« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »

February 28, 2007

Updated: Gore piece full of holes

To update Kevin's story from yesterday about the Tennessee group that went after Gore's energy use, it seems the group didn't quite have all their facts straight.

To wit:

To wit:

You've probably seen the stories, the screaming Drudge headlines, all the "Inconvenient Truth" jokes, because our leading spokesman against greenhouse gases has a much larger electric bill than the average American.

Here's the truth, as best as we've been able to read up on the topic. It's a fact that, as the nation's best-known spokesman for energy reduction, Gore could have personally done more, sooner. For example, a New Yorker profile just a couple of years ago said he still drove a gas-guzzling Cadillac.

But the question -- as it always should be in politics -- is, is he doing all that he can now, and the answer appears to be yes. As Gore's electric bill (and yes, it's public record -- strange but true) shows, he and Tipper voluntarily pay the higher cost for something called Green Power Switch, which uses more expensive energy from renewable sources like wind and solar power. He purchases offsets for carbon fuel use.

Yes, he uses more electricity than you or me, but the house of this former Vice President and his wife has offices and staffers and security needs that we don't have either. His car today is an SUV, but it's also a hybrid.

So at the end of the day, what does it all mean? When you peel away all the layers, it means that when it comes to greenhouse gases and climate change -- one of the three great interlocking issues of our time, along with Peak Oil and war and peace in the oil-producing regions -- that the conservative movement has absolutely zero to say.

So Kevin's initial post that this was all about demagoguery was spot on.

Posted by Carla at 07:21 PM |

Satirist Says Cheney is Our Baghdad Bob

Bernard Weiner, satirist, has made a very astute observation: Dick Cheney has become our Baghdad Bob. You remember Bob – the Iraqi Information Minister who steadfastly insisted everything was great in Iraq while we were invading the country. When we heard Tony Blair was withdrawing a third of the British forces from Iraq, Cheney said it was a "sign of progress" and "an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well." As Weiner notes, "How could a satirist possibly top that one?"

Weiner notes a big difference between Baghdad Bob and Dick Cheney:

One could giggle at his lies because we all knew that he didn't believe what he was saying. He was spouting such nonsense because if he didn't toe Saddam's line, he'd be executed in a second. Besides, he had no power to affect events.

But Cheney has no such excuses: Along with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, Cheney is largely responsible for the policy that took the U.S. to war in Iraq, a policy based on outright lies, distortions, deceit. Cheney is the major progenitor of the war's current escalation of sending 21,000 more troops into Iraq. (This escalation comes nearly two years after Cheney, always consistent in his wrong-headedness, declared that the Iraq insurgency was "in its final throes." Baghdad Bob-ing again.)

I have to agree with Weiner that the comparison of Cheney to Baghdad Bob would be funny except for one thing: the game has cost several hundred thousand lives and countless more have been wounded. So why does it go on and on?

Normally, the political system in Washington would correct itself slowly over time, but that system appears to be so corrupted and frightened and confused that it will take a popular tsunami of desperate anger to get them to move and do the right thing. …

That's where you and I come in. We must not merely march and write letters and sign petitions and give money, as important and necessary as those acts are. But we also must get our hands dirty in the political trenches: run for office, volunteer to help good candidates, visit the offices of our elected representatives and senators and refuse to leave until they hear us out. We must initiate creative acts of civil disobedience that time and time again will get the word out that we love our country and will no longer tolerate its destruction and desecration from within and its reckless imperial adventuring abroad.

Of course we must. But I don't think we will. Not even with the prospect of nuclear war in the Middle East. Not even with the knowledge that our government is supporting al-Qauida linked Sunni terrorists working to put down Iranian Shiites.

Americans have been complaining for many years now about whatever it is that they put in the water in Washington that makes our elected officials lose touch with reality. In truth, I wonder if someone hasn't put a sleeping agent in the water supply of every American city. How else can you explain the fact that people simply will not step out of their comfort zone to protest what is going on? How else can you explain the fact that Baghdad Bob is orchestrating the fate of the world, and nobody seems to care?

Posted by Becky at 10:07 AM |

Why Bother Voting Democratic?

Sometimes you have to wonder whether people who say it doesn't matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge might actually be right. That's how I felt when I read that the Democrats' Iraq bill "basically reads like a new authorization" of the war.

So says Russ Feingold. He also says the Senate leadership absolutely will not cut off funding for the war. Carl Levin said they will instead try to repeal the October 2002 authorization of the use of force and rewrite the terms to fit today's situation. But after all the anti-war rhetoric of the past year, that Democrats could reach the point where any bill could be put forward that sounds even remotely like a re-authorization bill is profoundly discouraging.

Posted by Becky at 09:46 AM |

Unnecessary Lie of Omission

The poster child for the Healthy Kids Plan in Oregon apparently didn't tell the plan's proponents the whole truth about her child's death, nor did she tell the Legislature the whole truth. She claimed her daughter would not have died had she had health insurance to pay for medical tests that would have discovered how ill the toddler was. It now turns out that she withheld information about her daughter's condition from doctors for fear of being charged with child abuse, and that is likely what resulted in her daughter's death. What an unnecessary mess – it casts doubt on the need for the plan by implying no real case could be made to support it.

Sarah Bacon told the Legislature, "I believe my daughter didn't get all the tests she needed to keep her with us, because she didn't have insurance. It's that simple." Bacon has insisted that it was the failure to diagnose a virus that lead to her daughter's death. But what really happened was that her daughter died from undiagnosed bleeding in the brain that resulted from head trauma. Doctors had no reason to even check for that because Bacon had not told them the girl had hit her head on a chair when she fell while walking.

It's too bad Bacon's story wasn't checked out before she became one of the primary human faces of the proposal. I am certain many children have suffered for lack of health insurance and they would not necessarily be difficult to find. You don't need a dead child to prove that the plan is a good idea.

Posted by Becky at 09:38 AM |

February 27, 2007

Iran Negotiation Offer in 2003 Ignored

Truthout today exposes how a negotiation offer from Iran was ignored in 2003. Iran offered to work out a compromise with the U.S. on its nuclear program and Mid-East peace efforts. The Bush administration, however, chose to ignore the offer. This according to Trita Parsi, a former aide to Rep. Bob Ney, and now the President of the National Iranian American Council and has written a book "Treacherous Triangle - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States." Parsi says Rep. Ney was personally handed the proposal, which he then hand-delivered to Karl Rove.

In a recent interview with Amy Goodman, Parsi explained:

Well, this is back in May 2003. The United States had just defeated Saddam in less than three weeks, and I think there were a lot of feelings inside Iran that they needed to present some sort of a negotiation deal with the United States. But what they presented was quite similar to many things that they had communicated verbally to the United States over the last couple of years. Basically, they said the United States has a couple of aims, Iran has a couple of aims, and there is a process to be able to proceed with the negotiations.

And what the Iranians agreed to discuss as a framework of the negotiations was how to disarm the Hezbollah, how to end support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, how to open up the nuclear program, how to help the United States stabilize Iraq, and, in short, that the government there would not along sectarian lines, and also how to sign onto the Beirut Declaration, which is basically a former recognition of the two-state solution. These are far-reaching compromises that Iran potentially would have agreed to in the negotiations, but the Bush administration, as you reported, decided simply not to respond to the proposal.

Parsi believes that Condoleeza Rice is now claiming never to have seen this offer from Iran because:

… the Bush administration senses that it may be forced to negotiate with Iran down the road, particularly if this surge policy is a failure, which a lot of people predict that it will be. And as a result, they don't want the negotiations, the potential future negotiations, with Iran to be compared to what they could have achieved with Iran back in 2003, because clearly the United States is in a much weaker position today than it was back then. And I think it would look bad for the administration to come to a deal with Iran now that would be substantially worse than the deal they could have achieved back in 2003.

Parsi claims that Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were the primary forces in the decision not to negotiate with Iran at the time and that the two went so far as to reprimand the Swiss ambassador who had delivered the offer to Rep. Ney. Parsi's 2004 trip to Iran led him to believe that the Bush Administration's lack of response to their offer left Iran feeling that the U.S. did not so much have a problem with Iran's policies as it did with Iran's power. He says Iran's leadership has come to believe that it is pointless to offer concessions to the Bush administration, and as a result, "Iran's position has strengthened and hardened."

Parsi also had some interesting things to say about the sincerity of our efforts against al-Qaeda:

[O]ne of the elements that I think we've seen very clear evidence for is this shift in the US's policy in the Middle East, in which it is now increasingly siding with the Sunni states and even turning a blind eye to their extensive support for al-Qaeda and jihadist groups, including in Iraq, groups that are killing Americans far more than the Shiites are, and pursuing that, not in order to stabilize Iraq, but in order to weaken Iran and re-establish the type of balance in the region that they feel is more beneficial to the United States, but is also the same balance that has been creating a war in the Middle East every five to ten years over the last fifty years.

In his newest article, Seymour Hersh writes that the Bush Administration and Saudi Arabia are conducting covert operations to strengthen the Sunni and weaken the Shias, and that some of the money is going to groups with ties to al-Qaeda. Parsi says this demonstrates that "the United States is not trying to resolve the civil war in Iraq. Rather, it's taking sides in the civil war. And ironically, it's taking the same side as al-Qaeda is doing."

From what I hear Hersh saying, and what Parsi is saying, it appears to me that the Bush Administration is not nearly as "incompetent" in Iraq as it would like us to believe. Rather, it appears we are intentionally stirring things up over there for our own benefit, inciting a civil war and egging Iran on so that we can attack them. Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, seems to agree. He told Hersh, “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”

Posted by Becky at 10:59 AM |

Gore hit piece full of gaping holes

Something calling itself Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued a press release yesterday slamming Al Gore's alleged hypocrisy. But the most compelling feature of the piece is that it demonstrates my long-time contention that the average arch-conservative couldn't think his or her way out of a wet paper bag if their life depended on it.

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth” Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

The fundamental problem with this report, which I first found posted by the resident rightwinger at a woodworking forum, is that it is classic demagoguery. It throws a bunch of figures out with the insinuation that they somehow demonstrate that Gore is a hypocrite. But in fact it demonstrates nothing of the sort.

The fact that the rightwing echo-chamber has jumped all over this simply demonstrates their own inability/unwillingness to think.

#1. How much electricity Gore's mansion uses would be utterly irrelevant to the issue of greenhouse gases if that electricity isn't generated from energy sources which emit greenhouse gases. And the fact that many of them probably do doesn't prove anything because the premise of Gore's documentary is not that humanity needs to use less electricity... it's that HOW we currently generate that electricity is causing problems.

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how much greenhouse gases 221,000 kWh of electricity generated by wind, solar or geothermal processes releases?

#2. Perhaps even more telling is this report citing Gore's alleged consumption of natural gas. Natural gas of course is the cleanest burning fossil fuel known to mankind. For example, burning it generates almost 30% less carbon dioxide as oil and just under 45% less than coal. So that means that Gore's alleged usage of natural gas in such large quantities actually demonstrates that he is relying heavily upon the cleanest commercially available energy source he has available to him.

But hey... the self-evident point of this report isn't greenhouse gases. It's about trying to embarass a perceived ideological opponent and fire up the conservative base in the process.

Posted by Kevin at 09:20 AM |

February 26, 2007

Coyote Dares Liberals to Denounce Child Pornography

Charles Rust-Tierney, former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, has been arrested for possessing child pornography. He has admitted downloading videos and images of child pornography that included "graphic forcible intercourse with prepubescent females," one of which was "seen and heard crying," and other of which was "bound by rope."

As is typical of these creeps, he sought out work that would advance his prurient interests. He coached youth sports teams, giving him access to children, and he used his position with the ACLU to argue against restricting public internet access in libraries. Regardless of how you feel about that issue, it is clear he had other intentions and his involvement in that matter certainly does not help the ACLU's cause.

Over at Northwest Republican, they don't believe the left will denounce Rust-Tierney because of his affiliation with the ACLU. They think the left will just attack the messenger. Having just had a discussion here about child molesters, in which all agreed it was a horrendous crime, I have no doubts that liberals will dash Coyote's hopes of a scandal by fully denouncing this guy. I hope you'll go over to his site and give him an earful while you're at it.

Posted by Becky at 11:47 AM |

Inattentive Fathers and Obesity

My son offered up an interesting observation yesterday that I thought might make for good discussion here. He said all the boys he knew who were overweight also had fathers who were not an active part of their lives – that is, the boys either lived with their mothers only or their fathers spent no real time with them. On the other hand, he said, all of the kids he knew who were physically fit had fathers who spent a good deal of time with them, actually engaging in physical activity with them.

I did a quick Internet search to see whether research supported his observations and found this study by Texas A&M University. According to the study, "the amounts and quality of time parents spent with their children has a direct effect on children's rates of obesity." What really blew me away, however, was that researchers found "the amount of time a mother spent with her child, her work stress and her income level had a larger impact in lowering the child's risk of obesity than the father's time, work stress and income." Even more shocking, "the more time a mother spends with the child, the less likely that child is to be obese; conversely, the more time a father spends with a child, the more likely the child will be obese." How can that be?

Apparently, men eat more and eat less healthfully than women do, thereby setting a bad example for their kids.

So what about my son's observation? The key to his observation was that the physically fit boys' dads were actually engaging their sons on outdoor activities – skiing, snow boarding, hiking, fishing, and sports. The obese boys' dads were working long hours and leaving their sons with nothing to do but play video games and eat, or were not even present in the home, leaving all care and support of the boys to their overworked mothers.

The National Fatherhood Initiative has more on the link between fathers and childhood obesity. For instance, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth found that obese children are more likely to live in father-absent homes than are non-obese children. And two studies have found that obese children are less likely to report that their fathers were physically active than were non-obese children. And though I know this will drive some of our readers craxy, apparently, this determinant is not found for mothers.

Posted by Becky at 11:44 AM |

Republicans Stand By Their Man

Believe it or not, despite all the failures, lies, scandals, and wasted money, Republicans are still standing behind President Bush. The latest USA Today/Gallup Poll may show a job approval rating of a mere 37% for President Bush, but among Republicans and those leaning Republican, his job approval rating is 76%. That must place it somewhere around zero for the rest of us. These Republicans are so completely in the dark that 72% of them do not think going into Iraq was a mistake. What this means is any Republican candidate will have to kiss up to Bush and soft-step any criticism of the war to win the party's nomination in the presidential primary. It will be interesting to see whether any Republican can actually do that and remain a credible candidate in the general election.

Posted by Becky at 11:42 AM |

February 25, 2007

Surreal in Zimbabwe

The financial disaster that is Zimbabwe today was highlighted by President Mugabe's $300 million birthday party yesterday. When the fundraising for the event began in December, that amount was worth about $290,000 U.S.; by the time the party happened yesterday, the value of Zimbabwe dollars had plummeted so far that the $300 million was worth only $45,000 U.S. In the 1980s, U.S. and Zimbabwean currency had the same value.

The celebrations were disrupted by strong winds and rain from Cyclone Favio. But giant cakes had been baked and thousands of children wearing red sashes were bussed in to the stadium where, according to the state-controlled Herald newspaper, they would “interact with political leaders and role models that would inspire them to serve their country with decorum”.

The “role models” turned up in an array of luxury vehicles. They were the same party officials whom Mugabe, in a rare moment of realism, had described in an interview last week as ambitious, corrupt cheats trying to drive him out.

The party was held as bread disappeared from shops, inflation was forecast by the International Monetary Fund to rise to 4,000% by the end of the year and demonstrations and political gatherings were banned by the police in Harare for fear that they would trigger looting.

Zimbabwe's story is absolutely heartbreaking. From the 1980s, when hope was everywhere and people could live comfortably (though certainly nowhere near the accepted level in the U.S.), until now, the change has been brutal. Zimbabwe's infant mortality rate is as high as Somalia's (60 deaths per 1000 births), it's postnatal maternal mortality rate is one of the highest in the world, its inflation is the highest in the world, its economic decline is the fastest in the world (other than nations at war), and its corruption and suppression of the press are the worst in the world. The life expectancy for men is 37 years and for women 34 years. One in five adults has AIDS. Nearly half of the country's people are clinically severely depressed and anxious.

One of the unexpected side effects of Zimbabwe’s 1,600% inflation is that people who bring their dying relatives to hospital are simply disappearing. Families deliberately give fictitious names and addresses because they cannot afford the fees for the hospital, undertakers and burial sites. So the country’s mortuaries are choked with unclaimed dead.

The country's professionals don't earn enough money anymore to pay for their gas to drive to work and the country has an unemployment rate of 80%. Mugabe has responded to the problem by printing more and more money, seizing white-owned land, and last week nationalizing the diamond industry, a move that might lead to a coup.

The nightmare is difficult for me to grasp. I remember from my year in Zimbabwe in 1982-83 a beautiful country full of happy people who had dreams of a bright future. I cannot even imagine what has become of that wonderful place I once knew.

Posted by Becky at 10:34 AM |

Blasé About Torture

An Arab news outlet has published an editorial by Rosa Brooks, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, that was originally printed in the LA Times, opining that the "American public has become blasé about torture."

Thanks to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, “extraordinary renditions” and “black sites,” many people now take for granted the image of the American as torturer. At least 100 prisoners have been killed while in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan [take note, Leonid], and many more have been beaten, humiliated and abused. Still others have been secretly handed over to our even less-scrupulous friends in various Middle Eastern intelligence services.

And though the vast majority of our troops and officials abide by the spirit and the letter of US and international laws, such abusive tactics have been authorized by officials at the highest level of the US government.

In November 2001, 66 percent of Americans said they “could not support government-sanctioned torture of suspects” as part of the war on terrorism. And when photos of abuses at Abu Ghraib surfaced in the spring of 2004, the US news media treated it — rightly — as a major scandal. In October 2005, the US Senate voted 90-9 in support of legislation prohibiting the inhumane treatment of prisoners, sponsored by Arizona Sen. John McCain. But over the last year, we seem to have lost our former sense of outrage, though prisoner abuse has hardly ended.

A handful of low-ranking people have been convicted for their roles in abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, but the bigger fish carry on as usual. In September, President Bush gave a speech defending the use of “alternative” interrogation methods; a poll shortly after that found public opposition to torture was down to 56 percent. In October, Congress obligingly passed the Military Commissions Act, which permits the use of coerced testimony in trials of suspected enemy combatants and restricts the ability of US courts to examine allegations of abuse.

Not the sort of thing you like seeing, let alone in the Arab press. And it gets worse:

Lately, news relating to torture has been greeted by a collective yawn. On Jan. 31, German prosecutors issued a warrant for the arrest of 13 CIA operatives involved in the illegal abduction of Khaled Masri, a German citizen who was taken to Afghanistan for a little "alternative" interrogation — and then unceremoniously abandoned in Albania when the CIA realized that it had grabbed the wrong guy. On Feb. 16, an Italian court indicted 26 US intelligence operatives and contractors accused of kidnapping an Islamic cleric and taking him to Egypt, where, he says, he was tortured. It should be huge news when two of our European allies demand the arrest of US government agents — but these stories were rapidly superseded on the front pages by news of Anna Nicole Smith’s embalming and matters of similarly pressing national interest.

We talked about the excessive torture portrayed on Fox's "24" a couple of weeks ago, as well as the efforts by military leaders to convince executive producer Howard Gordon to change the show's focus on torture because it was actually making it harder to stop the troops from engaging in torture themselves. Brooks reports that Gordon has said starting next season there will be less torture on the show – not because of any harm to the troops or to national security, but because torture "is starting to feel a little trite."

Brooks is right that Americans are more willing to accept torture. The very idea that a mere 56% of us find it unacceptable is appalling, both because it speaks to the coarseness of our culture and because it speaks to our ignorance about its effectiveness. Some say the Arabs embrace torture and so we ought not to be so squeamish about torturing them. I just always thought we were better than that.

Posted by Becky at 10:10 AM |

February 24, 2007

Has Jesus's Body Been Found?

A new documentary some say will rock the Christian world with its claim that the coffins of Jesus and his family have been found in a 2000 year old cave will probably have a very different, more complex impact than some expect.

The filmmakers say the coffins hold the remains of Jesus, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene, as well as Jesus's brother and his son. Jesus's and the two Marys' coffins will go on display in New York on Monday.

Although the cave was discovered nearly 30 years ago and the casket inscriptions decoded ten years ago, the filmmakers are the first to establish that the cave was in fact the burial site of Jesus and his family.

"[W]orld-famous scientists, archeologists, statisticians, DNA specialists and antiquities experts" have contributed to the research the film claims establish that the caskets truly are those of Jesus of Nazareth and his family members.

What will this all mean? Obviously, many non-Christians and some Christians will believe it. Non-Christians may well look at the story as proof that Christianity is based on a lie and should be rejected. Some Christians will likely take it as proof that Jesus was a "good teacher" or a "prophet" whose good teachings should be followed, but that he was not himself "God," as fundamentalist Christianity views him. Many may believe that this is proof that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and that prophecies of his return mean we are awaiting the coming of another incarnation of the messiah spirit, a human teacher with divine inspiration who arrives at a crucial time in history to "save" mankind. These believe that Jesus was one of these just as Buddha, Krishna, and others have been – a belief that could someday form the basis for a uniting of the world's great religions under a modern "messiah."

In light of the controversy surrounding Dan Brown's book and the film "The Da Vinci Code," some will wonder if the "Illuminati" is about to reveal its Messiah, who, it is presumed, will claim to be the direct descendant of Jesus and Mary Magdalene – something that would be "proven" by DNA. This "Messiah" will enable a unification of the countries and religions of the world under a single individual, resulting in the promise of world peace, but the reality of world oppression by the "illuminated" few.

Fundamentalist Christians have actually been expecting a "great deception" like this and will take this "discovery" as proof that their beliefs are correct. We certainly are at a critical time in history – a time when all three of the world's great religions are expecting the return of the "messiah." Fundamentalist Christians alone view this as the literal return of the Messiah – Jesus of Nazareth. Others are awaiting a great teacher. Fundamentalist Christians believe that at this critical time in history just such a uniting figure will indeed appear, but that he will be a false Christ – the Anti-Christ – and that once most of the world is following him the real Christ will return to save those who refused to worship the Anti-Christ. They will hold to this belief, come Hell or high water. A documentary will not change their minds, it will only further cement their faith.

What is interesting to me is how widespread is the acceptance as a matter of fact that Jesus ever actually even existed. A convincing case can actually be made that he did not, and that in truth, Christianity is just another of a long history of religions that all shared similar themes of a Godman dying and being resurrected in order to save mankind. These likely originated in solar mythology.

I don't know the answer to any of this. But I find it fascinating, nonetheless.

Posted by Becky at 12:43 PM |

Rush Limbaugh: Pelosi has "Gone Hormonal"

It's bad enough that Rush Limbaugh said Dick Cheney is his hero, but as I read through a transcript on his website this morning of an interview with Dick Cheney, what really pissed me off was why Cheney was his hero.

Cheney last week criticized Pelosi and the Democrats for having a policy that would, he said, give the terrorists what they want. Pelosi called for an apology from Cheney for questioning her patriotism, but Cheney refused. Rush praised Cheney for not backing down to her and for referring to her as "Nancy" rather than "Speaker Pelosi" because the "girl's gone hormonal." What a pig.

Posted by Becky at 11:00 AM |

Fox Readers OK with Anti-Muslim Literature at School

Spyder sent us the most fascinating article yesterday, but I didn't get a chance to talk about it. It begs the question, what are the appropriate limits for free speech, particularly regarding religion, in public schools? The story comes via Fox News, which also ran a survey on the story and has published the comments of its readers online. What they had to say is as shocking and depressing as the story itself.

The story began when a 9th grade teacher in a North Carolina public school invited a representative from the Kamil International Ministries Organization (a Christian group) to come speak to her class. While there, he handed out to the class anti-Muslim literature entitled "Jesus not Muhammad" and "Do Not Marry a Muslim Man," aimed at convincing the children to avoid romantic relationships with Muslims. The father of one of the students who received the material is a non-practicing Muslim who, with his Christian wife, has taught his children to respect all religions. Needless to say, his family was quite offended by the literature, and with good reason.

The literature called Mohammed a "criminal" and said he was "demon possessed." It also compared passages of the Koran with passages in the Bible related to treatment of wives and warned girls, "You may be excited that you found the 'tall, dark, and handsome man' you have been looking for. His sweet words and attention may blind you regarding the power, importance, and influence of his culture and Islamic faith." So far, the father says, the school principal and teacher have merely told him they were honoring a "diversity of opinion" and allowing "freedom of speech." The principal said they thought the material was "inappropriate," but the school encourages "the exchange of ideas."

The father does not see this as a matter of free speech. He sees it as slander of Islam. I have to agree. I don't even think it would be appropriate if someone of the opposite view had been brought in on the same day to rebut the information. Presentations denigrating a religion are entirely inappropriate in the classroom.

My kids are both learning about religions – both ancient and modern – in school. They learn about the rituals, gods, and cultural influences of these religions. I fully support that. Religion has always been a huge factor in human relationships and societies, and it certainly still is today. There is no reason to shy away from that fact. But there is a very big difference between discussing the beliefs, traditions, and histories of various religions and warning people off of religions or calling their leaders "criminal" and "demon possessed."

I'm not afraid of my children being exposed to the debate of controversial issues in the classroom. I think it's healthy and teaches them how to think. But the debate should never sink to one that denigrates the faith of others or presents only one side of a controversial issue. If the teacher felt this information about Islam was so important that the students needed to receive it, the most responsible approach would have been to have offered an after-school presentation of the material – along with a presentation from an authority in the Muslim community – and invite the students and their parents to attend. That way, there would be no captive audience, and the students would have learned valuable lessons about looking at both sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion. A desire to actually educate the students and teach them to think might also have resulted in a post-presentation small group discussion. It could have been a very constructive learning experience. But it should never have occurred in the classroom as it did.

Not surprisingly, many Fox News readers have a different opinion than I do. Their comments are predictable, but depressing. I'm posting quite a few of them because taken together, they create a clear picture of the unfortunate lack of thought and reactionary approach that Fox News fosters:

"The ignorance in America is bewildering, here we actually have a school trying to present an outside opinion, and the presenter is labeled anti-Muslim. For what, quoting the book of Islam to the class?" — Mike (Alaska)

"I have had no interest in Muslim opinions. If schools want to distribute pamphlets highlighting this religion of evil, I call it education. Wars are not won by ignoring facts." — Lance

"Had it been the opposite, with Christianity and Jesus being attacked, there would not have been an outrage and it probably would have not been reported. Where was this man when Christmas was attacked. Where was his outrage when students were forced to read the Koran, yet a Bible can't be brought to school. I am tired of the double standard!" — Kathy

"It seems that it is OK to say what ever you want about Christians, but to tell the truth about Muslims using their own material is wrong. It's time people woke up to what Islam really is." — Lloyd

"Why do we let the Muslim schools in our country teach their children in their schools to be anti-American? They are taught to hate ALL of us and to destroy us. So, why is the case in North Carolina so bad?" — Judy

"Until the fanatical, Islamist Muslim extremists preach/practice TOLERANCE, all’s fair! Our society, including students at every level, needs to learn as much as possible about religious teachings which demand separate status for women, or condone the murder of women who don’t dress appropriately!" — Mike

"The teacher was not wrong. The pamphlets should be distributed world wide." — Leslie

"No, we need more teachers and everyone to speak and shout it out about the truth is Islam and our enemy. We can't go on keeping our heads in the sand. Political correctness insists that we tolerate Islam as a ‘religion of peace’ when the truth is far from that!" — Deborah

"I think the teacher was right and has shown sincere concern with regard to the fears of the 'politically correct' attitude toward Islam in America. Our children are receiving a great many slanted views in most public school systems regarding Islam. The attitude toward women is obvious in Muslim countries. Perhaps the father of this child is not correctly understanding the line between discrimination of race and discernment regarding the culture differences of Christianity and Islam." — Kris

"I'm sure there was opinion injected into the pamphlets as most text books in school. Any second-hand source contains opinion, but the point is the pamphlets included facts and that's what the kids should be shown. It's not slander if its true." — Sarah

"No, I do not think the teacher was wrong to allow distribution of anti-Muslim material. Muslims always distribute anti-Christian and anti- Semitic materials. For them it's a freedom of speech. For the rest of us, its shut up and keep quiet. It is not that there are more evil people, it is that they are more vocal and allowed to distribute their views while the rest of us are being bullied into silence." — AR

"No, I am really tired of the Islamic rants when anyone says anything against them." — Cynthia

"I think the teacher is right. The truth hurts." — Patrick

"If they can find problems with Christians and speak out against us they can take the same. This country was formed on idea of free speech." — Christian

"This country was founded on the Christian belief in God. The Muslims get all bent out of shape over nothing." — John

"I do not think the school district or the teacher involved should be punished, this great country of ours has to stop tucking tail to every Muslim or liberal who dose not agree with our beliefs." — Doyle (Tupman, CA)

And the most disturbing of all:

"No, I think it was a great idea. I am a Social Studies teacher and I believe it's my duty to present the truth about Islam every chance I get. I want my students to know what a violent and misguided religion it is." — Mrs. Earnst (Meade, KS)

Posted by Becky at 10:44 AM |

February 23, 2007

Pedophiles Should be Put to Death

This morning, America saw the end to childhood as we've known it.

Back in my parents' time, kids could take off and play with their friends in the fields all day without fear even though their parents didn't know exactly where they were. My generation started to see things go downhill - what with the razor blades in Halloween apples and the missing children on the milk cartons, we began to feel unsafe. But we could still play outside unattended by parents. Kids today have to stay in groups and let their parents know where they are at all times for fear of the rare, but random kidnapping by a sexual predator. And, of course, there's always the on-line predator trying to get into their pants. But they can still be kids and have some remnant of autonomy, can't they?

No. Not anymore. Today an armed man drove up to a school bus stop in Florida, grabbed a 13-year-old boy out of a group of kids and took off with him. Someone's son is gone, without a trace, the victim of an unspeakable crime that wasn't supposed to be able to happen.

Fuck these pedophiles. They're stealing the lives and freedoms of all our children and filling us with fear. And in the process, they're destroying something beautiful about our culture. I'm fed up with their predation and their use and abuse of our most precious assets - our children - as if they are nothing more than a cheap sex toy. No more short prison terms or parole for these guys - it's time we made pedophilia a capital offense. Otherwise, childhood in America will be gone forever.

Posted by Becky at 10:43 AM |

California Anti-Spanking Bill Sees Changes

The California Assemblywoman who planned to ask her peers to outlaw the spanking of children under the age of three has decided to modify her proposal because it was too extreme to win enough votes for passage. I would have opposed it before, but it sounds as if it's a good bill now.

I believe in spanking, especially when the child is under the age of 3. At that point, it is the only way you can really get them to understand the pecking order of the family and teach them to control their own behavior. Note here that I'm not talking about angrily beating a child or whaling on them over and over with your hand or some other item. I'm talking about a quick swat on the butt the lets them know in no uncertain terms that you are the boss and their unacceptable behavior will not be allowed to continue. If more parents did this, I firmly believe the world would be a much more pleasant place in which to go out to eat.

The new bill allows spanking, but bars "the use of a stick, rod or belt to hit a child, striking a child with a closed fist, and striking a child under the age of 3 years old on the face or hand." I don't know about the hand part, but the rest of it is A-OK with me. All of the rest of those items are, in my opinion, abusive. Incidentally, I reject the ridiculous idea that a parent's hands should only ever be used for loving touch – as if that is a justification for spanking a little child under the age of 3 with a rubber hose, as my childhood babysitter used to do, or any other implement. Truth be told, such items are meant to inflict fear more than punishment and are simply a sign of increasing desperation and loss of control on the part of the parent. If a parent does their job faithfully and patiently before the child is 3, such measures are simply not needed later on.

Posted by Becky at 10:05 AM |

Initiative Process Cuts Both Ways

Democrats in Salem who are right now working to make the initiative process more difficult would do well to take notice of the benefits to the Left that resulted from minimum wage ballot initiatives in last year's elections. According to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, those minimum wage initiatives boosted voter turnout in five states last year – and the turnout was disproportionately high among key Democratic voting blocks: African-Americans, unmarried voters, and women, all of whom tend to be heavily affected by wage issues. And it was no accident – stealing a page from the Republicans' playbook, Democrats specifically targeted the initiatives to areas where a boost in Democratic turnout was needed. I hope that the Democrats don't succumb to the temptation to throw the bathwater out with Bill Sizemore.

Posted by Becky at 09:50 AM |

Joseph Farah and the Fat Piglets

Joseph Farah writes today that those who fear Iraq is becoming another Vietnam are "shrill, whiny, ill-informed," "self-fulfilling prophets of doom and gloom," "just plain stupid," or have "sinister motives" – that is, they are "eager to see America … taken down a notch, humbled, defanged, emasculated." Those who most fear repeating our mistakes in Vietnam are, by their fear, going to cause another Vietnam, he says, because they don't understand that it was "their policies of capitulation and appeasement" that actually prompted that disaster to occur.

The enemy, with money and intelligence provided from Moscow and Beijing, knew they could never defeat U.S. troops on the battlefield. Their plan was to drag out the war and win it in the streets of the USA – on college campuses, in the media, with the help of movie stars and other self-loathing Americans, and especially in the Congress of the United States.

It's an argument that I just don't buy. I'm no expert on Vietnam, but I think I know enough to point out one very big difference: we accomplished our mission in Iraq a long time ago when we took down Saddam's regime and brought him to justice. We never really accomplished our mission in Vietnam. It isn't appeasement to say that once the mission has been accomplished, the troops should be brought home. The "whiny" peace activists, who represent the views of the vast majority of the country, by the way, are not lacking in spine or will or love of country. Quite the opposite.

In fact, it looks to me as if it is the spineless right-wingers like Farah who are the capitulators and the appeasers. Cow-towing to a corrupt Administration in order to hold on to their own positions in the right-wing ranks, they lack the spine to do what is right and just in this world. They're perfectly willing to keep feeding our young men and women into the meat grinder for the benefit of an intentionally dragged-out war that simply enriches those fat piglets who suck at the military funding teat. Come to think of it, it seems to me that's what happened in Vietnam, too.

Posted by Becky at 09:37 AM |

February 22, 2007

Whipping the slaves

I've been a little too overwhelmed with real life the last day or so and haven't had time to dive back into the Quando(O)scandal.

The vast majority of the comments from the Quando(O)-ites were hot air laden defenses of their boy McQ. But one paragraph by commentor Bryan Pick did stand out for me:

(Quick note: we're quite skeptical of Republicans, particularly when they're the majority. We may often "lean" right, but QandO was a finalist for Best Centrist Blog in the Weblog Awards last year, and our skepticism of government in general often leads us to take positions against ruling Republicans. So please don't call us "wingers," implying we're slaves to the right wing.)

Centrist? Seriously? Little did Bryan know he'd be hitting on one of my key themes. I've played this harp over and over.

Centrism doesn't exist. Its an excuse for people who like to think of themselves as in the "middle" to tell the rest of us who know we aren't that we're causing the fall of modern civilization. And even if it was an appropriate label for a smack dab in the middle political point of view, anyone who still supports the War In Iraq doesn't qualify for it.

One of the commentors (I forget who) made the point that McQ isn't a goose stepping Bushie because he's criticized Bush's stance on torture. That's like saying someone who constantly runs old people down in traffic is a good driver because they didn't hit the little kids. Please.

I tire of conservatives trying to remind me that they're "skeptical of government" while supporting it running roughshod over their civil liberties and working counter to what the people say they want. All the while trying to put themselves up as "centrists"--as if the ideological political middle could have anything at all to do with ending the Constitution.

Further, there is no way to objectively look at any aspect of the Iraq War: from troops to funding, from the misleading intelligence to the fact that the vast majority of Iraqis want us out, and see this as something that should continue to be supported. And yes, in my view, that makes one a slave to the rightwing.

Posted by Carla at 04:36 PM |

Boogeyman Soros Slacking on the Job

Everyone knows that George Soros is the evil boogeyman of left-wing politics, virtually single-handedly funding the entire movement. Well, according to the latest campaign finance reports, Republicans have raised twice as much as Democrats, and Soros isn't listed among the top ten Democratic contributors.

The RNC raised $10.5 million in January, while the DNC only raised $5.7 million. The RNC has $8 million in the bank and no debts. The DNC has $6.5 million in the bank and owes $4 million. Major RNC contributors included Richard M. DeVos Sr., Glenn Jones and B.J. "Red" McCombs. The DNC's major contributions have come from Arnold S. Hiatt, Philip D. Murphy, Charles C. Nolan, Catherine B. Reynolds, Sheldon Seevak, and Andrew Tobias. But nothing from Soros.

Probably won't change the rhetoric of the right wing, though.

Posted by Becky at 01:28 PM |

Confessions of a Norweigen-English-German-Scottish-Irish-Native-American-American

I know I'm way behind the curve on this one, seeing as how the story is about ten days old now, but I'm going to do it anyway. Did anyone see Steven Colbert's interview with Debra Dickerson on her new book, The End of Blackness? I just saw a re-run of it last night and I swear to God it's the funniest interview I've ever seen Colbert do.

Dickerson, a writer for Salon, probably has herself a really good book here, but one premise was the basis of the interview: that Barack Obama isn't really black because he isn't descended from slaves. We need a new name for black immigrants, she says. "African-American" won't work, either, and for the same reason. Blackness is a matter of culture, not race, she argues. Obama, whose father was Kenyan, should perhaps be called an African African-American. If you have not seen the interview, you really must take the time.

Certainly, it is valid for Dickerson to point out that the descendants of slaves really are culturally different from African immigrants. She argues that the success of these immigrants says nothing about the black community because they have not had to rise up from the cultural struggles that hold black America back. I honestly cannot say whether African immigrants are subjected to less racism than Americans of African descent whose ancestors were slaves, but whether they do or not I see her point. Racism alone is not what is holding black America back. If I understand Dickerson correctly, she is telling black America to let go of the past and move forward.

Still, that is a subtlety that I think is lost on white America because we, too, cannot let go of the past. I think generally, white Americans want very much to see black Americans succeed, and when they do, we are more than pleased to applaud them. We tell ourselves that it is because we want black Americans to have an inspiring role model, but in reality, I believe it is because we want to pat ourselves on the back for having moved forward an left our own ancestors' racism behind.

You see, white America is scarred by slavery, too, and we can't seem to let it go any more than black America can. We carry the guilt of it and we get flustered and don't know what we are supposed to do, and we honestly don't understand why the ugliness of it all won't go away. So when we see someone like Obama who is so genuinely doing well we can for a moment feel gloriously free of the past and exuberant over that person's - and our - success.

Colbert expressed how depressing it is to think that in the eyes of black America, our applause of someone of Obama's stature is meaningless because black America remains mired in the aftermath of slavery. We feel that Obama's success is, to some degree, our own success as much as it is theirs. If he isn't black enough, then we get pulled back into the guilty aftermath of slavery, as well.

I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to laugh at this entire mess for a few minutes, thanks to Colbert. But I wonder - was black America laughing, too?

Posted by Becky at 08:14 AM |

Fecklessness at ol' Foggy Bottom

The NYT opines:

It speaks volumes when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flies to Jerusalem to try to revive peace talks between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and cannot even get the two to show up when she reads out the content-free joint statement to which they have grudgingly agreed.

But this comes as no surprise to anyone paying attention. This is the same Condi Rice who earlier on Wednesday slammed a Russian General's observation about a couple of proposed anti-missile installations in Poland and the Czech Republic with her own fatuous nonsense.

"Anyone who knows anything about this knows that there is no way that 10 interceptors ... are a threat to Russia or that they are somehow going to diminish Russia's deterrent of thousands of warheads," Rice said.

Anyone who knows anything about this knows that 1, if push came to shove there is no way that the American military would completely bypass these interceptors and instead rely solely upon other existing interceptors to knock down Russian missiles, and 2. that it is a logical fallacy of the worst kind to frame this as any single or pair of interceptor sites being capable of knocking down the entire Russian arsenal.

And this is coming from the same Condi Rice who is supposedly an expert on Cold War stuff. So either she is grossly incompetent or she was deliberately trying to deceive the public. Given her academic background the later is the only viable choice of the two. Which means that yet once again she has demonstrated why the American people simply can't trust her to be honest with us.

But on the bright side... perhaps she was able to salvage the entire trip with some shoe shopping...

Posted by Kevin at 07:21 AM |

February 21, 2007

Geffen Gets Hillary's Goat

David Geffen is making waves with his recent comments about the Clintons, as quoted by Maureen Dowd this morning in The New York Times. Specifically, he said of them, "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling." He also called Hillary Clinton "overproduced" and "overscripted," and says Bill Clinton is "reckless." Now Hillary Clinton is fighting back – attacking Geffen and his favorite candidate, Barack Obama.

Clinton's campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, says, "If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money. While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama's principal fundraiser."

I personally found Geffen's remarks refreshing in their truthfulness, and hope Obama will keep the man on board – and keep him talking.

Posted by Becky at 10:58 AM |

Gaffney Takes on Norquist's Terrorist Ties Again

Frank Gaffney is going after Grover Norquist again. Back in 2003, Gaffney wrote "A Troubling Influence," in which he documented Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. His new post looks at Norquist's role in the candidacy of Suhail Khan for a position on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union.

The casual observer might think nothing of the candidacy of a fellow named Suhail Khan for election to one of two open seats on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union — the political Right's largest and most influential grassroots umbrella organization. Certainly, for most Americans, the man's faith would be of no interest. If the fact that Khan is an adherent to Islam were even known, it probably would be seen as an asset — another Muslim-American seeking to become more involved in the political process just like, for example, Rep. Keith Ellison, the Muslim convert who recently won a Minnesota seat in the House of Representatives.

Something else appears to be at work here, however. The tip-off is the fact that anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, who sits on the ACU Board, is promoting Khan's candidacy. Even that association, however, could be construed as nothing more than a calculated effort by a skillful conservative operative to insinuate a reliable ally into a useful post as the former struggles to overcome the damage done to his reputation and influence — and that of the Republican Party — by his scandalous collaboration with convicted felon Jack Abramoff.

Unfortunately, there seems to be another and more insidious motivation for the Khan candidacy — one of a piece with a longstanding, if largely hidden, Norquist agenda that I first documented in these pages over three years ago.

Gaffney then goes on to examine Suhail Khan's ties to Islamic terrorism:

- Kahn's "father, as head of a Wahabbi mosque in California, had hosted Osama bin Laden's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and raised money for him."

- "[A]s a member of the White House staff — a position Norquist engineered for him — [Kahn] authorized radical Islamists to meet with President Bush."

- Kahn's parents and oldest brother, Suhail "played prominent roles in several organizations associated with the Wahhabi strain of Islamism."

- Kahn's father helped establish the pro-Hamas, pro-terrorism Muslim Student Association, which recruits and indoctrinates college students on American college and university campuses, and served on the governing council of MSA's Islamic Society of North America, which "promotes the Islamist agenda."

- An arm of MSA, the North American Islamic Trust, helped finance a mosque founded by Khan's father in Orange County. "Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman — better known as the Blind Sheikh, who was later convicted in connection with the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993," visited this mosque in December of 2002 to raise funds for the "jihad" against the enemies who had "united themselves against Muslims."

- Khan's father established the Masjid An-Noor Mosque which, according to the FBI, "was the site of two fund-raising trips on behalf of the radical Islamist terror group known as Islamic Jihad. The solicitation was made by the man who is now Osama bin Laden's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri."

- Khan's mother was a Board member of the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR was created by a "'high-ranking Hamas operative Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook,' who is wanted on federal terrorism charges. … [F]our of CAIR's executives have been successfully prosecuted on terrorism-related charges." Senator Charles Schumer has said of CAIR, "we know [it] has ties to terrorism."

- Khan has "repeatedly been a featured speaker at … CAIR events, as well as those of other problematic groups, including … the Islamic Institute. … The Islamic Institute was established by Grover Norquist in 1998 with $20,000 in seed money from Abdurahman Alamoudi (who is currently serving a 23-year federal sentence for terrorism-related activities). II is the principal vehicle for the Islamists' influence operation aimed at the Bush Administration and Republican and conservative circles. Norquist was its founding president; Alamoudi's long-time deputy, Khalid Saffuri, was its first executive director; and II's offices continue to be housed in the downtown Washington office suite rented by Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform. … People now serving hard time like Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian were at various points among those Khan, Norquist and Saffuri considered appropriate for courting by the Bush team. Others were individuals, like Jamal Barzinji, a board member of several Islamist-sympathizing organizations that were raided and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of fundraising for terrorists."

It is hard fully to calculate the magnitude of the damage done by the pro-Islamist influence operation run by Grover Norquist and his friends. Law enforcement agencies have been forced to receive "sensitivity training" from the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Norquist has lent conservative political cover to those who would weaken our counter-terrorism authorities and techniques. He has helped place into positions of trust and official responsibility people whose often-undisclosed past associations at least raise questions about their reliability.

In short, thanks in part to the Norquist operation, America's enemies have been emboldened. And the United States is at considerably greater risk.

It is time, once and for all, for conservatives to take a hard look at what Norquist and his associates have been doing in the guise of Muslim "outreach."

Well, I don't know whether there is anything to these terrorist connections, though since Gaffney first exposed them over three years ago, Norquist and Khan have utterly failed to address his concerns. It may be that Gaffney is a racist and it may be that he just holds a grudge against Norquist for some reason. Personally, I think there is a little of that and a lot of reason to be concerned, as well. But if Gaffney's concerns about terrorism get conservatives to finally reconsider their relationship with Norquist, then his calls for scrutiny of Khan's suspicious ties to terrorism are fine by me.

Oh, and speaking of Republican ties to terrorists ...

Posted by Becky at 10:47 AM |

Updates: Howie Rich, Libertarians, and Prince Harry

What do Howard Rich, the Libertarian Party and Prince Harry have in common? Absolutely nothing except that I've written about them recently and have found some interesting new information about them.

First, Hart Williams (a.k.a. Ed Waldo of Boregasm) has a new piece out on Howard Rich that is quite enlightening. The primary point:

Howard Rich ain't no sugar daddy. In fact, he's not giving money away at all. He's MAKING it.

Hart has received a letter from an "Insider" in the Rich machine (I wonder if this is the same "insider" who contacted me last Fall and set me off on my own explorations):

You are correct that it's Koch and some others paying the bills. I'm not sure if you understand that Rich, Jacob and others actually profit from the initiatives. ALL the money comes from others. I know many of those others, and the routes they choose. …

What is important is that there is an undisclosed agenda of Rich and Co. That undisclosed agenda, simply, is he's only in this for the purpose of making money. Rich doesn't contribute one thin dime to anyone. Not in his nature.

Indeed, many of the people you mention are mere fronts. Ric[h] is a launderer. The money, ALL of it, comes from others, and he cuts himself into that for profit. …

The money is laundered (much of it) through ATR. Some of it goes through Nevada corporations....

Why am I not surprised?

A few weeks ago, after reading in the news that Wes Wagner was suing the Libertarian Party of Oregon because he thought the state committee had become "a power-hungry oligarchy," and then hearing Wagner interviewed on Thom Hartmann's radio show, I wrote about my own knowledge of the situation. This morning I found in my email a forwarded letter from LPO Executive Director Richard Burke announcing that as of yesterday, the legal battle is over.

This afternoon in Washington Circuit Court, Judge Hernandez dismissed the petition for a "Writ of Mandamus" filed by Mr. Wes Wagner against the LPO. Mr. Wagner had alleged that the LPO State Committee had violated a number of bylaws and asked the court to effectively enforce them.

It is the opinion of LPO officers and myself that Mr. Wagner's true agenda was to force the LPO into a discovery process it could not afford to break the party financially and politically, thereby facilitating a factional takeover. After listening to both sides, Judge Hernandez was very clear in his rulings as he dismissed the case. Judge Hernandez also declared the LPO and other defendants to be the "prevailing parties," thereby facilitating the collection of court costs and legal fees from Mr. Wagner as requested by the LPO's attorney.

In January, a recall election was held invoked by a recall petition organized and led by Mr. Wagner. In the election, LPO members overwhelmingly voted to retain all officers. This month, as reported above, the lawsuit against the LPO filed by Mr. Wagner has been dismissed.

Can you say "Loser"?

Finally, I very recently wrote about how Prince Harry was to be sent off to war in Iraq under extra protection, a situation that I viewed as setting him up to become some sort of war hero without ever having actually been placed in harm's way. Idler, an apparent Anglophile, took me to task for denigrating all the British royals who had ever served their country valiantly in war, something which, of course, I did not do. I'm still very wounded, by the way. Today, Matt Drudge carried the following headline on his website:

Is Blair Doing it for Harry?

Of course, the article says absolutely nothing about Prime Minister Tony Blair's motivation for announcing troop reductions in Iraq. The story really is about how Prince Harry will learn tomorrow whether his regimen is headed to Iraq. It also says that the prince has "insisted he wants to be treated the same as any ordinary soldier, rather than being kept away from harm in a headquarters job." I hope that before Idler says, "I told you so" he reads what I said earlier and notes that I never said anything about Prince Harry's interest in legitimate service, only that if he is sent over with special protections, then he will not be able to really relate to the common man who does not have such protections in war – but that he will enjoy all the credentials of a legitimate warrior, nonetheless.

Posted by Becky at 09:10 AM |

February 20, 2007

Still titting along....(Updated)

Awww....the factions of Quando (and yes, they're actually deriding me for not calling it QandO...LOL) have now resorted to completely dodging their original ridiculousness, having to lift up their petty selves with petulance.

No wonder the wingers have such an easy time with self-delusion.

Update: And oh yes, McQ is NOT a winger *cough*, as evidenced by this post crowing about a poll (linked from Outside The Beltway, another winger blog) by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican pollster. McQ goes on to further chastize the Dems (and specifically Murtha) for being in a minefield in Iraq, despite the fact that virtually every other poll states otherwise. But just remember, McQ is not a winger!

Posted by Carla at 06:25 PM |

Tit is to tat...as....

So McQ over at Quando noticed my earlier post at PK, discussing my "anti-war" agenda whilst linking to his "efforts" at Quando. I'd be tinkled pink all over if only McQ had a clue about the point. From his post, its quite clear that he doesn't:

But, back to the post in question. What I found amusing is the blogger in question here had to strain mightily to infer my quoting the Politico characterization of MoveOn.org as an "anti-war" group is somehow untrue.

Reading is fundamental, McQ. I made no attempts whatsoever to say that MoveOn isn't an anti-war group. In fact, its my understanding that this is exactly what they are. While I'm sure you found the entire thing amusing--its not nearly as amusing as the fact that you either didn't read my post, or aren't capable of basic reading comprehension.

Since you clearly didn't get the point--let me dial you in: I'M ANTI WAR TOO...and I'd prefer to be that way. I'm consistently appalled at those who aren't. This is really not that tough of a concept.

I report, you decide.

McQ further opines:

With all due respect to Carla, her analysis moves to new heights of ludicrousness at this point. I mean I can infer a lot of things from what people say, but I actually try to keep such inferences within the bounds of reality. Is that too much to ask of a member of the "reality based" community?

Where in the world does one extract an inference from my report on a new advocacy group that I was instead writing something which was, "about the promotion of war as a glorious and laudable effort—while efforts at peace are to be held in the highest contempt."

That's simply absurd. It's also sad and pathetic. She has to strain that hard to make something out of nothing to push her agenda?

So not only does McQ not believe that readers make inferences from the labels that authors use to set the tone for their pieces, McQ believes we're all just too stupid to actually make the PROPER inferences, as well. He just couldn't possibly mean that "anti-war" is bad by slapping that label on MoveOn, even though its quite clearly what he meant.

He was just trotting out that label in an innocent attempt to delineate that liberals (unlike the good and righteous McQ), just don't want "success in Iraq":

I, otoh, understand that success in Iraq (and for that matter, in any war undertaken) is much more desirable than failure for any number of reasons, one of which has to do with future wars. That means I think making a concerted effort toward achieving success even if it costs us "more war" in the relative short term is the right choice now, because I realize that if we succeed in Iraq, it will probably prevent much "more war" in the future.

Ahh yes..."success in Iraq", that platitude of elusiveness which no one who uses it can actually quantify. It almost has the same charming ring as "anti-war", but doesn't quite have that same cachet. Silly me. I should have known that was next. I'm ever so appreciative of Paul--he's made it so much easier to prove my point.

And now, its quite possible that McQ has some lovely beachfront property in Nebraska he'd like to sell us.

Golly gee McQ, will you be back later with the word "treason" or are you saving that for something exceedingly special?

Posted by Carla at 02:47 PM |

13,000 Dead and 518,000 Disabled with Many More to Come

Truthout is hosting an excellent piece by Craig Etchison, Ph.D., on the use of depleted uranium munitions and what they are doing to our troops and to the citizens of the countries where we have used them.

[T]he numbers suggested that something insidious happens when DU munitions are used. How to explain the exploding rates of cancer, birth defects, and radiation poisoning among Iraqis in the Basra region? How to explain a Department of Veterans Affairs study of 21,000 veterans of the Gulf War that found rates of birth defects were twice as great for male vets and three times as great for female vets who served in the Gulf War compared to vets who did not? How to explain a Washington Post report in January of 2006 that 518,000 of the 580,000 Gulf War veterans were on disability, over half on permanent disability. How to explain over 13,000 dead Gulf War veterans when only 250 were killed and 7,000 injured in the war itself?

If DU is as harmless as our military attempts to claim it is, then why is it that within the United States, DU can only be handled by persons trained in radiation safety procedures and must be isolated from the environment? In fact, it is very harmful, and Dr. Etchison explains why. I urge you to educate yourself on this dangerous weaponry and think about whether you feel the damage it inflicts on others is justifiable for any reason. Then contact your members of Congress and tell them how you feel.

Posted by Becky at 10:32 AM |

Sin Does Not Exist

Or so says the self-proclaimed Anti-Christ. Some time ago I posted a sarcastic piece on Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, a cult leader who claims to be Jesus. Interestingly, it has been one of the most frequently read posts I've ever put up here. I didn't previously know much about Miranda, but a recent article on CNN's website filled out the picture a bit more. And the more I read about the guy, the more puzzled I am that so many people actually believe he is the Christ, or rather the Anti-Christ.

First of all, what comes to mind when you see the number "666"? Evil incarnate, perhaps? It is prophesied in the Bible to be the mark of the Beast or the Anti-Christ –- and anyone who takes the mark will, it is said, be destroyed in the fires of Hell. So why is it that Miranda has the number "666" tattooed on his arm –- and why are dozens of his congregants following suit, getting "666" tattoes of their own? What would lead Christians to take such an obviously anti-Christian mark? Because he has for some reason convinced them that the "Anti-Christ" is actually the "best person in the world," the individual who will replace Jesus on Earth –- and he claims outright to be the Anti-Christ.

Why would people follow a man who once was in prison for petty theft and who once was a heroin addict and believe him to be God incarnate? Why do his followers protest at Christian churches and smash crosses and statutes of Jesus? Why would they believe Miranda's teachings that not only do the Devil and sin not exist, but that they cannot do anything that will be seen as wrong in God's eyes? Seriously, how do people actually believe this stuff?

Like many big-time preachers, he's making a lot of money selling his message. He wears a diamond-encrusted Rolex (and claims to own three), travels in armored Lexuses and BMWs, and lives a lavish lifestyle. Why does this not bother his followers? For that matter, why have people followed any of the many infamous cult leaders of history -- or prominent wealthy preachers? Could it have something to do with the sin thing?

Could it be that we all so want to be free from the internal conflict between the "dark side" of our natures and our desire to be good that some will believe anyone who offers a way out of the conflict? Because whether it's through "love offerings" for forgiveness, or buying absolution, or outright believing there is no sin, it seems that the amount people are willing to pay to be rid of their evil thoughts and actions has no limits. Sadly, there is also no end to the parade of charlatans who are willing to take that payment off desperate people's hands and slip it into their own pockets. And Miranda is no exception.

Posted by Becky at 09:22 AM |

My "anti-war agenda"

I noticed this grouse from a winger blog framing MoveOn as having an "anti-war agenda".

Obviously this isn't the first time MoveOn has been cast this way. Nor I suspect will it be the last.

Its interesting though how an "anti-war agenda" is, to the author of that piece, an inherently bad thing--inferring that a "pro-war agenda" is good and righteous.

I get that sometimes war is necessary. But this labeling has moved way beyond that now, obviously. This is about the promotion of war as a glorious and laudable effort--while efforts at peace are to be held in the highest contempt.

I suppose its all a part of the larger agenda of rightwing political ideologists--but its all so very Goebbelsesque.

Not being a goosestepping moron, I've never been one to buy in to propaganda--especially when its shoved down my throat with threats of "the boogeyman will get you" or "it will give the people around you the vapors". Maybe that's why I'm willing to cut through the bullshit lining this blog (and so many other rightwing shills) are laying down as premise.

So here it is: I have an "anti-war agenda". War sucks. Its bad. People get hurt in war. People die in war. War is wreckage and suffering. I don't like it. I'm not in favor of it. I want to do anything and everything it takes to end war immediately, if not sooner.

Color me bad, kids.

Posted by Carla at 07:20 AM |

February 19, 2007

Bush Will Save Us From the Flood!

Gary Younge, in an op-ed published in the UK Guardian, compares President Bush to Marion Keech, a woman who, on December 20, 1954, waited with her followers for UFOs to save them from huge floods that would soon cover the planet. When the UFOs and the flood failed to appear, rather than abandon her beliefs, Keech told her followers that their advanced state of enlightenment had saved the planet — and they believed her.

Social psychologist Leon Festinger, who had infiltrated the group, wrote, "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." Sounds eerily like Leonid and a lot of other mentally obedient right-wingers I know. And as Younge says:

George Bush is a man of conviction and clearly a hard man to change. When reality confronts his plans he does not alter them but instead alters his understanding of reality. Like Keech and her crew, he stands with a tight band of followers, both deluded and determined, understanding each setback not as a sign to change course but as further proof that they must redouble their efforts to the original goal.

The parallels between the run-up to the war in Iraq and the apparent run-up to war in Iran are a maddening display of the Bush Administration's stubborn clinging to a false premise:

And so we watch the administration's plans for a military attack against Iran unfold even as its official narrative for the run-up to the war in Iraq unravels and the wisdom of that war stands condemned by death and destruction. As though on split screens, we pass seamlessly from reports of how they lied to get us into the last war, to scenes of carnage as a result of the war, to shots of them lying us into the next one.

One moment we see the trial of Dick Cheney's former deputy, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, revealing how the administration sought to discredit critics of the plans to invade Iraq; the next we see them discrediting critics of their plans to attack Iran. On one page, newly released documents reveal how the defence department contorted evidence to justify bombing Baghdad; on the next, the administration is using suspect evidence to justify bombing Iran.

He was wrong when he invaded Iraq, and people are warning him that invading Iran would also be wrong. But no matter how many facts you cite, or how persuasive your logic, or how many Americans don't want it, or many countries in the world urge us not to do it, Bush appears to be intent on bombing Iran. And his deluded followers stand loyally by his side, awaiting the UFOs that are sure to come just before the great flood.

Posted by Becky at 10:00 AM |

Prince Harry's Canned War

When I read that Prince Harry will have special protections to keep him safe as he goes off to war, I am reminded of those canned hunts, where the wealthy can go in and be guaranteed a kill of a trophy animal, but they don't have to actually hunt it, gut it, skin it, or take it to the butcher. When the mount comes back from the taxidermist, they can hang it proudly on the wall and brag to all their friends about what a mighty hunter they are. Meanwhile, the real men may hunt for years, sometimes climbing and hiking for hours a day in all sorts of weather, and never find such an animal, let alone have a shot at one. When they do kill an animal, it is for food, not just a trophy. They personally gut it and carry it out on their own backs, sometimes for miles, and prepare it for the butcher.

Harry will someday be able to inspire younger men to follow his leadership because he will have the credentials of having "fought" in a war, and maybe to some that inspiration makes the lie worthwhile. He will come home a hero, without having ever actually risked his life for his country. The dishonesty of it disgusts me. People will applaud him because they will believe he understands the fears and sacrifices of the common man, but he will never understand them.

Posted by Becky at 09:48 AM |

Jeez.

Apparently, discussions of the social stigmas surrounding things of a sexual nature are too much for Hugh Hewitt. Amanda's post on the way blow jobs are seen in some quarters of society as a woman's subservience to a man seems to have given Hugh the vapors.

For Hugh, outright lying and the utter contempt for the American electorate are completely fit for blogging and discussion. But no honest talk of sexual matters. That's just above the pale.

This makes Amanda unfit to work for John Edwards because she conducts candid discussions about sex, but Hugh Hewitt is perfectly suited to go on television and lie his ass off to us because lying is perfectly okay as long as it isn't about sex.

Lawdy.

Posted by Carla at 09:01 AM |

February 18, 2007

Very Different Realities

Sometimes when you read the foreign press, it can make you feel like you're living in the Twilight Zone. Would you ever see a headline like this in an American newspaper?

Thank Goodness for Putin! "All he wants is to rescue the Iraqi people from U.S. aggression and save the Palestinians from Israeli occupation."

In light of current discussions here at PK, this article is especially interesting. Who would have thought that Russia would be viewed by anyone in the world as more democratic and beneficent than the U.S. (in fact, evidence indicates that democracy in Russia is declining, while the country is becoming more autocratic)? I don't believe that Putin or Russia are all sweetness and light. The real goal is probably access to energy to continue Russia's economic growth. But the very fact that Putin is able to generate such op-eds should tell us that there are things the rest of the world knows about the behavior of the U.S. that our own citizens do not.

If this Chinese commentator is confused by our Mid-East policies, imagine how confused most of the American people would be if they read what the rest of the world was saying about us.

Posted by Becky at 01:10 PM |

February 17, 2007

My Twiggy Dry Mind

Edwin A. Sumcad thinks Chalmers Johnson's new book, "Nemesis," is part of a Hate America campaign." "'Nemesis' a bushfire in winter is burning wild and wide," he writes. "It inflames twiggy dry minds and ignitable emotion to hate America." If you believe the book, he says, "You need a faith healer to restore your faith in America where life is a sprinkle of pepper and salt in the land of milk and honey."

We cannot have our cake and eat it too, the saying goes. If you enjoy your good life in America that you cannot have if you live elsewhere and yet hate America for providing you what you want, you are a walking contradiction and a talking paradox. It could be that you are suffering a certain kind of disorder otherwise known as “Nemesis Syndrome”.

I call it a hunger for the truth, but what do I know?

I must have a twiggy dry mind because I become inflamed with anger when dolts like Sumcad think that they can argue against the fact-based assertions about covert CIA operations by a former CIA analyst and patriot who is attempting to warn America about a serious danger by simply saying, "nuh-uh," and telling me if I don't like it here to go live somewhere else. It's so Kindergarden.

[T]his attack on America is saying that this country lives a dirty kind of life at the expense of humankind destroyed by American weapons used by client nations in different parts of the globe in their wars of aggression and self-defense.

With this rant calculated to strike the heart of the American public as a sentimental tearjerker, my sympathy goes to those who cannot stand their agony for living in America as victims of the evil “American Empire”.

To them, this I have to say with honesty, candor and humility: For their health and to avoid being called hypocritical ingrates, “Nemesis” attackers and their kind should leave the United States and live in total isolation but in peace, if not in Timbuktu, in some pristine islands in the Pacific where they can launch their complaints against this vicious “American Empire” that they think it is, for as long their lives last or hell freezes over, whichever comes first. There in God’s forsaken land, they can no longer be part of filthy-rich America they abhorred and condemned – the “American Empire” that gives them those publicized episodes of nightmare.

But here in the United States of America, country-bashers of their kind are discordant and terribly misplaced when they start attacking America. Basking in the sunshine of abundance and easy life in America, protected by the mightiest security never seen in anywhere in the world, and enjoying the kind of freedom, justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that only America could provide to those who seek them as a matter of life and death, a morally immaculate country-basher living in the comfort of this immoral “American Empire” cannot live with us and should not be found in the neighborhood for fear of being stoned to death as a noxious skunk roaming the yard or a strange, angry animal predator in the zoo.

Until they leave this country, we have this political pain-in-the-neck Green- House-effect-pollution – some kind of a “Nemesis” foul air we have to breathe 24 hours a day. It is definitely bad to our mental health, and bad for America.

The logic displayed by Sumcad will make your jaw hit the floor. Take this, for instance:

In the academe and the UN, I have stayed long enough to find out that there is no such thing as “illegal war” in the study of international law and law of nations when responding to an invasion or devastating surprise attack.

Sumcad is so ignorant he doesn't even realize we did not go to Iraq in response to an invasion or a devastating surprise attack. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no danger to us, and it doesn't make me an America-hater to say that.

"Stupidity and ignorance rise to the fore when one is blinded by bias," Sumcad writes. He should have been looking in the mirror when he wrote it. Because Sumcad was stupid enough to write a critique of a book he clearly has not read. Had he read it, he would have never written this:

To survive the terror of Islamic jihad, this nation does not need to be loved by the enemy. It needs to be feared by terrorists and their left wing sympathizers.

Johnson shows very clearly how the U.S., through its covert activities, so inflamed the enemy that they overcame their fear of us and sought revenge. The American public has no idea what has been done in our name, and most of us were absolutely flabbergasted on 9/11 that anyone would want to attack us – that was why we bought the bullshit that we were attacked because the crazed leaders of a repressive religion hated our freedom.

Posted by Becky at 02:01 PM |

Chalmers Johnson Has Broken My Heart

I never heard of Chalmers Johnson until I was offered a review copy of his new book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic," so I didn't know what to expect. What I have found is the horrifying truth that America isn't what I thought it was, that our people and our foreign policy do not match. The good people of this country have no idea what is being done in their name, why terrorists attack us, or why the world is beginning to hate us. This heartbreaking book holds the answers.

Most people are commenting on the basic thesis of the book, as best synopsized by Johnson himself:

I believe that to maintain our empire abroad requires resources and commitments that will inevitably undercut our domestic democracy and in the end produce a military dictatorship or its civilian equivalent. The founders of our nation understood this well and tried to create a form of government – a republic – that would prevent this from occurring. But the combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, military Keynesianism, and ruinous military expenses have destroyed our republican structure in favor of an imperial presidency. We are on the cusp of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation is started down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play – isolation, overstretch, the uniting of forces opposed to imperialism, and bankruptcy. Nemesis stalks our life as a free nation.

But for me, the most impressive thing about this book is that explains where we are and how we got here. For most Americans who are entirely lulled to sleep by a mainstream media that is failing to do its job and a sub-standard education when it comes to modern American history, not to mention a highly charged political climate dominated by lying liars, this book would be a terrible shocker. God knows it's shocked the hell out of me, and I thought I was fairly well-versed on what's going on in the world.

Please read "Nemesis." It's a truth Americans desperately need to know. It may break your heart, but if enough of us know the truth, it could save our democracy.

Posted by Becky at 09:13 AM |

February 16, 2007

And now, this Jackson Update...

Jackson turned 8 months old on 2/14/07. It's hard to imagine. There's a record of the whole story, though: hardcover or paperback (these are at-cost -- no profit will be made). Free download pdf files, too.

Anyone who's had a preemie, or knows someone who has, or just likes babies... should appreciate this. Pass it along.

Posted by Jeff at 11:51 AM |

Criticisms of Franken Are a Joke

Usually, when someone really despicable decides to run for office, the skeletons start falling out of the closet fairly quickly because former associates who were harmed tend to be all-too-happy to tell what they know. The right-wing desperately wants to portray Al Frankin as despicable because he's done such a good job of showcasing their own skeletons, but because he isn't immoral or unethical and he hasn't done anything illegal, they're having a hell of a time. All you have to do is read this shocking expose ("The Real Al Franken") at NewsMax to know that Franken's detractors can't find anything actually bad to say about him. Their complaints can be boiled down to two things: differences in political points of view, which is what elections are all about, and their own inability to grasp his humor.

Some of the "outrageous" revelations on NewsMax demonstrate this point:

- Franken said Karl Rove and Lewis Libby should be "executed" because they were traitors (which is true if they did, indeed, release top secret information that revealed a covert intelligence gathering effort that worked to protect us from a terrorist nuclear attack – and evidence indicates that they did)

- Franken said Rush Limbaugh was a "big fat idiot" (which he is)

- Franken misled and tried to trick then-Attorney General John Ashcroft into confiding his pre-marriage sexual history to Franken for a book, going so far as to write to Ashcroft on letterhead from Harvard University's Shorenstein Center for Press and Politics at the Kennedy School of Government, where Franken was a fellow for one term: "Don't be afraid to share a moment when you were tempted to have sex, but were able to overcome your urges," wrote Franken, adding, "Did a young woman ever think you were homosexual?" (if Ashcroft was actually misled or tricked by this obvious joke, then he is is not near intelligent enough to have been Attorney General)

- Franken wrote in "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them": "Here's a tool I think we should consider keeping on the table — torture" (an obvious joke)

- Franken wrote in "Oh, the Things I Know": "No child left behind is the most ironically named piece of legislation since the 1942 Japanese Family Leave Act" (which is quite possibly true)

- Franken said in a speech at the University of Missouri-Columbia in 2003: "There's no liberal echo chamber in this country. There's a right-wing echo chamber. I want to create a countervailing echo chamber." (learn to laugh, already)

- Franken said: "The point is that there is tremendous hypocrisy among the Christian right. And I think that Christian voters should start looking at global warming and extreme poverty as a religious issue that speaks to the culture of life."

- Franken said: "When the president during the campaign said he was against nation building, I didn't realize he meant our nation."

What is really sad here is that Franken's opponent, Norm Coleman, doesn't, to my knowledge, have any glaring skeletons in his closet, either. This could be a very interesting philosophical debate between two individuals with very opposite views in many areas. But right out of the chute, the Republicans have to sink to demonizing their opponent for his views instead of debating his views. Maybe they're afraid people will prefer someone who is progressive, funny and outspoken against government corruption over someone who is pro-life, anti-gay, and supportive of President Bush's agenda 98% of the time.

Posted by Becky at 11:17 AM |

To the woodshed with him

[I don't generally do this, but since its both a national and local story, I'm crossposting a piece I wrote at Loaded Orygun here for PK readers. Thanks for the indulgence.]

The other night, a recovering rightwinger reminded me about one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives. He said that liberals tend to take the information they're given, think it over, be critical of it, and make decisions about what to do based on their inevitable need to digest stuff. Conservatives on the other hand, take information and use it to stoke up their need for righteous indignation so they can wag their fingers and tell us all what evil sinners we are--deserving of whatever pitfalls litter our path.

In order to feed their indignant fires, conservatives can't always seek out whole truth. Its much easier to wind up for the pitch when cherrypicking bits and pieces from a story.

This might explain David Reinhard's Thursday column. Or maybe it doesn't. Maybe Reinhard is just an ignorant toadie who earns his check by writing the most stupid invective possible:

Now, for today's second double standard: What if Edwards' two bloggers -- Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan -- had spewed their venom on Jews or African Americans rather than Christians in general and Catholics in particular?

Would Newsweek have sanitized their stuff by saying they had simply "criticized Roman Catholic and religious conservatives"? Would The New York Times have written that they were just "doing what bloggers do -- expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language"?

No, they would have nailed them for anti-Semitism and racism, and they would have been quite correct in doing so. This kind of stuff may be acceptable in certain effete quarters where Catholic- and Christian-bashing is the thinking man's anti-Semitism, but it should have no place in our politics.

Happily, the Catholic League's William Donohue is calling the bloggers and Edwards on this, and the media on its double standards.

Reinhard then proceeds to cherrypick out one-liners from Marcotte and McEwan's blogs hoping to drive home the point that if the shoe were on the other other foot, the establishment media would be calling for the heads of the bloggers and anyone who hired them.

What unadulterated bullshit.

The underlying premise is that Marcotte and McEwan wrote anti-Catholic screeds. Had Reinhard dragged his knuckles out of his cave long enough to do the proper research, he'd know that the writings of these two women about religion and Catholicism have to do with keeping religion out of government and out of the lives of people who don't want it.

Reinhard's hero figure in this tale, William Donohue, has sordid history of intolerant and bigoted commentary. Donohue's goal is to crack down on those who disagree with him by using intimidation and bullying. Reinhard sees this as a happy event.

And the media continue to give Donohue all the face time he can grab.

Marcotte published her recent experience with all of this in Salon. Its interesting reading for those not just looking for a finger to wag. I guess that means liberals and independents.

From high atop his mountain of conservative indignance, I wonder how Reinhard feels about the fact that McEwan and Marcotte have received an onslaught of vicious emails from supporters of Donohue--the least of which using the type of expletives they berate the women for using. The worst of which threaten they and their families with physical harm.

I also wonder if it occurs to him that his back-slapping endorsement of Donohue's bigotry and misogyny turns the stomach of any reader who has bothered to look into this story as a whole.

Posted by Carla at 09:28 AM |

February 15, 2007

How the FDA Lies

Pete Shanks has written a great article on cloned animals being introduced to the food supply. The following excerpt shows why we can't trust the FDA to protect our health (it's because they are liars):

Many clones, especially of cattle, suffer from Large Offspring Syndrome (LOS), meaning they are born at least 20% bigger than usual. LOS is associated with many harmful traits, such as a weak or absent suckle reflex, deformities, poor organ development, increased susceptibility to infection, enlarged heart &/or failure of lungs to inflate. In 12 studies collected by the FDA, 232 of 388 calves had LOS (60%), and 166 died (from Table V-4 on pp. 119-120). LOS does happen without cloning, though only when the embryos have been created in vitro, or the mothers are deliberately fed an experimentally poisonous high-nitrogen diet. The FDA uses this skimpy rationale to claim that "no adverse outcomes have been noted in clones that have not been observed in animals derived via other ARTs or natural mating" (p. 306).

But LOS is still a little-understood and often lethal abnormality that, by the FDA's own report, occurs twice as often in cloned calves as in IVF-produced ones where the embryos are fertilized with sperm -- and rarely if ever after "natural mating." Something is going wrong on a deep genetic level, so wrong that the poor surrogate mothers often have to suffer caesarians and may even die. It is simply not a valid argument to say that we should ignore this problem because other factors can produce it, especially when cloning makes it so much worse.

Every day it seems we are given another reason to go organic - and to get the overbearing noxious corporate influence flushed from our government.

Posted by Becky at 02:47 PM |

Paul Craig Roberts Leaves Me Gasping

In two articles over the past two days, Paul Craig Roberts, outspoken Republican fly-in-the-ointment, is at it again with some very harsh criticism of Bush's War on Terror. In the first, he suggests a worldwide financial attack to end U.S. aggression in the Middle East and thereby save the world from a nuclear holocaust. In the second, he calls for a military coup.

First, Roberts looks at the horrors of nuclear war and depleted uranium munitions. He stresses the dire need for the rest of the world to stop the U.S. from attacking Iran using these weapons, but notes that no realistic military option exists:

Much of the world realizes the hypocrisy and danger in the Bush Regime's justification of the unbridled use of US military power, but no countries except other nuclear powers can challenge American aggression, and then only at the risk of all life on earth.

So what does he recommend? Take a deep breath.

The Bush Regime's ability to wage war is dependent upon foreign financing. The Regime's wars are financed with red ink, which means the hundreds of billions of dollars must be borrowed. As American consumers are spending more than they earn on consumption, the money cannot be borrowed from Americans.

The US is totally dependent upon foreigners to finance its budget and trade deficits. By financing these deficits, foreign governments are complicit in the Bush Regime's military aggressions and war crimes. The Bush Regime's two largest lenders are China and Japan. It is ironic that Japan, the only nation to experience nuclear attack by the US, is banker to the Bush Regime as it prepares a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

If the rest of the world would simply stop purchasing US Treasuries, and instead dump their surplus dollars into the foreign exchange market, the Bush Regime would be overwhelmed with economic crisis and unable to wage war. The arrogant hubris associated with the "sole superpower" myth would burst like the bubble it is.

The collapse of the dollar would also end the US government's ability to subvert other countries by purchasing their leaders to do America's will.

The demise of the US dollar is only a question of time. It would save the world from war and devastation if the dollar is brought to its demise before the Bush Regime launches its planned attack on Iran.

The second article looks at how the high command of the US military is breaking ranks with the Pentagon.

With the "mainstream media," that is, the government's propaganda ministry, bombarding the American public with "news reports" from unidentified sources that the US government has proof that "the highest reaches of the Iranian government" is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency, Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, demurred. General Pace told the Voice of America on February 12 that he has no information indicating that Iran's government is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency.

General Pace said that "Iranians are involved," but "what I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this . . . I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."

Unlike the New York Times, Fox "news," CNN, and the TV networks, General Pace refused to lie for the Bush Regime.

Roberts has a few choice words to say for National Public Radio and the decline in its reliability during the Bush Administration, too.

In case you weren't sufficiently shocked that a Republican was advocating that the rest of the world take us down financially, then consider this: he is also advocating for a military coup.

Perhaps America could regain its reputation if General Pace would send a division of US Marines to arrest Bush, Cheney, the entire civilian contingent in the Pentagon, the neoconservative nazis, and the complicit members of Congress and send them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes. …

Is America any longer a democracy where failed leaders are held to account? Obviously not.

Scary, isn't it? Does he really believe that a military coup would serve to hand the country back over to the very people who apparently don't value the US Constitution sufficiently to take the country back for themselves?

Bush is an ignorant warmonger. He doesn't care who pays the price as long as the American people let him sit in the Oval Office and play Napoleon.

You know, I really do see Roberts's point about saving the world from nuclear disaster by stopping Bush and his aggression. And I understand that Americans are apparently too comfortable and "civilized" to boot Bush and Cheney out on their butts forthwith, along with any Congressperson who supports them. But can you imagine life in America if we had a total financial collapse, followed by a military coup? My god. Can't we just get an impeachment already and avoid this? It would be a whole lot simpler for everyone in the world.

Posted by Becky at 02:37 PM |

Norquist Will Never Run for Office

John W. Mashek, who has covered politics in Washington for four decades with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Boston Globe, and now US News & World Report, has an interesting take on Grover Norquist in the latest issue. Norquist, he says, "can always be counted on for political grandstanding." Mashek points to the no-tax pledge, which Norquist uses to whip the Republicans into line, as well as his penchant for punishing those who stray from his own definition of Republicanism – witness his treatment of Sen. John McCain.

Mashek says he wishes Norquist would run for office himself, "since he is so cocksure of his policies." But he acknowledges that isn't likely to happen.

The truth is that a bully like Norquist wouldn't stand a chance with the mainstream electorate. So he will remain on the sidelines, advising and threatening as required.

I think there's more to it than Norquist's fear of elected office than the knowledge that the mainstream electorate wouldn't support his views. I think he's so dirty he doesn't want to step into the spotlight. As a member of Congress, he couldn't launder money for all his friends, while taking a nice cut for himself. And perhaps his relationship with the Muslim community, including some undue coziness with suspected terrorist supporters, might be scrutinized a little more closely, as well.

Posted by Becky at 11:28 AM |

"Naked Neighbor" Not a "Secular Liberal" Plot

Last night Victoria Taft revealed in perfect clarity for me her inability to think clearly or understand what America is all about. In short, what Victoria doesn't "get" is that cops can't bust someone without evidence that they are breaking a law, even if their behavior is immoral and repulsive. And contrary to her tired assertions, that isn't an indication of a "secular liberal" plot. Even Bill O'Reilley has weighed in on this one - with the same, tired rhetoric.

The subject of her show was a man in the Rainier area who is known as the "Naked Neighbor" because he takes full advantage of Oregon's law on public nudity. Basically, unless someone is involved in sexual pleasuring or arousal, it is perfectly legal to be nude any time anywhere in Oregon. So even though Jimmy "Mack" McKenzie's neighbors have been complaining for decades about his habit of going nude in his front yard, the police have been unable to do anything about it.

Why is this news now, considering it's been going on for so long? Because lately he has taken to stepping out into his front yard in all his natural glory just in time to be spotted by all the children going by on the Rainier school bus. As if that was not bad enough, he also has in the past admitted to molesting a toddler an