothing story. Read the Snopes article and you'll see Obama hasn't hidden anything at all. In fact, he's been quite frank.

But that won't stop bloggers from accusing him of beingA Sleeper Cell of One.

Posted by Becky at 01:25 PM |

Believing the Unbelievable

Both Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter claimed to have seen them. My very reliable brother-in-law has seen one. Thousands of people have. But for as long as I can remember, people who claim to see UFOs have always been treated in the media as being a bit kooky. So I was surprised when not too long ago several United Airline employees made headlines with their claim that they had witnessed a UFO hovering over O'Hare international airport and were taken seriously. Then a few days ago, a retired Air Force colonel photographed some mysterious lights he was watching over Arkansas and brought them to the press. Now a "digital expert" has analyzed the photographs and has found that within the lights one can see the silhouette of the pilot of the vehicle.

Several people are coming forward claiming to have seen lights behaving in the same manner as the ones photographed by Col. Brian Fields, who flew fighter jets for 32 years, near his Arkansas home. Of course, none of them reported their sightings previously. Some are saying the lights were simply illumination rounds, which is what I believe is most likely. They are shot up into the sky where they hover and then fade out, and each wave of the lights will create a different formation – triangular, stacked, scattered, etc. As for the photos showing the "pilots" in the mystery lights, I don't put a lot of stock in digital photograph enhancement. Maybe I've just seen it over-played in B movies too many times.

But some believe the UFOs are piloted by demons, and they use the Bible to back them up, claiming fallen angels in past times came down and inter-bred with humans, creating a super-race and thereby polluting humans' genes with their sinful natures. Setting aside all appearance of logic and assuming the tale is true of "demons" (or aliens) inter-breeding with humans, it could explain quite a lot. Such as that sense so many people have that we are very different from all the other species on the planet, or that we really belong somewhere else (such as in Heaven). It could explain the ancient tales of wizards and magic. It could explain why the ancient civilizations knew so much about the stars and planets. It could explain why some people have a higher level of artistic genius – and why those people are so often straddling the line of sanity. Okay, maybe I've gone too far.

If you get your kicks by checking out conspiracy theory websites as I often do, you also know that many people believe a ruling elite, known as the Illuminati, are planning to capitalize on the UFO phenomenon to stage the coming of their messiah – the anti-Christ. They are responsible for constructing the UFOs we have been seeing and making sure people see and report them so that people will accept a world leader that comes from outer space. It is rather interesting that these stories are suddenly garnering large amounts public attention at the same time that people are concerned about Armageddon and a crescendo is building about how all three of the major world religions are expecting their messiah's return at any time. Okay, I've gone too far again.

I will admit I leave a little corner of my mind open to believing the unbelievable. It makes life more interesting.

Posted by Becky at 12:31 PM |

January 18, 2007

What a Mess

In May, 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell said U.S.-led coalition forces would leave Iraq if a new interim government should ask them to, and L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. administrator in Iraq, told a delegation from Iraq's Diyala province that American forces would not stay where they were unwelcome. "If the provisional government asks us to leave, we will leave," Bremer said. Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman had told the House International Relations Committee that although it was unlikely, the Iraqi interim government could tell U.S. troops to leave. Even President Bush promised if a democratically elected government or the Iraqi people were to ask us to leave, we would do so.

Well, we haven't been asked to leave yet, but Nouri al-Maliki is saying we could begin pulling out in three to six months if we would simply part with sufficient guns and equipment to arm Baghdad's security forces so they could take care of their own problem. He said our failure to do so has prolonged the insurgency and resulted in greater death. But would that be a good idea?

Maliki believes America's refusal to share weaponry is a boon to terrorism, which is, as we all know, the reason we supposedly went into Iraq when we did. He said:

I wish that we could receive strong messages of support from the US so we don’t give some boost to the terrorists and make them feel that they might have achieved success. I believe that such statements give moral boosts to the terrorists and push them towards making an extra effort and making them believe that they have defeated the American Administration, but I can tell you that they haven’t defeated the Iraqi Government.

I don't put much faith in anything an Iraqi official says, to be frank. It hasn't been that long ago that we were watching Saddam's hilarious Minister of Information claim the Iraqis were defeating the Americans while in reality they were surrendering or running away. Iraq is chock full of corruption and many fear any weapons handed over to Iraqis would wind up in the hands of insurgents or be used to wage a civil war. Additionally, Iraq has been cozying up to Iran. And Iran's nuclear ambitions are, in large part, responsible for the advancement of the Doomsday Clock by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in a symbolic act reflecting nuclear risk in the world.

To make it worse, Greg Palast doesn't even believe Bush is calling the shots.

Who asked for the 21,000 soldiers?

We know the US military didn’t ask for the 21,000 troops. (Outgoing commander General George Casey called for a troop reduction.)

We know the Iraqi government didn’t ask for the 21,000 troops. (Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is reportedly unhappy about a visible increase in foreign occupiers).

So who wants the occupation to continue? The answer is in Riyadh. When the King of Saudi Arabia hauled Dick Cheney before his throne on Thanksgiving weekend, the keeper of America’s oil laid down the law to Veep: the US will not withdraw from Iraq.
According to Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi who signals to the US government the commands and diktats of the House of Saud, the Saudis are concerned that a US pull-out will leave their Sunni brothers in Iraq to be slaughtered by Shia militias. More important, the Saudis will not tolerate a Shia-majority government in Iraq controlled by the Shia mullahs of Iran. A Shia combine would threaten Saudi Arabia’s hegemony in the OPEC oil cartel.

In other words, it’s about the oil.

Meanwhile, we have radical Islamicists brainwashing children to become martyrs for Islam and referring to Jews as pigs who will go to hell. This while Iran is calling for the eradication of Israel.

I'm glad I don't have to sort this mess out.

Posted by Becky at 11:10 AM |

January 17, 2007

Virginia Politician Insults Blacks and Jews

A Virginia lawmaker has just stepped in a big pile of it. The Virginia House of Delegates is scheduled to consider a resolution to have the state apologize for slavery. Del. Frank D. Hargrove, a Republican, said, “I personally think that our black citizens should get over it.” He then went even further, saying, "How far do these calls for apologies go? Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?” Coming from a politician, from whom at least a minimal level of polish is expected, the comments are outrageous. He may believe an apology for slavery is political correctness gone too far, but a more sensitive and intelligent argument could have fairly easily been made. Instead, he has stepped all over two major segments of America's population.

Posted by Becky at 10:33 AM |

Iran and Israel

Al Jazeera is asking, "Could it be true that President Bush may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress?" Of course, a good number of Americans are wondering the same thing. A second battle carrier group is on its way to the Persian Gulf. The President has just announced he will send over more troops. Opponents of attacking Iran have been removed from the Administration - General John Abizaid and John Negroponte have both said attacking Iran is not appropriate at this time. The British Royal Navy has two minesweepers on the way to the Gulf. And in his latest speech Bush talked about the need to stabilize the region, beginning with "addressing Iran and Syria." He accused Iran and Syria of providing support to terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and then said, "We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.” The same day he gave the speech, U.S. forces attacked an Iranian consulate in Iraq.

The American President’s speech also implied intensifying the U.S. efforts to lobby support against Syria and Iran even among Arab states, or rather, Arab U.S. friends:

“We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government.”

A lot of people are wondering whether the President is answering to Israel, rather than to Congress. This view, for some reason that I personally do not understand, is seen by some as anti-Semitic. It only makes sense that Israel would pressure the Administration to support its own interests in the region. The problem, really, is whether Bush's priorities are to help Israel or to protect the interests of the United States.

Meanwhile, retired general Wesley Clark blamed escalation with Iran on “New York money people,” which has been interpreted to mean the numerous Jews who contribute generously to political campaigns, but negative reactions have Clark trying to convince Jewish groups that he wasn't trying to promote any anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. I would have though he was referring to the banking industry, which would be more in line with accusations of promoting conspiracy theories, as opposed to political contributors, but that just shows what I know. Interestingly, Raw Story is reporting that ING Group, a major investment bank, has issued a warning that investors might be "in for a shock," due to a preemptive strike by Israel with American backing to hit Iran's nuclear program.

Of course, Israel has been pushing publicly for the U.S. and others to take a hard line against Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons. And Jewish groups in the U.S. have lately been full of praise for the Bush Administration because the U.S. Treasury Department banned a state-owned Iranian bank from doing business in America. Israeli leaders have gone so far in their posturing as to confirm the country has nuclear weapons and many fear Israel would use them if attacked by Iran. Additionally, Benjamin Netanyahu has compared Iran's President to Hitler.

Israel is right to be concerned about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran – after all, Iran's President has made numerous public statements to the effect that Israel has no right to exist and should be wiped off the map. In other words, if Jewish groups are pushing for an escalation between Iran and Israel's ally, the U.S., it would not be a big surprise. That doesn't mean it's a good idea for the U.S. I don't have a problem with our taking out Iran's capacity to build nuclear weapons and its supply lines to terrorists, but I certainly would not support all-out war, particularly considering Iran is allied with China and Russia. Talk about bringing on Armageddon – is our Christian president intentionally trying to provoke the "kings of the east"?

Posted by Becky at 10:14 AM |

January 16, 2007

Is This Really the Government's Business?

With the help of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Muslim has filed a legal challenge to the Bush administration's funding of "Bible-based" marriage counseling. Education and research grants totaling $750 million over the next five years are at stake. The lawsuit alleges that grant-recipient Northwest Marriage Institute advocates religious beliefs that "derive from a specific form of biblical literalism particular to fundamentalist Christianity." The Institute has already received $100,000 and is slated to receive $1.25 million over five years.

Americans United says the Institute cites God and the Bible in counseling against premarital sex, encourages wives to submit to their husbands, and teaches wives to maintain a "quiet spirit." Many liberated American women would certainly be outraged that their tax dollars are being used to teach these Bible-based marriage principles. Those who aren't ought to ask themselves how they would feel if Koran-based marriage counseling was being supported by their tax dollars. You know, notions of marriage such as not being able to choose your own spouse, the need to cover yourself entirely from head to toe while in public so that only your husband, who will someday be rewarded in heaven with 70 virgins, will see your beauty, the duty to devote yourself totally to your husband and children and to sacrifice your own wishes, and the occasional need to be beaten by your husband for being disobedient. I would wager they would object to such a program, as well they should to the one already being funded.

Posted by Becky at 03:26 PM |

Single Men Should Leave Attractive Women Alone

A new study has found that women tend to try harder to look attractive when they are fertile than when they are not. For some reason, even women who are in committed relationships go to the trouble of dressing better and fixing themselves up better when they are fertile. In fact, when fertile, women are more attracted to men other than their partner. So here's some advice for all you married men. If your wife is trying to look nice, keep a good eye on her. And for all you single men, don't sleep with hotties. They're just trying to get knocked up.

Posted by Becky at 03:25 PM |

Rep. Butler's Bill Well-Intended, but Wrong

Normally I'm all for anti-drunk driving legislation. And normally I'm not a big fan of new gun legislation (which is why I pretty much don't care for Sen. Ginny Burdick). But my opposition to new gun restrictions isn't why I'm conflicted about a new bill Rep. Tom Butler of Ontario (Oregon) has introduced. Butler's bill, HB 2415, would ban the sale or transfer of guns, explosives and vehicles to visibly intoxicated people. It would also ban selling gas to drunk drivers. As Rep. Butler said, “It’s illegal to serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated man, but it’s legal to sell him a gun and fill up his gas tank.” That certainly sounds reasonable – at least until you think it through.

In Lacrosse, Wisconsin, state law prohibits serving alcohol to an intoxicated or near-intoxicated person, and bar owners and bar tenders can be cited if they continue to serve drinks to a person who has already had too much to drink. But one bartender has decided to challenge his citation, saying it's unfair to take the word of a drunk as proof that he was the last person to serve him drinks. The case is sparking discussions there about the fundamental fairness of the law itself.

Many people believe such ordinances are too difficult to enforce, and others believe that it places an unfair onus on a bartender to expect him or her to judge when someone has had too much to drink, in part because different people can tolerate different amounts of alcohol. For instance, I'm a tall woman and can drink four drinks over the course of an evening before it starts to show. But I know at least one woman who is shorter and smaller than I who can drink a dozen. And I have girlfriends who start slurring at two. My brother, an alcoholic for years, could at one time down a fifth and a two six-packs of beer and you'd never know he'd had a drink. My husband, who is about the same size, begins to be embarrassing at seven drinks.

Wisconsin has classes for bartenders to teach them how to tell when to cut someone off, based on speech and body language, and bartenders are encouraged to call the police of someone gets belligerent about it. But if they fail to recognize that a person should not be driving and they continue to serve them, they risk being fined if that person is later stopped for drunk driving. The fine is generally in the ballpark of $200, so it's enough to say "ouch," but not enough to be unduly punitive. Considering how dangerous drunk drivers are, I think it's a good idea to have a designated responsible educated adult looking out for trouble and keeping it minimized. Without the education, I would say it is unfair to put that burden on the bartenders.

Educational safeguards for people selling gasoline, automobiles, or weapons aren't included in Rep. Butler's bill, however, so I think it's a bit harder to justify holding them responsible for what their drunk customer does later on. And I'm not sure there is even a burning need for this legislation. I don't see a lot of drunks going out and buying weapons, for example. Though I've been to many gun and knife shows, and beer is routinely available at them, I've never once seen a drunk on the premises. As for serving gas, with the enormous turn-over in gas station employees, it hardly seems fair to expect station owners to pay for their employees to take a course in recognizing when a driver, who typically stays seated inside the car while waiting for his or her gas to be pumped, is drunk.

In short, Rep. Butler has good intentions, but I don't think he really thought this one through. Hopefully, the Legislature will either plug the holes or let this bill sink.

Posted by Becky at 02:24 PM |

January 15, 2007

Kidnapper Stole Much More than 4 1/2 Years

When I heard of 15-year-old Shawn Hornbeck's rescue from Michael Devlin, who had held the boy captive for almost five years, I was elated. Contrary to the assertions of Condoleeza Rice, I don't believe a single, childless woman can actually grasp the depth of love a mother has for her children. I am entirely devoted to my own to boys – far beyond any love I could have imagined before they were born – but I can only imagine the sheer joy Shawn's parents felt when they heard the news. Their son was alive! But the more I have heard about the story, the more I fear their nightmare is hardly over.

When a child spends all his or her time with a bad person for years, going through who knows what, that child is forever changed. And as we saw so clearly with the tragic story of Steven Staynor, who was abducted at age 7 by child molester Kenneth Parnell and kept for 7 years before escaping, the pain of the loss and the suffering of the parents can devastatingly harm their remaining children. Steven's brother Cary became a serial killer, and though that certainly isn't something one would expect would happen on a routine basis in such cases, it speaks to the impact of this sort of crime on the family whose child has been taken.

As a mother, I cannot help but imagine myself in the position of Shawn's parents. One of my sons is the same age Shawn was when he was kidnapped, and the other is the same age as the boy who was taken last week. Parents understand the importance of the right – or wrong – influences on kids at that age.

The news reports have offered plenty of reason to be concerned about Shawn's future and the challenges that his family will face. He is a 15-year-old who has not been to school since 6th grade. He has lived for the last 4 1/2 years with a man who threatened to shoot him if he ran away, who convinced him his parents didn't want him back, who was known to have a bad temper and who was even heard hitting the boy. Of the household, one neighbor described it like this: "A lot of vulgarity. A lot of cursing." And pardon me for being a prude, but it's a really bad sign when a 15-year-old boy is wearing black fingernail polish, sporting a pierced lip, being repeatedly stopped by police for being out alone late at night, and writing online under the nicknames Devil and Vampire.

And we might as well admit it: we're all waiting for the child molestation charges – why else would the boy be taken, and why else would a second younger boy have been abducted last week? The New York Post is saying that child pornography was found on Devlin's computer. Regardless of whether Shawn was sexually abused, however, his treatment has to have left deep scars.

I've known a number of women who were molested for years at the hands of their fathers or uncles. Not a one of them has been able to fully function as an adult, and one of them is so badly scarred by it that her life today is marked by poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, and neglect of her own children, even though she is trying very hard to succeed. At best, their insecurity with intimacy has posed very real difficulties in their marital relationships, and they have been robbed of a joyful sexual life with their partner. No amount of punishment of the offender can ever pay for the damage such crimes inflict on a child whose view of the world and his or her place in it is still being formed.

Shawn looks very happy in the photographs with his parents, and I sincerely hope that he can bounce back from this. But moving from a home that is oppressive, abusive, and at the same time permissive back to one where he is expected to go to school and follow household rules will be a real challenge. I don't doubt his parents are happy to take that challenge on. But his being brought home is not the end of the s