« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 »

March 30, 2007

The Devil and Campaign Finance Disclosure

Most of our readers know that I supported Measure 37 and the eminent domain ballot measure last Fall. They will also remember that I was very interested in uncovering the Howard Rich funding scheme that partially paid for those measures, as well as TABOR and Term Limits, which I did not support. Knowing who backed the measures and why was important to me even though it did not necessarily change my position on the measures in the end. The reason was because it allowed me to consider what the primary goal of the measures might actually be. Backers went to great lengths to hide themselves from the public because they did not want the public to understand the libertarian, limited government philosophy behind the measures. They wanted people to respond to a simplified characterization of the measures. The information that people like Hart Williams uncovered about Howard Rich helped to turn the tide in those campaigns. It also angered the libertarians behind the measures. That is why CATO Institute and the Institute for Justice, both strongly linked to Howard Rich, are calling for an end to contribution and expenditure disclosures for ballot measure campaigns.

This pro-corruption position was rejected by voters in several states last year when it was revealed that CATO board member Howie Rich was responsible for what one state judge called "a pervasive and general pattern of fraud" in his attempt to foist an extreme agenda on voters through hidden money and dirty tactics in the ballot initiative process.

Disclosure is the foremost mechanism to ensure honest debate in the field of direct democracy. The lack of contribution limits in ballot measure campaigns allows wealthy individuals and powerful special interests to routinely spend thousands and sometimes millions of dollars to qualify and pass measures.

According to the Institute for Justice (I.J.) report, disclosure in ballot measure campaigns is only supported by the public when it doesn't include disclosure of their own contributions. Moreover, they say the public does not pay attention to the ballot measures, who is behind them, or who is paying for them and do not even know where to access that information. Therefore, they claim, such disclosure serves no good and should not be required. They also argue that while disclosure about contributions to candidates is justified by a desire to prevent corruption, laws are different. When a law is passed, that law will not change its position based on who contributed money to its passage, so no corruption exists that can be prevented by campaign finance disclosure.

This is, of course, a fundamental mischaracterization of the purpose of campaign finance disclosure. It is not just about detecting undue influence. It is about understanding the potential hidden outcomes of electing a particular candidate or measure. When an extremist group is supporting a particular candidate or measure, it naturally raises questions as to whether that candidate or measure will, in some heretofore undetected way, advance the agenda of that extremist group. Necessary information, in my opinion.

To support its call for an end to the rules that expose manipulative crooks like Howard Rich, I.J. conducted a survey in six states (interestingly, they did not include Oregon). They found that:

• More than 56 percent of respondents opposed disclosure when it includes their name, address and contribution amount.

• Opposition rose to more than 71 percent when an employer’s name must be disclosed.

This opposition translates into a lower likelihood of becoming involved in political activity through donations, meaning that mandatory disclosure “chills” citizens’ speech and association:

• A majority of respondents would think twice before donating to a ballot issue campaign if their name, address and contribution amount were disclosed.

• An overwhelming plurality would think twice before donating to a ballot issue campaign if their employer’s name were revealed. When asked why they would think twice, respondents cited, among other things, privacy and safety concerns, fear of retribution, and the revelation of their secret vote.

In Oregon, aggregate contributions up to $50 per person are not disclosed publicly. Personally, I think this should be increased to $500 per person. Contributions of that size are not the significant ones that affect people's opinions of a measure and I see no valid reason to disclose them. The contributions that really matter to the public are those of $5,000 or more.

In any case, the assertion that public disclosure of small contributions is somehow impeding giving is absurd, at least in Oregon. Our political tax credit makes a contribution of up to $50 per person both non-disclosed and "free" – that is, you will pay that money one way or the other anyway, so you can choose whether to pay it to the State or pay it to the political campaign of your choice. This is quite a good incentive to get people to make their $50 contribution, which is about all most people will make anyway. And it never gets reported to anyone other than the recipient campaign. Perhaps this is why I.J. didn't survey Oregonians. We're so smart we've solved the problem.

I.J. also asserts that all that disclosure information is useless to voters:

Not only are there serious costs associated with disclosure, it’s a regulation devoid of the benefits typically touted by proponents, namely “better,” more informed voters:

• A little more than a third of respondents knew where to access lists of campaign contributors or took the time to read such information before voting. Therefore, citizens appear to know nothing about a law they strongly support and appear uninterested in accessing the information it produces.

"A little more than a third" is "nothing"? I think anyone who has ever been involved in political campaigns will realize that if you have more than a third of voters interested in who is backing a campaign and knowing where to find that information, then that information will significantly impact the outcome of the election.

And it did, in fact, affect the outcome in Oregon. It used to be that based on pre-campaign polling of the ballot title itself, one could forecast whether a measure would pass or fail, and even by how much. In other words, campaigns made very little difference unless they were very significant. But Oregonians have wised up since Bill Sizemore came on the scene and now they are paying more attention to the issues on their ballots. A campaign can have a huge impact on the outcome of a measure. Backers of TABOR and term limits in Oregon were shocked at what happened in the polls when voters began to learn about who was behind the measures. That is something that Howard Rich simply cannot allow to continue. Hence, CATO and I.J. are proposing significant change:

Instead, we propose a system of voluntary disclosure in which campaigns and contributors weigh the costs and benefits of disclosing key information. In this way, campaigns and citizens retain their rights to free speech and association without onerous government intervention—and without the invasion of privacy that comes from the government posting personal information on the Internet as a condition of political participation.

I call bullshit!

I.J. goes to great lengths to discuss in its report why requiring contribution and expenditure disclosure for ballot measures is at least unnecessary, if not downright bad. They throw out the old complaint about how difficult and expensive it is to comply with the law. It is "burdensome" because the group has to "register with the government." It sounds much worse than it actually is. In Oregon, this means filing a simple form with basic information such as who you are and what ballot issue or candidate you intend to support or oppose.

Then, I.J. complains, you must have a separate bank account for campaign contributions and expenditures. The horrors! Can you imagine how nightmarish it would be to track contributions and expenditures for a campaign when you have a dedicated bank account for it? Oh, wait a minute. That actually makes it easier.

Next is the very difficult task of determining what portion of salaries, benefits and overhead were used in support or opposition to that ballot issue or candidate. I would suggest that if employees clock in and out when they're working on political campaigns, then the salaries and benefits part is a piece of cake. Determining the rest of the overhead can be confusing, but if you make a reasonable effort to determine the percentage of your time spent pursuing the campaign, you can pretty much conclude that percentage of your overhead costs should be allocated to the campaign and paid directly by the campaign. For instance, if you are spending a fourth of your time as an organization on political activity, and you have an electric bill of $100, you should send the electric company two checks – one for $75 from your main organization and one for $25 from your separate political account. A separate phone line for political activities is preferable, but if the lines are shared you can still pay proportionally for the basic service and separate out long distance calls. It simply takes having the will to do it. Having been through the wringer on this issue, I believe this approach should be easy to defend if challenged by an opponent.

And, as I.J. notes in its crybaby report, if a group decides to be involved in a political campaign, it will have those hideous campaign finance reports to file. If the small group is only minimally involved in the election, as implied by I.J., these reports will be extremely basic. The Oregon Secretary of State is no more interested in meaningless minutia than the public and requires very little of bit players. If the reports are complex, that indicates the group's involvement is also rather large, in which case they can certainly afford to hire someone who will be capable of filing the reports. The lion's share of a campaign finance report in Oregon simply requires regularly inputting the data – that is, entering the contribution information as money is received and entering the expenditures as they are made. When it is time to file the report, it is simply a matter of asking the program to print it out for you. Loans, in-kind contributions, and outstanding debts add a bit of complexity to the process, but nothing that can't be understood by someone with a bookkeeping background. Heck, I'm lousy with bookkeeping and I understood it.

(I am assuming here that the bugs have been worked out in campaign finance software. When I was doing these reports, the program we used routinely "lost" information and drove us crazy. As I understand it, things are better now.)

Finally, I.J. claims that the organization will have to disclose its entire donor list to the government. That is patently absurd. If the organization has set up a separate bank account for its political effort, as I.J. acknowledges it must, then it must only disclose those contributors who have donated to the effort. Its organizational donor list is entirely safe from disclosure.

Knowing who is behind a ballot measure campaign is essential to understanding the implications of passing a measure. In the case of the 2006 set of ballot measures, that information did not change my mind, but knowing the motivation of supporters and opponents helped me understand the facts of the measures and lessened the likelihood I would be conned into believing something that was not true. If I was going to be dancing with the devil, at least I was allowed to know it.

------------UPDATE------------

Check out Paul Jacob's opinion piece on the I.J. study. Jacob worked hand-in-hand with Howard Rich in last year's initiative campaigns and was personally involved in the organization's less-than-savory activities.

Posted by Becky at 11:14 AM |

March 29, 2007

OR SB400 and small cities

I'll state upfront that I haven't personally researched any of this. I simply haven't had the time. So I'm just going to relay what I was told.

I don't know if I've mentioned this before or not but I was recently appointed to the Forest Grove Historic Landmarks Board. Tuesday was our regular monthly meeting and our City Council Liason, who is a member of the City Council, sat in on the meeting. Near the end of the meeting the Chairman asked her to give us a report on what's happening within the Council. So she told us about a couple of hot issues, one of them being SB400.

SB400 is a piece of legislation dealing with the collective bargaining rights of police and fire unions. One portion of it would apparently alter the decades-long method by which appropriate staffing levels are determined.

At present, staffing levels are determined primarily by OSHA with the local police and fire chiefs having input on the final decision. This has historically enabled the local governmental entity to have some measure of control over the issue, which is important since those local police and fire employees are paid out of local coffers.

What SB400 would do is take that decision away from both OSHA and the local police/fire chiefs and give it to the unions via collective bargaining authority.

Where this gets interesting is right here in Forest Grove. This last November the city put a levy on the ballot specifically for both police and fire dept. funding. That levy failed and faced with the choice between laying off personell or going into bankruptcy the city took the only fiscally prudent path and trimmed both the police and fire staffing, which the city has made extremely clear was NOT what they wanted to have to do.

According to this Counciler the city is gravely concerned about this provision of SB400 because it could literally force the city into bankruptcy if a future levy fails like this recent one did.

Posted by Kevin at 12:52 PM |

The BushCo philosophy in a nutshell

From today's NYT article on Attorney General Gonzales' meeting with U.S. Attorneys in Chicago:

In Chicago, some prosecutors accused Mr. Gonzales’s subordinates of operating as if the prosecutors were an obstacle to be side-stepped instead of a resource to be tapped in developing departmental policy, one person said.

That sums up BushCo's philosophy on virtually everything. Can't get the intel you want on WMD? Have Rummy et al create a special "intelligence" organization to supply heavily spun "intel." Having problems with international allies? Us a recess appointment to put in a henchman who has long been openly contemptuous of the UN. The list goes on and on.

Posted by Kevin at 12:43 PM |

Chocolate Easter Jesus

Cosimo Cavallaro's latest artistic food creation begs for a humorous and thought-provoking look at the reason for the Easter season. His 6-foot-tall, 200 pound, 480,000 calorie chocolate Jesus, which he has titled "My Sweet Lord," is certainly sparking a variety of reactions from the public. Some find it funny, some are offended, and some find it insightful. I happen to fall into the latter category.

My thoughts run to the commercialization of Easter – the chocolate bunnies, etc. that have come to dominate the holiday, and the angst among Christians that what they see as the true meaning of the holiday has been forgotten. That meaning, of course, is the Resurrection of Jesus. Only rarely do Christians acknowledge that like Christmas, the holiday is a mixture of pagan and Christian traditions. For those who focus on the Resurrection, yearly plays and processions, early morning worship services, special meals that include lamb, etc. form a traditional religious celebration. As I see it, the chocolate Jesus symbolizes the commercialization of the Christian tradition that occurs when such traditions become capitalist ventures devoid of meaning.

Others, of course, see something else:

Looking at the Lord, viewers may be moved to muse about their own mortality: Death by chocolate? Hypertension? Or atherosclerosis? Perhaps Cavallaro's intention is to warn the overzealous that when it comes to faith or food -- be it Christ or Cadbury -- indulgence should be avoided at all costs. Or maybe it's simply for shock value -- he wants us to stand there and salivate while suppressing the temptation to nibble on Christ's toes.

The chocolate Jesus is not only thought-provoking, it is also well-done. Most definitely, it qualifies as art.

Posted by Becky at 11:39 AM |

Of obfuscation and centrism

There's scuttle brewing in the rightosphere over Senator Dianne Feinstein's resignation from a Military Construction Appropriations Committee due to potential conflict of interest.

Whether or not the story is legitimate, I'm unaware. If Feinstein is dabbling in corruption then she should be treated like any other bad apple--investigate her and toss her ass out if need be.

But the money quote in the blog piece shows how out of whack the righty blogs are:

This is genuine news. Political corruption on a scale as big as Duke Cunningham, and the mainstream press is worried about 8 US attorneys losing their jobs in a completely legal hard-ball political axing-session.

Dumping select US attornies who wouldn't play political ball with the President isn't okay. Anybody with two scruples to rub together knows this. Its a Nixonesque impeachable offense of one of the higher degrees.

Trying to obfuscate and justify by tossing out charges against Feinstein shows just how lacking in moral courage these toadies really are.

And speaking of toadies, I was derided by readers of Q and O awhile back for calling out one of their bloggers who groused about "anti-war" agendas--as if that's a bad thing.

The crux of the complaints rested upon the notion that the blog itself is a champion of "centrist" ideas and that the writer in question had criticized Bush on torture, thus making him a centrist.

I happened to click over their way this morning, the same author babbling about such nonsense as this Feinstein stuff (and apparently got the same memo as the other righty blogs--because he's using the Gonzales/US attornies defense).

There may be some people out there who can legitimately say that they are in the constantly shifting political center. I haven't met them yet--but its a possibility that they're out there. This blog and this author aren't it. Not even close.

Posted by Carla at 08:16 AM |

March 28, 2007

Dobson Values Words Over Actions

James Dobson doesn't like Sen. Fred Thompson as a presidential candidate because, he says, Thompson isn't a Christian. Loudly-professed and newly-reborn Christian Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is clearly Dobson's favorite in the race. I have to admit I just don't get this. I would have thought the family values guy himself, James Dobson, would be far more concerned about a candidate's actual family values, as exhibited through actual behavior, than he would be about a candidate's professed beliefs (it is all too easy for a politician to say the right thing, but one's actions reveal the truth of the words spoken). In the family values category, Thompson outshines Gingrich hands down.

"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.

Well, yeah, now that you've basically told Christians not to support the guy.

Here is the sad part, though. Thompson actually is a Christian – baptized, even. Unlike Gingrich, though, he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. He just lives lives it. As Dobson's spokesperson, Gary Schneeberger, says, the problem with Thompson is that he isn't "someone who talks openly about his faith." And, like Mitt Romney, who is Mormon, Thompson isn't the right kind of Christian.

"We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added.

Thompson is a member of the Church of Christ.

Maybe Dobson has a problem that is, unfortunately, too common amongst Christians: being too ready to succumb to the wiles of a crook who is a smooth talker. Dobson himself characterized Gingrich as "the most articulate politician on the scene today." And it was on Dobson's show a couple of weeks ago that Gingrich confessed about the extra-marital affair he had during the time he was pursuing an impeachment of President Clinton (and talked about spending time on his knees and all that great-sounding stuff). Maybe all that articulate baring of the soul wiped out Dobson's common sense.

Of course, that wouldn't explain Dobson's endorsement of George W. Bush back in 2004, now would it?

Posted by Becky at 03:48 PM |

Flying Imams Sue Citizens Who Reported Them

We had quite a debate here awhile back over the treatment of the "flying imams," and now they are back in the news – this time because they are suing the passengers who reported them to investigators. They say their lawsuit is focused on the airline, but they've included several "John Does" in their lawsuit, people who were concerned about what they had seen and who did what the President had told them to do and reported what they viewed as suspicious activity. If their concerns had been justified, they would be heroes. But because the imams were not found to be doing anything wrong, these people are being sued. If successful, the imams will succeed in making people fearful of reporting things that make them uncomfortable.

As a result of this lawsuit, House Republicans proposed, and the House overwhelmingly agreed, to send the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee to add language that would prevent such lawsuits. I know someone is going to argue, as some House Democrats are, that people shouldn't report things based on their own prejudices, but really, doesn't that set a pretty high bar for people who lack sophistication in such matters? Shouldn't the appropriateness of the concerns be judged by authorities who have a bit more understanding of the law and the issues? Is it really fair to expect everyday citizens to understand these issues? Or to assume we can prove someone's motivations for filing a complaint? I think not.

Posted by Becky at 10:42 AM |

Bravo for Burger King

I've thought for some time that Burger King was head and shoulders above the fast food pack in terms of quality of the food, and now I really like BK. The company has bowed to pressure from animal welfare advocates and decided that it will start buying meat and eggs from suppliers who don't confine animals in cages and crates and will favor chicken suppliers that use more humane methods for slaughtering the birds.

Granted, not all of the meat and eggs Burger King buys will be "cage free," but the company says it will increase its purchases from these suppliers as quantities are increasingly available. The cost is higher for these foods, but I, for one, will happily pay more to support progress in the movement toward more humane treatment of animals being raised for food. The tide has turned in this movement, and it is in large part thanks to people like the Humane Society and PETA, who have worked tirelessly to put an end to the rampant, heartless treatment of living creatures.

Last week, the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck announced that the meat and eggs he used would come from animals raised under strict animal welfare codes.

And in January, the world’s largest pork processor, Smithfield Foods, said it would phase out confinement of pigs in metal crates over the next decade.

Some city and state governments have banned restaurants from serving foie gras and have prohibited farmers from confining veal calves and pigs in crates.

It is important to encourage companies that are willing to take steps in the right direction, even if they don't quite go to the lengths we would wish. In time, I believe they will. So for now, reward them with your business and let them know they are doing the right thing.

Posted by Becky at 10:30 AM |

Reality of Hell Defies Logic

The Pope says that Hell is a real place and sinners really do burn forever. He said if people don't "admit blame and promise to sin no more" they face "eternal damnation - the inferno". That is a bit of a different take on Hell than that of the previous Pope, who said it was "the ultimate consequence of sin itself. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy". Wouldn't you think that on the matter of the reality of Hell, at least, there would be some consistency between popes?

Frankly, I have a hard time understanding how anyone who believes in a good God can at the same time believe in a literal, eternal, burning Hell. Such punishment is far outside the realm of what would be characteristic of a loving and good being. I would go so far as to say if it was real and God would put me there I'm stubborn enough that I'd probably sooner burn in Hell forever than bow to such a monster. And I dare say that seeing as how I was born stubborn, God is the one who made me that way, so if he would burn me forever for being what he made me to be, that is the height of unfairness (which is also, by the way, why I can't be critical of homosexuals).

Posted by Becky at 10:18 AM |

March 27, 2007

Republicans Should Be Angry with Sizemore

The Oregon Legislature is taking steps to water down the "double-majority" law that requires voter turn-out to surpass 50% before any property tax increases the voters pass can be enacted (except in a General election). Though I support the "double-majority," I have engaged in arguments with opponents enough times to realize it is a pointless debate. I can't convince you and you can't convince me. And frankly, the debate of the issue isn't why I'm writing this post. I'm writing it because I was fascinated by what Lynn Lundquist had to say about it (Lundquist was the House speaker when Measure 50 was passed out to voters). His statement makes it very clear why Republicans should be very angry with Sizemore for engaging in the activity that brought him down.

"I can tell you that Sizemore was king then," Lundquist said. "I made the decision that we were going to go along with what Mr. Sizemore wanted, as far as this item was concerned, in what we passed out as Measure 50. It wasn't that we agreed with him. The fact was that we were being pragmatic."

My enduring anger with Sizemore stems from many things all mixed together – disgust about his lying, his having pulled me (and many other women) into a situation I was too naïve and inexperienced to appropriately handle, and his repeated finger-pointing at me and refusal to take blame for his own decisions. But probably the thing that most angered me for a long time was the lost opportunity. Sizemore for a good deal of time had at his fingertips an incredible opportunity to make great strides forward for the conservative movement. He had the beginnings of a broad grassroots organization, money, talent, name recognition, and power. And he completely blew it because he could not play straight.

Republicans ought to keep that in mind. Many of them, particularly Ted Piccolo and his readers over at NW Republican have pointed at me as the bad guy in this whole mess. In fact, I have no doubt that some blogger out there will again claim that I have a never-ending chip on my shoulder and ought to just get over it because I am writing this post. But I remind all conservatives out there who are angry with me that I was never the "king." I did not lure Sizemore down the path of money laundering, falsifying tax returns, circumventing campaign finance law, and pocket lining. He did that all on his own. And the result was that the conservative movement that Republicans claim to care so much about took a very hard hit. The golden opportunity slipped away. And now many of the small gains made – including the double-majority – are being lost.

Posted by Becky at 12:03 PM |

Gonzales Ship Sinking Fast

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is on a ship with more than one big hole in it, and it seems he is sinking fast. One of the holes taking him down is his failure to prosecute officers of the Texas Youth Commission despite "more than 1,200" complaints and knowledge that "dozens" of guards and administrators were sexually abusing juvenile inmates, including routinely waking them up at night for all-night sex parties.

Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski presented his findings to Gonzales back in 2005, but Gonzales declined to prosecute. So did other officials Burzynski contacted. At least eventually they did. Originally they prepared indictments, but after hearing from Washington, they declined to prosecute, despite full acknowledgement that the activity was, indeed, occurring. The general consensus was that since the boys may have willingly participated, and none of the boys reported having experienced "pain" during the "assaults" (yes, that was the word prosecutors used), and since they did not apparently "resist" or "object," the boys did not experience the sort of "bodily injury" or "victimization" that the law required; therefore, no laws were broken. Never mind that officials lengthened some of the boys' sentences in order to keep them available for the sex parties.

Why would the Administration help to cover up this mess and make it go away, you might wonder? Because the case occurred right in the middle of Republican Governor Perry's re-election campaign. Meanwhile, prosecutors kept busy "actively pursuing minor voter fraud issues."

The scandal in Texas, and its cover-up in Washington, is so outrageous it almost cannot be believed.

Emerging evidence suggests the scandal was systematic and statewide, perpetrated by a criminal conspiracy of staff employees. Texas authorities are investigating allegations that pedophiles on the TYC staff conspired to recruit and hire other pedophiles to engage in criminal acts of forced sex with the minor inmates. … TYC management and staff personnel were hired despite prior records of felony offenses or previous sexual misconduct.

It is a real shame that abuse of young boys is often treated differently than abuse of young girls. We tend to assume that they are enjoying it and are not harmed by it in the same way that girls are. I am personally very close to a male victim of a female teacher and know that assumption is absolutely false. And Burzynski says in the case of these juvenile victims of sexual abuse, the boys were not willing participants.

"When I interviewed the victims in this case, I saw kids with fear in their eyes, kids who knew they were trapped in an institution where the system would not respond to their cries for help," he said.

Burzynski promised the boys he would do everything he could to see justice done. Thanks to Gonzales, however, that justice has yet to be meted out.

Posted by Becky at 09:48 AM |

Evangelical Leaders Reveal Their Partisanship

Evangelical voters between now and November 2008 will be told it is time for a shift in their priorities from abortion and gay rights to a new crusade: defeating Islamic radicals. If Mitt Romney is telling the truth about the priorities of evangelical leaders, following a closed-door meeting with them, they are most concerned about winning against the Islamic jihad. Or at least, that's what they are saying.

Such a change would turn the conventional wisdom about the 2008 GOP presidential primary on its head. No longer would front-runners Arizona Sen. John McCain and ex-New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani find their moderate (or inconsistent) records on abortion or gay rights a looming liability. Under a "terror values" rubric, both could win over evangelicals with their tough-on-terrorism credentials.

It would also allow Giuliani and Newt Gingrich to sidestep the awkward family values questions that otherwise would confront them in their quest for the evangelical vote.

Romney, meanwhile — who's been courting the Christian right most fervently — would suffer from his lack of experience with national defense and international issues. Same goes for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, current darling of the right.

Did you have any lingering doubts as to the legitimacy of the religious fervor of evangelical leaders? More than anything, this switch should tell you that they are part of the Republican machine. And that machine wants an insider like Giuliani or Gingrich or maybe McCain in the White House, and not Romney or Huckabee. They know they've got to find a way to overcome the morality baggage of their preferred candidates so they can bring the Christian right along. What better way than to get Evangelical leaders to change the entire debate? Forget morality and Christian values in a candidate – we have to defeat those Muslims who want to kill all Christians! We have to win the war for Christ!

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, holds a similar opinion. "This is a fundamental clash of world views," Perkins said after he and other Christian-right activists met with McCain at the NRB convention. "More than any other segment of the American population, the evangelical movement understands that because they operate from a biblically-centered worldview."

Many evangelicals take few pains to distinguish between Islam's mainstream and its fringes. Some view our war on terror as the latest in a series of battles that started in the 7th century (when Muslim caliphs conquered Christian North Africa) and includes the Crusades for the Holy Land. Even today, the mistreatment and, in some cases, outright persecution of Christian "remnant" communities in predominantly Muslim countries such as Egypt, Syria and Sudan is a mainstay of Christian broadcasts and mega-church sermons.

With evangelicals holding to a worldview like that, this political strategy is virtually guaranteed to work for the Republicans. And the evangelical leaders are playing their partisan roles to perfection.

This month, Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson has devoted five episodes of his hugely popular daily radio program to the subject of Islamic radicalism. Through a spokesman, Dobson said that terrorism isn't yet on par with abortion and same-sex marriage as a values issue — but that it will be if there's another terrorist attack on the United States.

With all the questions surrounding 9/11 and which Republicans knew what, when, statements like that from Republican leaders (and that is what these people are) send chills down my spine.

Posted by Becky at 09:07 AM |

March 26, 2007

Bible Instruction in High School Classrooms

Now this is the sort of religious education I think belongs in the classroom: at New Braunfels High School in Texas, students are being offered the option of taking a Bible literacy class. Considering the influence of the Bible on American culture and history, I think this is a fabulous idea.

One of the primary reasons I like it is because little annoys me more than having a debate with someone over religion when they know absolutely nothing about it - but act as if they do. As one of the students in the class (an atheist) said, "If somebody is going to carry on a sophisticated conversation with me, I would rather know what they're talking about than look like a moron or fight my way through it." I tend to agree with the point of view of those who argue thus:

[T]eaching the Bible in schools--as an object of study, not God's received word--is eminently constitutional. The Bible so pervades Western culture … that it's hard to call anyone educated who hasn't at least given thought to its key passages.

Time magazine looks at the question of whether such instruction is constitutional:

[T]he most eloquent language preserving the neutral study of religion was probably Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in the 1948 case McCollum v. Board of Education: "One can hardly respect the system of education that would leave the student wholly ignorant of the currents of religious thought that move the world society for ... which he is being prepared," Jackson wrote, and warned that putting all references to God off limits would leave public education "in shreds." In the 1963 Schempp decision, the exemption for secular study of Scripture was explicit and in the majority opinion: "Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment," wrote Justice Tom C. Clark. Justice Arthur Goldberg contributed a helpful distinction between "the teaching of religion" (bad) and "teaching about religion" (good). Citing these and subsequent cases, Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says, "It is beyond question that it is possible to teach a course about the Bible that is constitutional." For over a decade, he says, any legal challenges to school Bible courses have focused not on the general principle but on whether the course in question was sufficiently neutral in its approach.

Those who have studied literature know the Bible has had a great influence on it, but the Bible's influence on history is often less recognized. Many speeches and references by historical leaders are understood on a much deeper level if one is familiar with the biblical bases for them. For instance:

"The shining city on the hill"? That's Puritan leader John Winthrop quoting Matthew to describe his settlement's convenantal standing with God. In his Second Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln noted sadly that both sides in the Civil War "read the same Bible" to bolster their opposing claims. When Martin Luther King Jr. talked of "Justice rolling down like waters" in his "I Have a Dream" speech, he was consciously enlisting the Old Testament prophet Amos, who first spoke those words. The Bible provided the argot--and theological underpinnings--of women's suffrage and prison-reform movements.

It even matters in current politics. Several have noticed the frequent use of biblical "code" words, phrases and concepts throughout George W. Bush's speeches, sending a special message to Christians to engender their trust. Others rely on biblical references to make points about his presidency. Would it not be useful to be able to recognize and understand those rhetorical devices? Heck, Bible-inspired rhetoric is even spread lavishly throughout rock music. Take, for instance, Frank Zappa's "the meek shall inherit the earth." This guy wrote an entire thesis on the biblical references in Bob Dylan songs. Recognizing and understanding them adds layers of meaning.

I'm certainly not opposed to teaching about other world religions, too, particularly Islam in the current times, but Christianity and Judaism have been most influential on American history, literature, art, music, language, and politics. I'm not saying this course can always be taught without conflict or difficulty, but with the right curriculum and a teacher who is committed to the focus of the course, I think it would be a great addition to a well-rounded education.

"Bad courses will be taught," predicts Prothero… "People will teach it as a Sunday-school class. And we'll do what we always do when unconstitutional stuff happens in America. We'll get a court to tell us what to do, and then we'll fix it."

Some parents may be concerned about the subject altogether. Heck, some parents are concerned about sex ed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach it. In this case, I think the best option is to make it an elective, so that only kids who obtain their parents' permission may take the course. And teachers should be well-versed in their constitutional obligations.

Posted by Becky at 06:23 PM |

Child Support, Shaming and Scofflaws

Customers at some suburban pizza parlors are getting something extra with their pepperoni and mushrooms — wanted posters for parents accused of failing to pay child support. - Cincinnati

Without even looking I know that more than likely there are feminists out there blogging in support of this idea. But I have a different take on it.

I've been on both sides of the custodial/noncustodial divide. In fact my first exwife has been running from the law for the last several years to avoid having to pay child support for our daughter.

This is the same exwife who for a period of about a year or so denied me any access to our daughter and I was powerless to do anything about it because I couldn't afford to retain a family law attorney, much less pay for the actual fees that would have been incurred. But you can bet your sweet bottom dollar that she stayed on top of whether I was paying child support, though.

The fact of the matter is that Big Brother is only involved in support enforcement as a way to reduce welfare and food stamp costs. It's not about the child. It's about $$$.

My helper at work has been paying child support for a daughter that he hasn't seen in nearly a decade. His ex doesn't want him to have access but she does make sure that each time she is eligible to have the support amount increased she sees to it that she does whatever necessary to initiate the process and follows through on it.

I've worked with other fathers with similar stories - fighting both their ex and the legal system.

It's a highly inequitable system and one which cares nothing about any of those involved. It exists solely for fiscal reasons.

Posted by Kevin at 12:44 PM |

Playing with Tax Statistics

I noticed yesterday that the Drudge Report had a link to a new study showing a vast difference between the benefits the poor get from government and the benefits the rich get. The link gave the impression that for every $8.21 a poor person gets, a rich person only gets $0.41. In actuality, the study found that for every dollar a poor person pays, he gets $8.21 back in services, and for every dollar a rich person pays, he gets $0.41 back. The difference between these two implications is tremendous. But either way, the study's real message is how unfair it is that the rich in this country have to share their wealth with the rest of us.

Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.

This is all very interesting when you consider who makes up the Board of Directors of the Tax Foundation, which produced the study. Bill Archer, now a Senior Advisor to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, was formerly a Republican Congressman from Texas, replacing George H.W. Bush when he became Vice President, and served as the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Wayne Gable is Managing Director of Federal Affairs at Koch Industries and President of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, as well as a director for Citizens for a Sound Economy. The Kochs and their foundations are thought to be the source of the funding for last year's multi-state initiative efforts by Howard Rich. R. Glenn Hubbard, Dean of the School of Business at Columbia University, and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was thought to be one of the top three possible replacements for Alan Greenspan. He was head of the Council of Economic Advisors under George W. Bush, is a free market economist, and has always been very supportive of Bush's economic policies. He also served six years as a Visiting Scholar for the American Enterprise Institute. James W. Lintott, Chairman of Sterling Foundation Management LLC, has been until recently associated solely with wealthy, private foundations. Joseph O. Luby, Jr. is Assistant General Tax Counsel in the Tax Department of Exxon Mobil Corporation. He is also a member of the Board of Directors for the Tax Council Policy Institute, a corporate run think tank. It doesn't take a genius to figure out these guys aren't particularly concerned about the poor in America – but they are very concerned about the rich and are politically well-connected.

Now, I am not a mathematical wizard, so I would urge those of you who are to correct me if I am wrong or maybe even point out things I have missed here. But I'm having trouble reconciling the numbers in the study. First, the study divides America into quintiles of households, with approximately 58 million households in each quintile. It then says the bottom quintile pays an average of $8,651 in federal, state and local taxes and the top quintile pays an average of $163,866 in taxes. At the same time, however, it says the total federal, state and local taxes collected is $3.5 trillion which, if you divide it over 291 million households is $12,027, but the average per household benefits from these taxes, it says, are 31,107. So either I can't read numbers or we're doing an awful lot of borrowing.

That aside, let's go with their figures and see what the per household benefit is for a poor person as opposed to a rich person in this country, based on the poor person receiving back $8.21 in benefits for every dollar paid and the rich person receiving back $0.41 in benefits for every dollar paid.

The poor pay an average $8,651 in taxes X $8.21 = $71,024 in benefits
The rich pay an average $163,866 in taxes X $0.41 = $67,185 in benefits

I will note that where the study breaks these figures down it shows the difference between rich and poor in terms of amounts they receive being about the same, but the total amounts each receives are much lower. I will say right up front that for the life of me I can't figure out how they arrived at their numbers, but considering the rich never collect on unemployment or food stamps or any of the other items that make up the social safety net in this country, I don't think a disparity of about $4,000 a year is all that bad. But then, I'm not a really rich person.

You can read the full study here. I'd love to hear what you think about it.

Posted by Becky at 08:56 AM |

March 25, 2007

Can You Say Soylent Green?

Scientists for the past four years have been busy at work developing sheep that will grow human organs for transplant. Under the direction of Professor Esmail Zanjani, of the University of Nevada in Reno, the first animal-human chimeras are now a reality. Fully 15% of the cells in the sheep's bodies are human and its organs are half human. I don't know about you, but this development makes my skin crawl

I can certainly understand the motivation. Dr. Zanjani believes that by using a particular human's own stem cells he will in the not-too-distant future be able to grow a perfectly matched human organ for them inside a sheep – a life-saving miracle for thousands of people a year. No more waiting on a transplant list for an organ donor. Your wait will be the amount of time it takes to transplant stem cells from your bone marrow into a sheep fetus, then wait for it to be born. By the time it is two months old, its liver, heart, and lungs will be ready to transplant. But here is the really icky part for me: so will its brain.

Can you imagine life as a semi-human brain stuck inside a lamb's body? It's just wrong. And not only will you have this very weird situation for a couple of months of life, but multiple animals would be prepared for each recipient in this way to ensure back-up organs in the event that one fails. What would happen to the remaining partially human brains trapped in a lamb's body? Call me paranoid, but I'm haunted by the possibility that we could end up sending the semi-human lambs to the slaughterhouse for human consumption.

Posted by Becky at 06:15 PM |

The "Cult" of Clean Feet

Somehow I managed to miss this remarkable example of Christian persecution taking place at Savannah State University in Georgia. A lot of "Christian persecution" cases are over-reactions, such as the Heritage High case in Vancouver, WA. But this SSU case appears to be so outrageous that I'm quite frankly stunned.

The case revolves around a Christian ministry student group on the campus called Commissioned II Love (C2L), which advocates pure Christian living and service. It encourages its members not to join sororities and fraternities because the groups tend to promote excessive alcohol consumption and pre-marital sex (any former college student can attest to the factual basis for this concern). And every year at a retreat, the older C2L members wash the feet of new members as a symbol of service, modeled after Jesus's washing of his disciples' feet (something that in that time was only done by lowly servants – making it a profound statement on Jesus's part). Though not all Christians partake in this ceremony, it isn't unusual. Seventh-Day Adventists do it regularly as part of their communion services, and growing up I participated in this ritual countless times.

Unfortunately, a fraternity member who was offended by the Christian group's anti-Greek stance decided to set them up for a fall. He attended the retreat and voluntarily had his feet washed and washed others' feet. Then he started disputing the group's beliefs and members responded – verbally – to his provocation, telling him he needed to be "saved." He then reported to school authorities and the police that the group's beliefs were exclusionary and their activities "cult-like." Moreover, he charged, the footwashing ceremony was a form of "hazing." Amazingly, the school administration suspended the group's activities and then, when some of its members attended an off-campus Christian music event, expelled the group from campus for violating the suspension.

I have sincerely looked for the "other side" of this story to see if facts exist, as they do in the Heritage High case, that would make more sense of it, but I have not found anything.

You can read the complaint by the Christian group here (it is a .pdf file) and their attorney's comments here. Noteworthy in the complaint is the allegation that cult-like practices included baptisms and foot washing. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't add communion to the list. This blogger really puts it into perspective:

Paddling, force-feeding alcoholic beverages, requiring new members to perform chores and humiliating tasks, members voluntarily washing a new member's feet in accordance with Scripture; what do all of these activities have in common? According to Savannah State University, all of the aforementioned activities are considered "hazing" and deserving of the most severe sanctions.

It's clearly ridiculous on its face.

Posted by Becky at 01:16 PM |

March 24, 2007

Leave Sacred Texts Alone

Two new articles remind me of something that has bothered me for a long time. The first one is about how PETA is portraying Jesus at the Last Supper as a vegetarian, and the second one is about a woman who has just finished a feminist version of the Koran. The common thread is the changing of a sacred text to suit a particular point of view. It is a far cry from revisions made to other old stories, such as the hilarious Politically Correct Bedtime Stories, because people who believe in the sacred texts are very offended by the revisions. In their eyes, these revisions are changing something that they believe is the immutable, unchangeable word of God and thereby telling God he was wrong. It simply isn't funny and whatever message they might wish to express could be better and more effectively expressed without adding the baggage of insults of the religious world and their God.

Posted by Becky at 11:58 AM |

March 23, 2007

Fur Defender Says Animal Pain Doesn't Matter

Brendan O'Neill doesn't understand the fuss about fur. "If it's okay to eat animals, hunt animals, keep animals as pets, and wear the hides of animals in the form of leather jackets and leather shoes, why is not okay to wear animals' fur too?" Good question. Maybe I can help.

The more extreme anti-fur activists also tend to be vegan and some go so far as to oppose the "owning" of pets. Some of us, however, are more mainstream in our thinking and yet still draw the line at fur. The reason is that animals raised for fur tend to be subjected to far worse living conditions than animals raised for meat and tend to be killed in far worse ways than animals raised for meat. Much of our fur today comes from countries like China where our "civilized" animal protection laws don't exist. Meanwhile, our meat is mostly raised under American laws. Additionally, you have to consider the waste factor. Animals raised for fur are skinned and their bodies thrown away. We don't need anything from them to survive – they die solely for our luxury. Animals raised for meat, on the other hand, are used in their entirety and provide food for us. Their skins are turned into leather and their bones and other byproducts of the meat industry become pet food and a whole lot of other things.

O'Neill thinks the problem is people don't like the notion of "man's domination of nature and beast." That's not the problem I have with fur, but maybe others do. Anyway, I think the more interesting question is not why people oppose fur, but the crazy justification people give for supporting the fur industry. See if you can stomach O'Neill's point of view:

The anti-fur movement is motivated by a base and childish anthropomorphism; by a belief that animals have similar feelings to humans and thus should be protected from the pain and distress caused by the fur industry. …

In fact it is not at all clear that animals feel pain in anything like the same way that humans do. …

So while my response and the bunny rabbit's response to being chased by a knife-wielding man might look similar - both of us would run like the wind, and possibly scream - they could not be more different. My consciousness means I would experience it as painful and chilling, whereas the bunny is motivated only by a base instinct for survival bestowed upon it by the evolutionary process. It is cheap and crass to compare animal experience with human experience, and to call for equal treatment of beast and man. …

The notion that we have no right to experiment on animals, or to eat them, or to keep them in cages, or to wear their fur - notions that are increasingly indulged in mainstream debate as well as on the fur-hating fringes - represents a direct assault on the very basis of human civilisation. Civilisation is built upon the idea that we are morally superior to animals, and it was only through the subjugation of animals that civilisation could emerge and flourish. …

[A]nimalists cannot see that our use of animals is fundamentally humane: we "imprison" pigs and other animals in order to liberate large sections of mankind from hunger and need; we put monkeys in cages in order to develop our understanding of medicine and thus improve and save millions of human lives.

And yes, even fur is humane. To turn an animal into a fur coat is to ennoble it. As a fashion item, an animal acquires significance far beyond its own natural existence. Indeed, the only true "purpose" in the life of a mink or rabbit is that bestowed on it by the hunter, skinner and fur-maker - through their efforts, an animal is elevated from an instinct-driven bundle of reflex responses to an item worthy of being displayed in Paris, London and New York. Through human endeavour and labour an animal is given a use and meaning that nature could never have designed for it. What is a mink but a wild beast scrabbling for food along riversides, destined to die and rot in the shade of a tree? The mink worn by Kate Moss was spared this fate and made into something memorably beautiful.

No finer fate can befall an animal than to be caught by a fur-hunter.

It just leaves you speechless. I understand his logic completely, but the thing is, when you're talking about living things, you kind of have to pull yourself out of the detached mental game for a minute and look at a real live animal and ask yourself what sort of perversion must occur in the head of a person who could inflict suffering on that animal? Is condoning that mentality good for human society? Does O'Neill believe that dogs and cats should be treated that way? How are they different in their ability to feel fear and pain and suffering from foxes, rabbits, and minks? The civilized world has laws protecting animals from mistreatment. Did that happen just because we have come to hate ourselves as a species, as O'Neill seems to suggest?

Or did it happen because science has discovered that animals do, in fact, suffer just like humans do? Perhaps Mr. O'Neill ought to do a little more research of his own and engage in a little less emotionally-detached thinking. I hope someday he re-reads his post and finds himself as dumbstruck at the idiocy of his point of view as I did when I first read it.

Posted by Becky at 09:39 AM |

Sizemore to Challenge Gordon Smith?

Ted Piccolo is speculating this morning that Bill Sizemore is considering taking on Gordon Smith. Be careful pushing your eyeballs back into your skull; mine got a little scratched up when I did it. Anyway, yes, it seems he's floating the idea out there, and as I think about, it doesn't seem as far-fetched as one might think - and it may even be a good thing.

Smith is vulnerable among the right wing of the party for a number of reasons. He's been wishy-washy in his support for the war and he's been wishy-washy on Social Security "reform." Sizemore supports the war and is all for privatization of Social Security – which also happens to be one of Dick Wendt's pet issues. And as we all know now, Dick Wendt is Sizemore's sugar daddy.

Dick Wendt could also be very helpful with generating the big bucks Sizemore would need to take on Smith. He has a history of giving large amounts of money to Sizemore and, surprisingly, not so much to Smith. In fact, though the Wendt family gave Smith several meager contributions up until 2004, they don't seem to have given him anything since. As I've tried to find information this morning, I've had to conclude that the Wendts have never been particularly enthusiastic about Smith. But they love Sizemore.

Ted points out a couple of other advantages that Sizemore might bring to the table:

However there is a major hurdle to any Republican that might want to challenge Sen. Smith. First and foremost is money. Smith has a couple of million dollars on hand and any challenger would need a couple of million dollars just to gain the requisite name ID. However a challenger with high name ID and conservative street cred may (I say may) be able to jump that hurdle somewhat.

Secondly anyone within the Republican establishment would really be frowned upon for taking on a sitting Republican. Just remember what happened to Larry George when he took on then sitting state Sen. Charles Starr. So any challenger would probably have to come from outside the establishment.

And if I may be so bold as to say it, Sizemore is an evangelical Christian, while Smith is a Mormon. If you think that won't matter, you're head is in the sand.

If the thought of Bill Sizemore representing Oregon in Washington, DC is too much for you to stomach, let me cheer you up a bit. It won't ever happen. Sizemore might very well have a chance to win a Republican primary because the right wing candidates tend to do that. Remember that Sizemore managed to win a gubernatorial primary despite a lot of public misgivings about his character. And he's in the position to overcome character concerns now. His skeletons are already out of the closet and the mush-head right-wingers believe he's been vindicated. That means he will be free to campaign on the issues, and Sizemore knows how to talk on the issues that right wingers care about. But the majority of Oregonians won't buy his crap. Getting rid of Gordon Smith could very well depend a Sizemore candidacy for that very reason. It may be the only way to knock Smith out in the primary so that a Democrat can win his seat in the Fall.

Posted by Becky at 09:07 AM |

March 22, 2007

Two Sides to the Debate on SB 400

It isn't every day that you get a clear example of the very different perspectives of Republicans and Democrats on a particular issue. But today, we have a great example of two very different views of organized labor as explained in dueling press releases from the two parties in response to the defeat of Oregon SB 400. Oregon AFSCME had named it a top priority for this session. At least some Republicans were calling it the "Union Thug Bill."

The Republican explain their successful effort to kill the bill here:

“This was a failed attempt by House Democratic leadership to expand union power,” said House Republican Leader Wayne Scott (R-Canby). “Last week, they raised costs on our local school districts and community colleges. This week, they tried to raise costs on our cities, counties, police departments, fire departments and other ‘first responder’ agencies.”

“Fortunately, enough House Democrats agreed with us that SB 400 was bad for Oregon.”
Oregon law already requires mandatory bargaining for safety issues that have a direct and substantial effect on employees’ on-the-job safety. SB 400 would have bypassed the traditional policy-making process by forcing local governments and public safety agencies to bargain staffing levels, operating procedures, equipment purchases and other important management decisions.

“SB 400 would have fundamentally shifted the discussion from the public arena of policymaking to the closed door room of the bargaining table,” said Rep. Vicki Berger (R-Salem).

The bill was opposed by the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police, the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association, the Oregon Fire District Directors Association, the League of Oregon Cities, the Association of Oregon Counties, Oregon Public Employer Labor Relations Association and the Mid-Willamette Valley Mayors Coalition.

Meanwhile, in the battle of the dueling press releases, Democrats explained their dismay over the bill's defeat here:

House Republicans killed a historic public safety bill today that would have restored the rights of firefighters, police officers and corrections officers to negotiate with employers on issues related to safety. Democrats say the change is important because public safety officers are prohibited by Oregon law from striking. Previous to a change in the law in 1995, employees were allowed to negotiate on issues.

“As a former police officer, I know that no one has a stronger right to negotiate on safety issues than those who protect the public safety,” said Rep. Jeff Barker (D-Aloha). “The first-hand knowledge of those who are on the front lines for our communities is critical to creating a work environment that reduces preventable, on-the-job injury or loss of life.”

“Today, House Republicans once again put their thumbs in the eyes of those first responders who work so hard to keep our families and communities safe,” said House Majority Leader Dave Hunt (D-Clackamas County).

For years, House Republican leadership promised public safety advocates that they would make the bill a priority, only to let the bill die each session without a debate or vote. House Republicans killed the proposal again today after first attempting to block an up-or-down vote on the bill with endless debate and parliamentary ploys.

Probably no surprise to our readers, I think I would side with the Republicans on this one. I just don't see this doing anything to enhance safety; it looks to me to be all about power. I've come a long way in my support of organized labor, but at a point I sometimes wonder if they haven't been so successful at protecting workers that they are now inventing problems in order to justify their own existence.

But honestly, I'm open to hearing other points of view on this legislation. Was shooting it down the right thing to do?

Posted by Becky at 03:43 PM |

Protecting Kids from Online Porn

I must admit that even though I understand the rationale, I'm a bit angry with the federal judge who threw out the 1998 law making it a crime for commercial Web site operators to allow children to have access to "harmful" material on their sites. If you think about it, the decision pretty obviously had to go that way. The Supreme Court has set up tests which must be met in order for regulations of speech to be considered constitutional. The regulator must be able to prove the regulation will accomplish a legitimate public benefit and the law must be narrowly crafted and go no further than necessary to obtain that benefit. It must be the least speech-restrictive option available and leave open ample alternatives for the speaker to speak. In this case, the critical test was whether the law was the least speech-restrictive option. The judge ruled that because parents can use Internet filters on their own computers to prevent their children from accessing pornographic sites, relying on parents is the least speech-restrictive option available. But just because I understand it doesn't mean I have to like it.

The thing is, doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to have a Web site verify the ages of its viewers as opposed to hoping every computer where a kid will have access has an adequate filtering system? I mean, whose kid hasn't gone over to a friend's and looked up things on the Internet that they can't look at when they're at home? And this stuff can be a whole lot worse than the old sneaking into your uncle's closet to look at Playboy kind of stuff. As one government attorney said, "It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source." That's why I'm irritated about this.

But now that I've gotten all of that off my chest, I will acknowledge that this Internet pornography problem isn't quite as simple as we might wish to believe. I probably can live with this decision despite my irritation. I mean, I'm not one of those self-appointed morality monitors.

For one thing, the law is already out of date.

Technology experts said parents now have more serious concerns than Web sites with pornography. For instance, the threat of online predators has caused worries among parents whose children use social- networking sites such as News Corp.'s MySpace.

If parents really want their kids to have a safe online experience these days, they need to be involved because there is no Internet police force that will stop predators from reaching them. And then, of course, we have to worry about privacy concerns of those who would have to enter their credit card or driver's license information to win access to pornographic Web sites:

The case sparked a legal firestorm last year when Google challenged a Justice Department subpoena seeking information on what people search for online. Government lawyers had asked Google to turn over 1 million random Web addresses and a week's worth of Google search queries.

We also have to think about the realistic consequences of regulations that apply only to U.S. purveyors when the Internet is a World-Wide Web.

The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law.

And only Internet filters and involved parents can protect children from that.

Posted by Becky at 03:13 PM |

March 21, 2007

Evil Cometh in a UFO

Quite by accident I came across an article about how the Gnostic gospels supposedly support the notion that we are all being controlled by aliens from outer space. I was immediately reminded of David Icke's premise that the world is being run by reptilian humanoids, as well as the view of some Christians that demons are responsible for every bad thing that happens. As it turns out, these seemingly diverse views may really be the very same point of view.

Why does "mainstream" science continue to deny the historical and on-going existence of Extraterrestrial contact with human beings on Earth? Why do science programs on Television, and in other mass-media like magazines, continue to maintain the apparent 'fiction' that humanity is still in search for intelligent life in the universe beyond Earth? With that in mind, as far as modern religion, why does institutionalized Christianity correspondingly support this denial of Extraterrestrial contact, as manifested in "UFOs"?

Ah, why indeed! The answer is, of course, because institutionalized religion is run by the extraterrestrials, and they don't want us to know they exist.

Extraterrestrial denial within Western science and Christianity, manifests from a consciousness, in which human beings have been seduced to pursue materialistic power and oppression against one another. Gnostics suggest that this apparent seduction, has been amplified by Manipulative Extraterrestrials which Gnostics had sought to help warn humanity about.

[And] Biblical warnings about Manipulative Extraterrestrials have been censored by Christian religious cultist elites.

It has long been thought by some UFO believers that Genesis 6:2-4 refers to fallen angels procreating with humans to form a super-race. Apparently, that knowledge of old was deliberately lost to us, however, when "Manipulative Extraterrestrials, who have apparently sought to control, exploit and oppress humanity, through mass deception," managed to get a mistranslation of Ephesians 6:12 into the "censored" King James Bible.

Ephesians 6:12 in the King James Version of the Bible, used as a basis for more modern translations stipulates "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." In sharp contrast a direct uncensored translation from Greek according to Biblical scholars indicates the following "For our struggle is not against [human beings], but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual [dark forces] of wickedness in outer space." - Ephesians 6:12 [the uncensored citation]

The reason all of this matters, the author says, is that not knowing is preventing the elevation of the human consciousness "in a manner that would empower humanity." Alas, the "prevailing elites," who are under the control of the "Manipulative Extraterrestrials," do not want humanity empowered. So they use Christianity and science to perpetuate "Empire."

[I]n the compilation of the Bible, words like 'messenger', referring to alien messengers were changed to 'angel', and words like 'sky', referring to Jesus coming from the sky and outer space were changed to 'heaven' in order to confuse and manipulate the masses around religious dogma managed by oppressive clerical elites…

It's a very interesting theory – interesting in that one wonders at the inability for rational thought to pierce through the conspiratorial rubbish that clogs some people's thinking. A little bit of fact here and a whole lot of imagination there can be stitched together to come up with some very odd philosophies.

So what is the connection between UFOs, lizard people, and demons? It's actually quite simple.

Gnostics appear to view G-d as the original creative consciousness of our Universe, associated with Free Will. 'Aeons' were the messengers of G-d, manifested through enlightened Ethical Extraterrestrial contact on Earth. In contrast, the 'Archons' were the "fallen angels" which had also been originally created by G-d, but through Free Will, chose to rebel against G-d, by choosing a greed-driven path which sought to conquer this Universe. It appears that these "fallen angels" became what Gnostic referred to as 'demons' influenced by "lower dimensional density" Extraterrestrials from outside of this Universe. The elements of these apparent de-evolved Manipulative Extraterrestrial "demonic consciousnesses" sought to attract to other "hideous intelligences" through this universe, which apparently included those on Earth. In so doing, the collectives of these negative consciousness, sought to enslave planetary Civilizations with the use of co-operating elites from the Civilization. The result of this collusion would be eventual enslavement of sentient beings and total planetary environmental destruction from over-exploitation.

As anyone who knows anything about reptilians, you will quickly see these are merely different names for the same creatures. These extraterrestrials, reptilians, or demons are responsible for 9/11, the War on Terror, the genocide of native Canadians, and even racism. And when we deny that extraterrestrials exist, we are helping to conceal demonic operations, allowing them to continue to destroy the planet. It is a "societal psychosis."

Meanwhile, "Ethical Extraterrestrial beings" like Jesus, who are time travelers from the future, have been sent to save us from the demonic "Manipulative Extraterrestrials." The "Manipulative Extraterrestrials" have, in turn, corrupted their efforts and, in Jesus's case, turned them into an oppressive religion to control the masses. It has been the Gnostics who have tried to resist Extraterrestrial manipulation and deception.

Am I the only one who finds all these twists on the old stories fascinating? And it goes on and on. Take this interesting tidbit:

The Old Testament of the Bible presents human beings as having been created in the image of God. Critical awareness of the diversity of Extraterrestrials created by a cosmic awareness of G-d reveals that Genesis is apparently inaccurate. Indeed, ancient Gnostics suggest that Genesis which embraced the Old Testament story of "Adam and Eve" is a creation myth originating from highly advanced Human Extraterrestrials. It is alleged that these Human Extraterrestrials sought to be worshiped as God, or 'gods', and saw humanity as some kind of interesting science project.

You're probably wondering why I've spent all this time looking at something so obviously wacky. But we talk about religion here all the time. And frankly, as one Mormon reacting to accusations of an LDS-UFO connection, said of Christianity, it all depends on how you look at it:

I could condemn you and me as Christians for believing that an "extraterrestial" being "placed genetic material on this earth" and developed a man named Adam, then used "cloning" to make a woman. This extraterrestial being later came down to try out humanhood, where he was killed but used his "extraterrestrial power" to "reanimate" his body and then "levitate" back to his "extraterrestial base" (heaven). With equal fairness, I could say that Christians worship this "extraterrestial alien" by pretending to chew on his body and drink his blood in an occult rite called "communion."

What it comes down to in my opinion is that from the beginning of human history we've been searching for an explanation for the evil that human beings do and a hope for something beyond our inevitable deaths. The obvious answer for those who don't want to accept the reality that brains can malfunction and animal instincts or bad choices take over is to invent some super-powerful evil being to blame for it, and some other super-powerful good being to save us from it. And where else could they come from but outer space?

Posted by Becky at 03:00 PM |

It's Time to Hate the Rich

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz today makes the case for why we should hate the rich - not merely conceptually, but personally. And the more I learn about who the rich really are, the more I agree with her.

We are held back and diminished by the claim that hating is bad for us, bad for everyone. You can hate the act but not hate the person. You can hate wealth or capitalism but not the rich. It's a ridiculous logic that keeps us hating and blaming ourselves for not being rich and powerful. Anyway, it's not consistent; it's all right to hate slavery and slaveowners, fascism and Hitler, etc. Why not hate the rich, the individual rich, not an abstract concept?

That may seem a bit outrageous at first glance. People who earn a high income aren't all that bad, are they? I mean, don't we all want to be rich like them? But as Dunbar-Ortiz points out, the people we think of as rich aren't the rich people she's talking about.

The rich own not just a mortgaged house and a car, maybe a boat or a cabin in the woods or a beach house to boot; rather they own you. Even the cash and luxury soaked entertainment and sports stars are not the rich; they certainly deserve contempt and disgust, but not hatred. Don't go for scapegoats--Jews, Oprah, Martha Stewart. Hatred should be reserved for those who own us, that is, those who own the banks, the oil companies, the war industry, the land (for corporate agriculture), the private universities and prep schools, and who own the foundations that dole out worthy projects for the poor, for public institutions-their opera, their ballet, their symphony, that you are allowed to attend after opening night.

I'm pretty much with her up to this point. Unfortunately, from here she heads off in a direction that makes me extremely uncomfortable.

In all the arguments about the crimes of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions, rarely is their greatest crime ever discussed--the leveling of class, rich and poor are the same in god's sight. What a handy ideology for the rich! The same with US democracy with its "equal opportunity" and "level playing fields," absurd claims under capitalism, but ones held dear by liberals. Hating the rich means also hating the state, the United States of America that is the ruling corporate body of the rich.

Hate religion? Hate the United States of America? Dunbar-Ortiz might call me hopelessly brainwashed, but I think she's gone a bit too far. She does, however, make a good point:

Why are we so silent about this, grumping over the increase in the income gap, trying to figure out how to narrow it? What do we expect, that the rich will empower the people to overthrow them as they almost did in response to the labor movement in the 1930s or the Civil Rights Movement with the War on Poverty? Not again will they make that mistake. I'm not saying we shouldn't point to it as evidence of the crimes of the rich, but we should not delude ourselves that the rich will give up their ownership of us. So, we need to stop longing for the return of the New Deal or savior Roosevelt. Passionate, organized hatred is the element missing in all that we do to try to change the world. Now is the time to spread hate, hatred for the rich.

Interestingly, another piece on the rich is also posted today on Counterpunch. James Petras writes about the growth in the number of billionaires around the world, calling them the global ruling class, and contrasts their vast wealth with the vast poverty in the rest of the world.

[O]ne hundred millionth of the world's population (1/100,000,000) owns more than over 3 billion people. Over half of the current billionaires (523) came from just 3 countries: the US (415), Germany (55) and Russia (53). The 35 per cent increase in wealth mostly came from speculation on equity markets, real estate and commodity trading, rather than from technical innovations, investments in job-creating industries or social services.

As you read his description of how these wealthy individuals acquired and concentrated their wealth, you will probably feel a bit of that hatred that Dunbar-Ortiz talked about. Petras discusses the making of several billionaires, showing us the crimes, betrayals, and suppression of the rest of us that has made them what they are and revealing the political movements that assisted them. The impact of their greed on our lives has been much more broad than one might suspect. And the role of the U.S. government in their creation has me re-thinking my original response to Dunbar-Ortiz's hatred of the United States of America. I can't join her in hating our country, but certainly the "global ruling class" has been pulling our strings, and I definitely hate that.

The responsibility of the US for the growth of Latin American billionaires and mass poverty is several-fold and involves a wide gamut of political institutions, business elites, and academic and media moguls. First and foremost the US backed the military dictators and neo-liberal politicians who set up the billionaire-oriented economic models. It was ex-President Clinton, the CIA and his economic advisers, in alliance with the Russian oligarchs, who provided the political intelligence and material support to put Yeltsin in power and back his destruction of the Russian Parliament (Duma) in 1993 and the rigged elections of 1996. And it was Washington, which allowed hundreds of billions of dollars to be laundered in US banks throughout the 1990's as the US Congressional Sub-Committee on Banking (1998) revealed.

It was Nixon, Kissinger and later Carter and Brzezinski, Reagan and Bush, Clinton and Albright who backed the privatizations pushed by Latin American military dictators and civilian reactionaries in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's . Their instructions to the US representatives in the IMF and the World Bank were writ large: Privatize, de-regulate and de-nationalize (PDD) before any loans should be negotiated.

It was US academics and ideologues working hand in glove with the so-called multi-lateral agencies, as contracted economic consultants, who trained, designed and pushed the PDD agenda among their former Ivy League students-turned-economic and finance ministers and Central Bankers in Latin America and Russia.

It was US and EU multi-national corporations and banks which bought out or went into joint ventures with the emerging Latin American billionaires and who reaped the trillion dollar payouts on the debts incurred by the corrupt military and civilian regimes. The billionaires are as much a product and/or by-product of US anti-nationalist, anti-communist policies as they are a product of their own grandiose theft of public enterprises. …

Countries of 'surging billionaires' produce burgeoning poverty, submerging living standards. The making of billionaires means the unmaking of civil society the weakening of social solidarity, protective social legislation, pensions, vacations, public health programs and education.

I finally understand the problem with the Republican argument about policies that help the rich. The problem is in how they are framing the debate. They mean one thing, but the public understands something entirely different. They're talking the ruling global elite. The public is thinking of that guy who owns a vacation home at the coast, wears a Rolex and drives a Humvee – when he isn't racing around town in his Corvette, that is. Maybe they're even thinking about that rock star or basketball star or movie star with a couple mansions and fancy clothes and a staff of bodyguards, stylists, housekeepers, and landscapers. They'd like to live that life and hope that someday they'll have a lucky break and they will be rich, too. But those people are millionaires. The concept of billionaires is beyond comprehension for most of us. They somehow slip under our radar. And they are the real problem.

Posted by Becky at 11:30 AM |

March 20, 2007

Wayne Scott's Unjustified Accusation

Oregon House Minority Leader Wayne Scott says the House Democrats' push for HJM 9, urging President Bush not to escalate the War in Iraq, but rather to pull troops out by August 1, 2008, is merely political posturing and "petty partisanship" on the part of Democrats. Maybe instead of jumping to point fingers at the left, he should take a moment to listen to the ultra-conservative Constitution Party, which happens to support the bill.

House Republican Leader Wayne Scott (R-Canby) said HJM 9 was nothing more than an effort to position House Republicans for the 2008 campaign.

“HJM 9 doesn’t accomplish anything; it is only fodder for the next campaign, plain and simple,” Rep. Scott said. “I urge House Democrats to get to work on the education budget, State Police funding and other issues that the Legislature has the power to resolve.”

Rep. Scott also expressed his disappointment over the message that today’s vote sends to our troops and their families. “I’m concerned that the House’s action on HJM 9 calls into question the dedication and sacrifices of our service members and their loved ones. As a Vietnam War veteran, I know from personal experience how important public support is to maintaining troop morale,” Rep. Scott said.

“In November, the Majority Leader told the press that House Democrats would not bring up divisive issues this session,” Rep. Scott said. “Rather than work on the real issues, House Democrats only want to follow their ‘roadmap’ to petty partisanship.”

The Constitution Party explains its stance very well on its website and its explanation makes it clear what it means to be an American, first and foremost, as opposed to being a partisan hack, as seems to be the case with Rep. Scott.

The President, the Congress, and the Federal Courts receive their sole authority for conducting any business by the enumerated powers listed in the U.S. Constitution. All public officials are bound by an oath of office that pledges their support of this constitution. The president's oath further binds him, to the best of his ability, to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States". Nowhere does the Constitution grant the office of president the authority to declare war. Only Congress has that authority.

Jack Alan Brown, Jr., Chairman of Constitution Party of Oregon, said, “Congress has been criminally negligent in funding a war upon the sovereign soil of another nation which has not declared war and has not engaged in hostile attacks on American soil. The issue is perjury on the part of all who authorized an open-ended 'war on terror' by the President. This authorization has resulted in the invasion and occupation of other nations, and the unconstitutional suspension of our God-given rights here at home. It has also resulted in blatant disregard for historically established tenants of the “Just War” concept, as well as violation of a treaty to which we are party - namely, the Geneva Convention.”

The Constitution Party of Oregon calls upon all our representatives (from the courthouse to the state house to the Congress) to generally pursue all remedies for this intolerable state of affairs. We especially call upon Congress to rescind the unconstitutional authorization of the president to conduct this war against terror on the soil of Iraq or any other sovereign nation against which there is no specific declaration of war.

We enthusiastically support those in the State Legislature who are seeking to memorialize Congress regarding this matter, regardless of their party affiliation.

Mr. Scott, I know it has been quite awhile since your party cared more about what was right than about what was politically expedient, but some people pursuing legislation are motivated by principles. And many of them are quite offended when people like you want to try to smear their own dirt on something that is clean and good.

Posted by Becky at 06:49 PM |

Therapist Urges Clergy Out of the Closet

A Christian therapist is advising pastors to come clean about their sexual addictions before they are "outed." He also says that likely half of Christian clergy and church members are "in a losing struggle with pornography and related behaviors."

I want to know where this guy's going to church.

I've known a few Christian leaders who were perverts – child molesters and serial adulterers – but they have been few and far between. The last church where I was a member had two pastors who were as pure as the driven snow, and I'm betting that is the case for most of them. So I just have to wonder what's up with this therapist.

Only two possibilities come to mind. One, he is so uptight that he thinks any sort of keen interest in sex is perversion – in which case I'm sure at least half of Christians are sexual perverts. Or two, he is actually working for the Dark Side and trying to con Christians into coming out of the closet in order to discredit Christianity altogether. Being that the second possibility is conspiratorial nonsense, I'll have to go with my first thought.

The Christian faith would be so much better off if they would just accept the notion that God made sex a driving force on purpose – because he wanted people to be greatly rewarded for developing close relationships with their partner. Or maybe it was because otherwise, we would run out of people. I guess the answer depends on whether you're Protestant or Catholic.

All joking aside, the real story here is that if he is correct, then it's true that sexual repression is a problem throughout Christendom. Most of us realize that if you push your urges down or neglect them where they're supposed to be, they will pop up somewhere else – where they probably ought not to be.

Posted by Becky at 09:58 AM |

Science Teacher Fired Over Evolution Presentation

A part-time biology teacher at Sisters High School has been fired for turning science class into Bible class. Parents say Kris Helphinstine crossed the line when, in a lesson on evolution, he "included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood." Helphinstine says he was just trying to teach students critical thinking skills. "I never taught creationism," he said. "I know what it is, and I went out of my way not to teach it."

A quick Google search reveals that in addition to having a master's degree in science from Oregon State University, Helphinstine is an outspoken right-wing Christian, former college football player, and firefighter. My guess is his manliness got the best of him; he thought he had it all figured out how he could share the "truth" with students about creation without crossing the line and actually teaching it, and he ended up not being as smart as he thought he was. He definitely should have lost his job for that.

I am reminded of a former neighbor of mine back in my conservative activist days. She didn't realize my political leanings and once confided in me that she became a teacher specifically so she could indoctrinate children into liberalism. I swear to God, that's what she said to me. Well, you just have to wonder if Helphinstine became a teacher so he could indoctrinate children into creationism. Both are offensive and entirely out of line with what the teaching profession is all about.

One students' father, however, went a bit over the line with this statement: "How many minds did he pollute?" Come on, now. Is it really so awful that some high school kids were exposed to this and now have to talk about it with their parents? Are their minds really so delicate that they can't handle seeing a teacher screw up? Or does this father think that maybe Helphinstine's linking of evolution and Planned Parenthood to Nazis was so sensible that his child might start voting Republican and going to church?

In the end, I expect most of the students will come away from the experience with a better understanding of the concept of sound science and a better grasp of why some things belong in the classroom setting – and some things do not.

Posted by Becky at 09:37 AM |

March 19, 2007

Those Iraqis Don't Know What's Good for Them

The news is chock full of mixed messages today about how content the Iraqi people are with their new life sans Saddam Hussein. In one story we read that a new poll shows most Iraqis are optimistic and believe life is better now than it was then (this apparently despite the fact that one in four has had a family member murdered, and in Baghdad, one in four has had a relative kidnapped). Meanwhile, another story citing a different poll says Iraqis are increasingly pessimistic about the future of their country and unhappy about their lives. According to this story, less than 40% of Iraqis say their life is good. Two years ago, 71% of Iraqis said they had a good life.

In another story, we read that an Iraqi weightlifting champion and former prisoner at Abu Ghraib (thanks to Uday Hussein), who inspired the world by pounding through the concrete base of a statue of Saddam four years ago, now says he regrets it because "the Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day." According to the poll cited in this report, only 49% of Iraqis say life is better now, while 26% say it is worse.

I, for one, am confused by all of this. But I do know one thing: I'm definitely smarter than a neo-con.

Posted by Becky at 03:49 PM |

Real Manliness

It seems everyone is talking about manliness all of a sudden. Maybe it's because Matt Drudge linked to an editorial claiming the global warming movement was being hijacked by radical man-hating feminists hell-bent on destroying manliness, or maybe it’s because of the stunning popularity of "300," a film that features brave Spartans with washboard abs as the epitome of manliness. Having weighed in on the subject here over the weekend, I will admit to having experienced a bit of trepidation that I may have stepped in a big pile of political incorrectness, for which I would be duly chastised by Carla and Kevin. Nonetheless, I am compelled to take another step and either dig myself out, or sink in it up to my neck.

If Marta Cook is to be believed, I have absorbed perhaps a faulty view of the feminist movement. It has seemed to me that feminists have eschewed femininity and, while attempting to be more masculine themselves, have tried to shame men for being so. Whether that ever was true I cannot say, but I will grant that it seems the movement has matured a good deal. Women have finally learned that they can't have it all. They can't compete in a man's world and then come home and be a good mother and keep a clean house and have hot sex with their husband at the end of the day. The good news is they can choose which parts of that scenario matter most to them, and society is pretty comfortable with letting them make that choice. Cook characterizes feminism in a way that I can wholeheartedly embrace: "In layman's terms, every person should have equal opportunity to pursue his or her own dreams, whether it is becoming a CEO or a parent." Note the word "or."

I disagree with Cook's criticism of raising men to be manly. I think parents need to be tuned into their kids, of course, but boys are not always inclined to develop their own manliness. If you don't teach them to be manly in this age of video games and computers, you might well end up with a timid, flabby, insecure, non-aggressive boy who won't ever reach his potential. That is as criminal as forcing an assertive, intelligent girl to dress in frilly dresses and focus on finding a good man instead of developing her own interests and talents. Cook can criticize throwing footballs, hunting, etc. as "archaic" forms of manliness all she wants, but doing so only reinforces the perception that feminism is about destroying manliness.

Further, it reveals how little she understands manly men. Sports and the myriad of other outdoor activities that men enjoy together are male bonding events and absolutely crucial for building the self-confidence a man needs to succeed and be respected among his peers. Men should teach their sons to be good at those activities so they are able to bond with other men (and, by the way, women need to butt out and leave the men alone to do it). Without physical, emotional and mental strength, most men will lack confidence and likely not reach their full potential. It simply is not enough that a man be "honorable, trustworthy, caring and responsible."

However, I do not believe one can be "manly" without possessing those traits. I think often of my grandfather – a real man's man. He truly was the very definition honorable, trustworthy, caring and responsible. But he was also a rugged outdoorsman who spent a good deal of time with his manly friends out braving the elements.

I tend to agree with what Harvey C. Mansfield (of Harvard University) has to say about manliness – and feminism. "Feminism has no understanding of womanhood; it leaves women without a guide and even tries to convince them they need no guide," he writes. It gets back to that mistaken notion that we women can have it all, but it also speaks to the unfortunate disdain that some feminists have for those of us who like to be feminine and thoroughly enjoy being women. Thankfully, as I said, the movement seems to have matured and begun to accept girlie girls who want to grow up to be mommies as being okay after all.

As for men, he says, they must be manly, because "a free society cannot survive if we are so free that nothing is expected of us."

Luke Sheahan explores Mansfield's views of manliness further in his editorial on the film "300." Personally, I think he's dead on accurate about it.

Despite its aesthetic faults, the movie’s prime redeeming quality, and primary offense to the cultural elite, is its glorification of the first virtue: manliness. Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield describes the quality thusly, “Manliness seeks and welcomes drama and prefers times of war, conflict, and risk.” The gender neutral society would agree—300 depicted manliness in its true form and it is indisputably bad. Leonidas and his Spartan band praised death, which they called “glory” in a grotesque display of savagery, as they boisterously bragged about their own soldierly skills and acts of butchery. On display was the male predilection for violence, a machismo that is often more smoke than fire but dangerous in its recklessness. The gender neutral society understands this and condemns it.

Proponents of the gender neutral society prefer a genderless assertiveness that, to all eyes but their own, is really quite ridiculous. Compare the effeminate assertiveness of the Persians—that believed it was strong—to the manly assertiveness of the Spartans—that knew it was strong. Compare the androgynous glamour and feminine hubris of Xerxes with the ascetic athleticism and manly confidence of Leonidas. The Persians acted in an extravagant but ultimately vain attempt to prove the glory and superiority of their civilization. The Spartans’ cool confidence in their civilization’s values made them incapable of cowardice; they asserted with ease the glory of their civilization.

A reasonable critic would express the concern that Spartan courage was only nihilistic manliness. Sparta was an ancient, backward society that had no firm sense of transcendent meaning and thus sought to assert its own. The result, the critic would say, was the Spartan affinity for war born out of a prehistoric, beastly predisposition for violence. It was only a desperate and savage attempt to make meaning out of meaninglessness.

But the manliness of Leonidas was no lone ship of baseless hope, tossed to and fro in a sea of nihilism. Sparta was a culture dependent upon deeply held beliefs and principles. The manliness of the Spartans portrayed an abiding trust in the wisdom of their ancestors over the fancies of the cultural and even religious elite, who had sold them out. Chivalrous codes of honor, ancient traditions and old prescriptions passed down through countless generations, guided their conduct. Such customs are symptomatic of a faith in principles that transcend the self and to which a civilization is anchored; they indicate a dependence on precepts worthy of the ultimate sacrifice.

The Spartan sense of honor was not a Nietzschean attempt to find meaning in the self-assertion of aggression and violence born of a nihilistic determination that there was nothing meaningful above their lives. Rather, their manliness appeared in its proper form as sacrificial idealism, seeking to assert the importance of a transcendent cause and willingly relinquishing its own existence for the perpetuation of that cause. Sparta’s three hundred were willing to die that their civilization might survive. They did not see themselves as individuals isolated in a particular time and space, but as a vital link between a glorious past and a future made certain by their sacrifice.

Finally, today we have learned that manliness is even good for men's health. According to a new study:

The man-of-steel mentality, often associated with military men and those in other high-risk occupations, can boost and speed up a guy’s recovery from a serious and/or traumatic injury possibly.

Please note, however, that the sort of manliness that the study found to be good for the health is not obnoxious, womanizing, fight-picking, and egotistical. Men who repress their emotions and want to lord it over women are not only not going to recover as quickly as they should, they are also notably less satisfied with their lives. But the real manly men - those who "focused on their careers, success, power and competition" - enjoyed greater recovery in their health and better relations in their community. And who wouldn't want that for their son?

To conclude, I would note that feminism has given women the ability to avoid the trap of being lorded over by disgusting men who think they are manly when they are not, and for that I am exceedingly grateful. Now it's time for feminism to recognize that life as a woman is a whole lot better when the world is populated with truly manly men and to stop criticizing the throwing of footballs, hunting of game, and driving of Harleys.

Posted by Becky at 12:32 PM |

March 18, 2007

Global Warming Threat to Manliness

Daniel Clark has written an irreverent and, truth be told, very funny piece about how the global warming movement is emasculating American men. If you're a liberal and/or a metrosexual you will be offended by his narrow, ill-informed perspective, but Clark brings to our attention a problem that must be addressed. In our quest to save the planet and create a more tolerant society, we must find a way to let men continue to be men, to tolerate "guyhood." We can't expect all men to turn into metrosexuals.

The latest point of emphasis in the global warming movement is that cattle farming endangers the planet by producing too much methane. So now, steaks and hamburgers are classified as instruments of destruction, along with large vehicles, lawn mowers, and charcoal grills. It can't be much longer before cowboy movies, cigars and hockey are held to be enemies of the earth as well.

This has got to be the most blatant assault on guyhood since ABC moved Coach to the same night as Roseanne, and turned Hayden Fox into Phil Donahue. It's a wonder that liberals don't cut to the chase, by simply claiming that global warming is caused by testosterone. Then, they could make public school nurses siphon the offending fluid from the boys during health class.

I like rugged, "manly" men, as I've said here before. I like the kind of men who brave the elements and hike through tough terrain for hours to track and kill animals fair and square and pack them out and butcher them and barbecue them up on a charcoal grill. I like the kind of men who ride Harleys and eat red meat and smoke cigars and ride bulls and drink beer and drive heavy equipment and tame the elements. I like men who have no fear. There is something irresistible about so much confidence, and I've come to realize that the attraction is because a truly "manly" man isn't afraid of a strong-willed, independent woman. As a strong-willed woman, I share the fear of many of my testosterone-laden counterparts - that their very existence seems to increasingly be seen as bad for the planet.

Certainly, we need to curb behavior that is destructive to the planet, but in doing so, we must not get rid of outlets for the testosterone-driven males among us or appreciation for their personalities. A lot of men are perfectly content to be metrosexual, to eat tofu and drink wine coolers and get manicures and wear turtleneck sweaters - and a lot of women like them that way. Good for them. But a diverse society needs all types, and that includes fearless warrior-types who wear Wranglers and steel-toed boots, have calloused hands, and get their joy out of cheating death and becoming masters of their world.

Posted by Becky at 12:33 PM |

A Revelation Worth Heeding

New technology is stoking the expectations of Christians awaiting fulfillment of "mark of the beast" prophecies. And I must say that as I look at the technology, it does create some fearful possibilities. Between the future potential for a cashless society and widespread implantation of VeriChip RFID tags, it is entirely conceivable that a worldwide monetary and identification system could be established and individuals who refused to play the game could be barred from buying or selling anything, as foretold in Revelation 13:16, 17:

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

According to the chief executive of Visa Europe, Peter Ayliffe, all of Europe could by 2012 go almost completely cashless, with fees charged for cash transactions. New technology allowing credit cards to be read by waving them in front of a scanner, even reading them through purses, pockets, wallets, etc. when a customer walks by, will make the cashless society even easier.

On top of that, VeriChip implants are on the edge of an explosive surge in use. The company is heavily lobbying the Defense Department to replace dog tags with the implanted RFID chips, so that every soldier would have one. The chip, they say, could hold both medical and identification information and would be more difficult to remove from soldiers than dog tags. Additionally, more than 500 hospitals will soon begin implanting patients with the chips, which will replace hospital ID bracelets and the company expects to expand that to 800 hospitals by the end of the year. Initially the implants will only be used on patients who arrive at emergency rooms unconscious, delirious or confused. But I'm betting they'll be standard protocol for all patients in a few years.

We've already heard of scanners that can read RFID chips in drivers licenses and ID cards in a crowd to create a complete record of all who are present, and scanners at grocery stores that can read your payment card information as you walk through the check out line. Imagine the possibilities if all of these technologies are combined – and imagine including GPS, too. You could have an RFID chip implanted in every human on the planet at birth that contained all necessary identification and citizenship information, financial codes, and medical history. It would end ID theft, end illegal immigration, save paper, and make everything easier. You wouldn't have to fill out those annoying medical history forms when you go to the doctor. You wouldn't be able to lie to an insurance company about your medical history – or an employer. You wouldn't have to dig out your card to pay for things. You wouldn't be able to anonymously commit a burglary or avoid detection if you were a fugitive. And if you were an "enemy of the state" you could easily be found, rounded up and disposed of at a convenient time – or just allowed to starve because you couldn't buy food. And all your associates or anyone who helped you could also be nailed.

The real danger of this technology lies in the fact that human nature is imperfect, at best. It isn't a matter of whether an evil dictatorial leader will abuse this technology, but when that person will come to power. Whether you believe in the spiritual implications of the Revelation "beast" prophecy or not, its warning about the danger to mankind when a global leader has the ability to prevent detractors from being able to buy or sell is one that is worth heeding.

Posted by Becky at 11:44 AM |

March 16, 2007

Don't Worry About Those Terrorists Driving School Buses

The FBI is telling Americans that even though possible terrorists may be driving your kids' school buses, "Parents and children have nothing to fear." Police, however, are being asked to look out for children's safety. Like many of the fearmongering warnings that have been issued by the government since 9/11, this one has no specific, credible information as to how many terrorists may be driving school buses or where. It only noted "recent suspicious activity" by foreigners who are bus drivers.

What's the point of issuing a terrorism warning if there is no specific threat and nothing that can be done about it, particularly when the object of the threat is every school bus riding child in the United States? Could it be … the power of fear?

Posted by Becky at 02:14 PM |