« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »

May 31, 2007

Moral Majority: R.I.P.

Pastor Chuck Baldwin has a new piece out in which he asks whether Jerry Falwell's death was the death of the Religious Right and calls on the Religious Right to learn from its mistakes and redirect its efforts in the future.

The first thing that caught my eye was that even though he has a pretty good idea of where the Religious Right has gone wrong in its political efforts, Baldwin truly does not understand why Jerry Falwell was hated by so many people. His explanation:

In many respects, Jerry Falwell was the heart and soul of the Religious Right, which is why many people hated him so much. They fully understood that without Jerry Falwell there was no Religious Right. And make no mistake about it: liberals hate the Religious Right.

It was the Religious Right that dared to stand in the gap against a secularist/amoral juggernaut that sought to eviscerate America's moral culture, not to mention our Christian heritage. And it was Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority that made the Religious Right a force to be reckoned with, respected, and ignored at one's own political peril.

Obviously, I can't speak for "liberals" because I'm not liberal (unless you're comparing me to a right-winger), but based on what I've observed, I do not believe that liberals "hate" the Religious Right. They certainly do have strong feelings about what the Religious Right has been trying to do, however, and so do I. If you look at the precise wording Baldwin uses you can see very clearly what has people upset with the Religious Right - or to be more accurate, the Moral Majority:

…a secularist/amoral juggernaut that sought to eviscerate America's moral culture, not to mention our Christian heritage.

Obviously, it's all about religion-based legislation of morality – they want to impose their particular brand of religion-based morality on those of us who do not share their religion-based ideas about morality. That is not to say that "liberals" and others who oppose the Religious Right are immoral – or even amoral. For example, many of the so-called "Secular Progressives" value human life so highly that they oppose the death penalty and war, advocate for a healthy safety net so as to care for the weak and poor among us, work to build an inclusive society in which all citizens can pursue happiness and find personal fulfillment, and press for a healthy planet that is capable of nurturing healthy human beings. To many of us, the Religious Right's stance on these issues is immoral. The difference between legislating their position and legislating the "secular progressive" position is that one is an unconstitutional imposition of religion and the other is sound public policy based on sound science. Jerry Falwell's movement did indeed create a "force to be reckoned with," but it was a damaging force.

Baldwin goes on from there to give Falwell a lot more credit than the man deserves with regards to the current presidential campaign:

In fact, Jerry's passing, and a fading Religious Right, has already had a significant influence upon the upcoming presidential election. Does anyone really believe that Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani would openly and boldly campaign as a "pro-choice" candidate if the Religious Right was as politically powerful as it once was? In virtually every Republican primary since the creation of the Moral Majority back in 1979, no candidate could expect to obtain the Republican nomination who did not pass the Religious Right's litmus test (at least in rhetoric) of being pro-life and anti-gay marriage.

Not anymore. Today the Republican frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, is running on a platform that is pro-abortion, pro-gay unions, and pro-gun control. Yet, at this moment, the nomination appears to be his to lose.

The thing Baldwin doesn't seem to realize is that Falwell has only been dead a couple of weeks, but Giuliani has been the frontrunner for quite awhile even though Falwell made it very clear, beginning before Giuliani even announced, that he would not support his candidacy. That didn't keep Giuliani from rising to first place among the Republican hopefuls. In fact, he has risen to first place despite the rabid opposition of James Dobson and Richard Viguerie, who said if he won the nomination, it would be "time to put the GOP out of its misery." So much for that "force to be reckoned with."

Baldwin may have a point when he says:

Accordingly, it is a very real and distinct possibility that the Republican Party will go into the 2008 presidential election without the support of the Religious Right for the first time in nearly thirty years. However, this prospect not only dooms Republican chances for a presidential victory, it also dooms the Religious Right as a major player in presidential politics.

Baldwin really can't look to the facts to make himself feel better, so he turns to faith to help him and his beleaguered readers out. Pointing to the "providence of God" that brought Falwell's Moral Majority into existence at the same time Ronald Reagan was campaigning for president, he implies that God will step in to save the day.

He also observes the Republican Party's lack of respect for the Religious Right, which he compares to an abused spouse:

Nothing illustrates the GOP's lack of respect for Jerry Falwell than the list of no-shows at his funeral. Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sending a low-level White House aide to Dr. Falwell's funeral? Did you notice, too, that none of the GOP presidential contenders showed up at his funeral? In fact, there were virtually no national Republican leaders present at his funeral. This, for the man that did more--for a longer period of time in modern memory --than any other single human being to elect Republican candidates to the White House. You see what I mean by a one-sided, abusive relationship?

Baldwin calls on the Religious Right to learn from the mistakes it made in becoming too ambitious for power, compromising in order to buddy up to the Republican Party. His description of the two parties isn't a pretty one:

It has been money, not principles, that has always been at the heart of Republican and Democratic politics. Republicans have historically been the puppets of big-business, while Democrats have been the puppets of big-labor. It was Ronald Reagan who gave the GOP a semblance of righteousness. It was only a façade. Unfortunately, this misplaced trust allowed the Religious Right to be totally and thoroughly beguiled by conservative phonies George Bush I and II. At the end of the day, money, not righteousness, is in charge of both major parties. It's time that Christian conservatives understood that.

Baldwin closes by calling on the Religious Right to focus its energies on electing representatives who will value and protect the Constitution, and on this point I think we can all find room for agreement. The attacks on the Constitution under the Bush Administration have both the right and the left pretty freaked out. If the Religious Right is ready to take on issues like warrantless wiretapping, habeas corpus, separation of powers, signing statements, DNA databases, Carnivore surveillance, Internet filtering, Total Information Awareness, and prisoner abuse, and will set aside its efforts to legislate morality based on their religion, then I'm willing to work with them - my fellow Americans - to protect that which makes our debate possible.

If the Religious Right ultimately heeds Baldwin's call and abandons Falwell's Moral Majority to pursue true Constitutional liberty in this country, then Falwell's death may have marked one of the happiest days in American history. I certainly hope that is the case.

Posted by Becky at 03:51 PM |

They're Not "Real" Parents ... but Don't be Offended

Stephen Bennett, founder of Stephen Bennett Ministries (a group promoting the homosexual "cure"), is all hot under the collar over the White House's reference to Mary Cheney's lesbian partner, Heather Poe, as the "parent" of the couple's baby boy. The offending word was found in a caption under the official photo of Vice President and Mrs. Cheney holding their new grandson. "I say shame on the White House, shame on the president and shame on the vice president for allowing such a caption to be 'officially' added onto the White House website and such a beautiful photo of two happy grandparents and their new grandchild," Bennett said. "I guess we can tragically and officially say both the White House and the Bush Administration have officially recognized the sinful sexual unions of homosexuals, as well as recognized and embraced the tragedy of the social experiment of homosexual parenting." Bennett goes on to accuse Cheney and Poe of "playing house," says they are not "real parents," says the Vice President is rebelling "against his superior" (the President) and making "a public mockery of the president and the current administration he is supposed to represent," and calls on his supporters to pray for the president and other leaders.

All of this is, of course, very offensive – even to those of us who are uncomfortable with homosexuality, but who have come to understand that homosexuals really are "born that way," and because their activity involves consenting adults, and no one is being harmed, what they choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms isn't anyone else's business. Too many people seem to believe that their own perspective is the only one that is valid. This view can relate to political or religious views, customs, food, clothing, activities, entertainment, or anything else. If something is repulsive to me, then surely it must be repulsive to everyone, right? Therefore, if someone else is enjoying that repulsive thing, then clearly they must have something seriously wrong in their head. Obviously, if you think about it for a minute, that view is absolutely ridiculous, and thankfully, in the case of homosexual behavior, we have the science to prove it – and more and more people are recognizing that. My point is, even people who aren't comfortable with homosexuality because they can't personally relate to it are increasingly realizing that homosexuals aren't freaky people and that they have the right to pursue love and happiness just like everyone else.

Getting to this point has been a long process, and along the way a lot of people who cannot understand or tolerate others' personal choices are completely unhappy with this trend. They are, in fact, very frightened by it. They believe we are literally dragging this country straight to Hell and are convinced that homosexuals want all of us to become gay and burn in Hell with them. The harm they do with their comments is real and it feels like hate (in the case of people like Fred Phelps, I believe it actually is hate). But what drives them typically is something very different from hate. It is fear of God and a near panic over the danger they believe our tolerance of homosexuality places this country and the souls of those who engage in homosexuality. In a nutshell, believe it or not, they are driven by very real concern for the well-being of their fellow man. As I said, sometimes we find ourselves unable to tolerate the views of others because we think our own perspective is the only valid one. We need to look at this from the perspective of those whose speech we believe is "hateful" and repulsive.

Bennett is himself a "former" homosexual, who, in a period of 11 years, had more than 100 homosexual partners until he found Jesus, married a woman, had two daughters, and started his ministry. I know a lot of people think Bennett is simply trying to make a living the easy way, and I can understand that. But I really don't think that is the case. Everything he says makes it clear he is desperate to save other homosexuals from eternal damnation.

My point here is that hating people like Bennett isn't the answer even though his comments feel very hurtful. More hate is never the answer. Neither should people be terribly offended because his motivations are actually based on concern for the eternal souls of homosexuals. No matter how ignorant you may think that is, the fact is that based on his understanding of reality, he is trying to help people. In my opinion, the answer is to continue to press forward with efforts to support personal freedom at every turn and to help all of our young people grow up valuing themselves so they will choose healthy, happy lives, whether gay or straight. Over time, as more and more homosexuals grow up in a society that is, for the most part, not repressive or abusive to them, and as they succeed in society without having to hide who they are, people like Bennett will have less and less power to hurt them.

Posted by Becky at 12:00 PM |

May 30, 2007

That Isn't God You're Hearing, Tom

Jeffrey Goldberg has a new article, "Party Unfaithful: The Republican implosion," in The New Yorker that is quite interesting, particularly with regards to Tom DeLay. You've got to read it. Now before you scold me for writing about DeLay because he's "irrelevant" or some such thing, remember that a whole lot of disgraced Republicans are still out there moving and shaking the political world. And it looks like DeLay, despite his current well-deserved woes, may become one of them. Particularly since he now claims to be having one-on-one chats with God.

Goldberg says that Karl Rove told him that "two or three societal trends" are driving the Republican Party into "an increasingly deep center-right posture" (one of those trends is a growing openness to spirituality). Interestingly, Newt Gingrich, though himself a right-winger, has criticized Rove for driving the center away by fostering a strident tone in the base. Gingrich is trying to appeal to the "center-right" voter as a means of strengthening the power of the Right, and Tom DeLay has been all over him for it, believing instead that the Republican Party should stay far right. Understand that Gingrich and DeLay have bad blood going back a lot of years, so DeLay supporting anything Gingrich does is about as likely as Grover Norquist supporting John McCain. But the point is, a lot of heavy-hitters on the right are trying to appeal more to the center, and DeLay is determined to undermine that effort. That's why we need to pay attention to him. That, and the fact that a lot of right-wingers believe God wants the Republican Party to stay right-wing.

DeLay says that when, in the coming years, he is not fighting the indictment in Texas (he insists that he is not guilty) he will be building a conservative grass-roots equivalent of MoveOn.org. “God has spoken to me,” he said. “I listen to God, and what I’ve heard is that I’m supposed to devote myself to rebuilding the conservative base of the Republican Party, and I think we shouldn’t be underestimated.” He said that Republicans should spend their impending exile reminding themselves what they stand for. “I see this as a cleansing process, where you can return to your principles, which are order, justice, and freedom—the basic principles of the conservative movement. We have to redefine government based on conservative principles, we have to win the war against our culture, and we have to win the war on terror.”

Reasonable people will look at this and right away know that DeLay has no credibility and isn't going to be able to pull off being the savior of the Republican Party. But here's the problem. Enough people will support him that he will be encouraged to continue his efforts, thereby weakening the Republican Party by continuing to bring disgrace upon it. And his invocation of God will also continue to bring disgrace upon Christianity. Though I am neither Republican nor Christian, I find both outcomes extremely upsetting.

We cannot have healthy debate in this country when the only credible participants are the Left and the Center. We really need the Right to have its act together and be capable of engaging rationally in the conversation. And unfortunately, too many members of the right wing are convinced that every Republican crook that is taken down is actually a martyr for the cause, particularly when so many of those crooks claim to be Christian. Those individuals – the same types who continue to prop up the Christian Republican Bill Sizemore as a credible spokesman – are never going to be open to legitimate debate and efforts to work together as Americans so long as they are convinced that no other point of view has any validity. When their martyred leaders encourage them to stand firm in their rightness, and particularly when they indicate that's what God wants them to do, they become immune to reason and incapable of participating in a democracy.

For that reason, I do not believe for a second that the voice in Tom DeLay's head is that of God. It is much more likely that he's hearing the whispers of that old un-converted power-hungry conniving Hot Tub Tom – the one he thought was safely squished down into a dark corner by the shiny new peaceful born-again Tom DeLay. That bad boy wants to be important again, but knows he's got to make the new Tom and all his loyal sheep feel morally good about it first.

Posted by Becky at 12:48 PM |

May 29, 2007

Too Much Attention Being Paid to Native American Issues …

Joe Bodell of the Minnesota Monitor noticed something very interesting in Monica Goodling's testimony last week.

But the piece de resistance of Goodling's testimony may have been her claims regarding former Minnesota U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger's work: She testified she "heard" that Heffelfinger was on a list of attorneys to be sacked because of his work on Native American issues.

…[W]here else have we seen Native American issues popping up in Bush administration scandals? Oh, that's right: Jack Abramoff bilked Native American tribes out of millions of dollars, along with his buddies Ralph Reed, Michael Scanlon, and Grover Norquist. Several Republican lawmakers were involved with that little scam.

A number of people have been speculating about whether the firings were related to investigations of Republicans that the Bush Administration wanted squelched. Here we have an attorney's name added to the firing list specifically because he was too interested in Native American issues and at the same time, a big investigation is underway of a scandal involving Native American tribes and prominent Republicans with deep ties to the Bush Administration. Coincidence? I'm not so sure it is.

Posted by Becky at 03:40 PM |

An Amusing Little Mess Down in Alabama

A very interesting situation is developing in Alabama, where the state chapter of the Christian Coalition has split into two groups and is now engaged in a messy lawsuit with plenty of finger-pointing and questionable activity to go around.

The former leader of the Alabama Christian Coalition, John Giles, is being accused by the new leader, Randy Brinson, of stealing the organization's assets when he left to start a competing organization, Christian Action Alabama (Giles did, in fact, take all the organization's assets). Brinson says Giles is setting a bad example for Christians. Giles says Brinson's lawsuit is "frivolous and baseless" and says the real bad example is being set by Brinson, who, by supporting electronic bingo at the dog tracks in Birmingham and Mobile, has placed himself in the "palm of gamblers." Brinson counters that allowing the expanded gambling at the tracks was part of a deal that also limited expansion of gambling to new locations. Giles says of course expansion is limited because the bill is really all about making the owner of the race track more wealthy. Brinson is being represented in the lawsuit against Giles by the track owner's attorney, so Giles may well have a point. But at the same time, Giles's group had ties to the Choctaw Indians, who operate two casinos, stemming back to that Grover Norquist/Americans for Tax Reform/Ralph Reed/Christian Coalition money-laundering-to-screw-the-tribes scheme, so Giles isn't lily white, either.

I don't know whether to pity the judge who gets this case or envy him or her for getting to sit in on what is sure to be a very entertaining little slug-fest.

Posted by Becky at 03:28 PM |

What is Norquist Up To With This?

The values- and morality-challenged Grover Norquist, who, in addition to his proclivity for money laundering, is also suspected of being a client of the DC Madam, was asked recently by Rolling Stone to comment on the concerns people have over whether any of the Republican presidential candidates will win the approval of people like James Dobson and religious "values voters." In my book, that's the equivalent of asking Ted Kennedy to comment on whether the Democratic front-runners would be successful in winning over members of MADD. Nevertheless, he had some interesting observations – made even more interesting by the fact that his observations are at odds with his own record.

Norquist first defined social conservatives and then argued that James Dobson's opinion of the candidates is not, in the real world, particularly relevant:

What brings social conservatives to the Republican party is not some list of 20 things that James Dobson would like to see. It’s a much lower threshold. Social conservatives are best understood as a parents-rights movement. They don’t like guys throwing prophylactics at their kids in public schools. They don’t like their faith being made fun of, they want to be able to send their kids to private schools or home school. They are worried about raising their kids in their own faith and being left alone. On the abortion issue, pro-lifers need the same thing the chamber of commerce wants: serious judges. If you promise them that, credibly, you can have their support. And each of the Republican candidates passes that threshold.

You can make the argument that some candidates would be more enthusiastic about going further on the social conservative agenda, and some may well excite the leadership of the social conservative movement, but I don’t believe that it moves votes. Take a look at how McCain and Giuliani and Romney are polling. Who are the three top guys? Pat Robertson sees two pagans and a Mormon. Everybody’s heard that Giuliani dressed up in drag. If my analysis was wrong, would he be polling as well as he is? Romney is a Mormon, which evangelicals see as theologically flawed, and McCain picked a public fight in 2000 with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Those are the three Republicans polling the best!

If 40 percent of the GOP base truly had Dobson’s 20 point test then a candidate such as Huckabee should be one of the frontrunners. He’s not, and that’s why I think my analysis is the correct one. The press is going to want to talk about and solicit quotations from self-appointed leaders about how unacceptable certain of these candidates are. I don’t think that translates. You have to convince people that one of these candidates would work actively against their privacy zone on faith and childrearing. And I’m not sure that anyone of them is going to fail that test.

If I may summarize, Norquist's point is that while religious "values voters" might not be elated with any of these candidates, all the perceived unhappiness of the Christian Right with this election is actually just a lot of blustering by their leaders. The reality is that the candidates with whom they should be the least happy are ahead in the polls and the reason is that the concerns of the religious right - primarily that they be left alone - can be satisfied by any of the candidates. My intuition says that this has got to really gall a lot of Christians, who are no doubt still incensed that Norquist dared to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans back in 2005.

I'd like to believe that Norquist is right (it's easy to find many others who would immediately say he is wrong) and move on. But something about his mixture of talk on the Christian voter issue and dissing of John McCain in virtually the same breath is all too familiar. But I'm getting ahead of myself just a little.

See, Norquist had no sooner brushed aside concerns about Christians' acceptance of a Republican candidate than he returned to attacking his old nemesis, John McCain:

Our friend McCain’s challenge is, having been elected as a Reagan Republican and running in 2000 as a Reagan Republican, he — for reasons I don’t understand, but it looks like pique at Bush — voted against every one of Bush’s tax cuts. Now he says he wants to continue the Bush tax cuts and never would vote for an increase. So that’s the big question mark. He’s not running as a candidate who’s against lower taxes. But in the last 6 years he kind of went AWOL on the fight. But now he wants to run as a guy who won’t raise your taxes and supports the tax cuts.

Don't forget that Norquist's feud with McCain is all about campaign finance reform – stopping people like Norquist from doing that which they specialize in doing. Norquist and his allies have a well-deserved reputation for using the Christian Right's networks to spread their influence, and James Dobson has been all-too-willing to allow it – and to criticize John McCain for the same campaign finance efforts that Norquist opposes.

The question I find myself asking is why would Norquist on the one hand be so obviously working with James Dobson to try to build his own conservative voting coalition (see "I Smell Grover Norquist") and then on the other hand act as if James Dobson's views on the appropriateness of Republican presidential candidates for the Christian Right really isn't all that important? There are many tantalizing possibilities … and I would not expect that his reasons are anything less than meticulously well thought-out.

Posted by Becky at 02:50 PM |

May 24, 2007

In which Oliver Willis takes our conservative friends to school

Blogger Oliver Willis answers a series of questions on Iraq posed by conservative Dale Franks.

Its best to go over to Oliver's place and read them.

For those conservatives who still find themselves supporting the War in Iraq and the President's foreign policy--this is your chance to really learn why so many others do not.

Posted by Carla at 01:58 PM |

I'm a Good Girl, I Am!

As I listened to Monica Goodling's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, I was absolutely spellbound. I understood her, I understood how she got there, and I understood why she was saying the things she was saying. Sure, I never had a law degree and I never rose to that level of importance, but in many, many ways, I once was her. Some today are making fun of her naiveté and lack of experience, and mimicking her little girl voice. A lot of people are talking about what her testimony means in terms of the culture of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, as well as how it fits in with allegations of impropriety and lawbreaking. As a former naïve, fervent, right-wing Christian "good girl" myself, I saw something that nobody is really talking about. And I think it is an important piece of the puzzle.

For those who are unaware of my own experience, I will tell my story briefly. I was raised a conservative Christian. I attended private Christian schools from 3rd grade through college. I was a "good girl" who did everything I was supposed to do to the best of my ability. I was not exposed to pop culture and only associated with others of my faith. I was always the valedictorian in my class. I graduated from high school with a 4.0, was elected student body president, was co-editor of my college yearbook, won awards and honors and excelled at everything I set my mind to. From what I understand, Goodling had a background that was similar in many ways.

According to what I gleaned from my upbringing, "good girls" were Republicans. So I was as good and as fervent a Republican as I could be. When we moved to Oregon and started seeing the things Bill Sizemore was doing and how he was being persecuted for it, he became my hero, my idol. When I had the opportunity to work for him, I simply could not refuse. At the time, I had not been a Christian for a few years, but Sizemore, who was a Christian, soon had me back in the fold. Fervently. Because I was a "good girl." I was thrilled to be working alongside a Christian advancing a moral cause that would help people have more freedom and stop the onslaught of immoral liberalism. Goodling says she, too, was driven by the desire to help people.

When I began to notice that things were maybe not so perfect at Oregon Taxpayers United, I was not willing to let go of my illusions and assumed I must just be misunderstanding what I saw. I assumed the people around me were as "good" as I was. Of course, I was very naïve, and not only about others but also about myself. I am betting that Goodling had a very similar experience. I gradually slipped into engaging in activities that were illegal, but to me it felt more like speeding when you know there aren't any police around to give you a ticket, and always it was to advance a worthy cause that I believed in with all my heart, and not for any personal gain. Like Goodling, "I don't believe I intended to commit a crime." I never meant to break the law or hurt anyone – in fact, I was convinced that I was doing just the opposite. As Goodling said yesterday, "I believe I crossed the lines. But I didn't mean to."

Like Goodling, I one day found myself in a position where I was having to take the Fifth and be granted immunity in order to testify. I know exactly what that feels like. I also know exactly what it feels like to realize you're damned lucky you aren't in jail, though a lot of people think you ought to be there, and at the same time to be bewildered because you always thought jail was for "bad" people and you're not one of them.

Unlike Goodling, who I don't believe has had enough time to really think her situation through, I am several years down the road now and have spent a lot of time trying to understand how a "good girl" like me, who only wanted to help people and never meant to break the law, got into the middle of such a huge mess. I think what I've learned is something very important about the conservative Christian culture. I know this applies where women are concerned, and can only assume it also applies to men.

Kohlberg nailed it in his theory of the Stages of Moral Development, which is further described here. Kohlberg doesn't really look at the morality of a person's decisions, but rather at the complexity of the thought process through which a person goes in making moral decisions. The stages of development are as follows:

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1 – Obedience and Punishment

The earliest stage of moral development is especially common in young children, but adults are capable of expressing this type of reasoning. At this stage, children see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a means to avoid punishment.

Stage 2 – Individualism and Exchange

At this stage, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was whichever best-served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible, but only if it serves one's own interests.

Level 2. Conventional Morality

Stage 3 – Interpersonal Relationships

Often referred to as the “good boy-good girl” orientation, this stage is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an emphasis on conformity, being ‘nice,’ and consideration of how choices influence relationships.

Stage 4 – Maintaining Social Order

At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.

Level 3. Postconventional Morality

Stage 5 – Social Contract and Individual Rights

At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.

Stage 6 – Universal Principles

Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.

I believe that people like Goodling (and formerly myself) are locked in at Stage 3. They are stuck in the "good girl" phase. They do what their peers expect them to do, and often they are rewarded for it. They also know the rules and want to please others. But because their moral reasoning is no more complex than this, they make poor choices when they find conflicts between what the rules say and what their peers want. The overwhelming need in such a position of insecurity is to retain their self-identity – that of a "good girl." So they look to their superiors, do what they are asked to do, and get their reward. This is how they can break the law and still view themselves as being a "good" Christian.

How is it that the brightest and most sincere Christian women are being locked in at the third phase of moral development? Why do we see these women rising all the way into positions as high as Secretary of Defense and yet still being locked into the morally stunted position of honestly having a good girl self-image while at the same time doing very bad things? I think the best answer to that is to look at the final stages through the eyes of fundamentalist Christianity and conservatism.

Stage 4 – Maintaining Social Order

At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.

If there is one thing the fundamentalist Christian is taught, it is that they are not "of this world," but rather are members of the "kingdom of Heaven." These Christians associate with each other and eschew their culture and their society as a whole. In my case, I lacked exposure to the movies, television, music, food, and other activities that the rest of my peers enjoyed. When you are that separate from your own society, you never really learn to consider your society as a whole. You follow the rules of God, you do your duty for God, and you respect God. You learn what those things are from the leaders around you and how they interpret the Bible. It becomes very easy for those leaders to lead you into violating the rules of society because you do not see yourself as a part of society. As a good girl, you do what your godly leaders tell you to do. And because of the traditional male-female roles that are taught in fundamentalist Christianity, if you are told to do things by a man, you are even less likely to question things.

Stage 5 – Social Contract and Individual Rights

At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.

The fundamentalist Christian may reach Stage 4, but will only rarely reach Stage 5 because the values, opinions, and beliefs of non-believers are contrary to the clear, black and white proclamations of God and are never, therefore, valid or worth considering. You are tempting evil if you try to understand sin, and anything that differs from what you believe is God's truth is sin.

Stage 6 – Universal Principles

Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.

To the fundamentalist Christian, the only truth is God's truth as expressed in the Bible. There is no need to reason through it or understand it. There is no need to examine a situation to know what feels right. If God says homosexuality is sin, then it will never enter the person's head to consider how the homosexual feels about his ostracism, or his lack of freedom, or his fear. One can be heartless to the homosexual and still view herself as a "good girl." If God says black people bear Ham's curse and are intended to serve others forever, then it does not matter if that person is separated from his family or beaten or has no human rights. One can own a slave and still view herself as a "good girl." If God wants people to have lower taxes so they have more money to take care of their families, if God will take care of his own people, and if only lazy people are receiving government benefits, then it does not matter if cutting taxes takes food away from poor children and the disabled and abused women and liberal-indoctrination centers (a.k.a. public schools). One can "do whatever it takes" to advance a limited tax agenda and still be a "good girl." And if God wants his people in key positions in the government so as to restore godly principles to this Christian nation, then it does not matter if competent and fair attorneys are fired to make way for conservative Republicans who will do the President's bidding. One can break the law by asking political questions of applicants for career appointments and still be a "good girl."

Posted by Becky at 12:42 PM |

May 23, 2007

What Keith said

For those of you like me who are completely frustrated and angry with the Democrats in DC over their complete and total bendover to Bush on the Iraq war supplemental funding bill...

I give you Keith Olberman.

It's best if you can watch Keith deliver this scathingly brilliant commentary--but if you can't, Crooks and Liars has a transcript which you can read at the link.

Olberman has cemented himself as the political commentor of our time.

Posted by Carla at 07:58 PM |

Anti-Gay Students Protest for Speech Rights

A conflict has been brewing for a month now at San Juan High School in Citrus Heights, California over the suspension of dozens of students who wore anti-gay T-shirts to school in protest of the Day of Silence (which is designed to promote tolerance for gays and lesbians). For the past month, the students and church members have been holding multiple protests over the suspensions, claiming their First Amendment rights are being infringed, and picketing has even occurred in front of the principal's home and his church. I am surprised that the matter has come to this point, actually, and am very interested to see what ultimately comes from this case in terms of students' freedom of speech on public school property.

The shirts contained texts from the Bible on the subject of homosexuality. One shirt read, "Don't touch God's rainbow," which was a protest of the use of the rainbow by homosexuals as a symbol of diversity. Or, as WorldNet Daily describes it, "he was offended homosexual activists had stolen the biblical symbol of promise and turned it into an icon of perversion." Other shirts read, "Sodomy is Sin" and "Homosexuality is a Sin." The school district decided that a shirt that is offensive to anyone cannot be worn. Not surprisingly, a Catholic news service described the ongoing conflict in an article entitled, "School supports Sodomy."

Last night, the students submitted the following resolution to the School Board for consideration:

As Christian students enrolled at the San Juan Unified School District and members of student religious clubs, we seek to resolve an ongoing conflict regarding free expression on high school campuses. To this end, we respectfully submit this request as follows:

Whereas, there is an ongoing disagreement between students and District administrators, teachers and staff, regarding the rights to free expression on high school campuses;
Whereas, Christian students have worn clothing and distributed literature which the District asserts offends students who are homosexual or otherwise identify themselves as "gay" or "lesbian";

Whereas, students who have engaged in expressive conduct have been subject to discipline, including suspensions;

Whereas, students who have been subject to discipline for peacefully engaging in expressive conduct have protested in front of school campuses;

Whereas, Christian students who engage in peaceful expressive conduct on matters of contemporary moral, political and social topics are acting in accordance with a long tradition within the faith community;

Whereas, proposed laws addressing issues directly related to homosexuality are currently being debated in California;

Whereas, attempts to silence students by punishing or otherwise censoring them has served to aggravate the disagreement between Christian students and the District;

Whereas, as people of faith it is our religious and civic duty to not be silent on important issues;

Whereas, we will continue to exercise our rights of speech on District campuses, both as individuals and through student clubs;

Whereas, as Christians we also seek to live at peace with all of our fellow students and District employees;

Whereas, we believe that all peaceable students are entitled to educational opportunities regardless of their beliefs;

Whereas, students should not be subjected to bullying by other students, discipline by administrators, or academic punishment by teachers merely for what they believe and for peacefully expressing those beliefs;

Whereas, the students and religious clubs are desirous of obtaining an agreement with the District which both protects student speech and maintains an atmosphere which is civil;

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Board of Trustees direct District administrators to draft general guidelines for expressive conduct to be presented for review to the Board at the next board meeting. In view of this, the Christian students have these requirements for the guidelines as follows:

- permit students to speak to moral issues and conduct;

- permit quotations from religious texts such as the Bible; and,

- create a safe, educationally sound, environment for all students regardless of belief.

An interesting aspect of this story is the involvement of the "underground" Church of the Divide, which meets in members' homes rather than in an official church building.

Dick Otterstad and son Luke, leaders of the 20-member El Dorado County congregation, have staged dozens of demonstrations in recent years to expose what they view as Christian persecution.

They've taken to Wal-Mart parking lots dressed up as Santa Claus to warn shoppers about the company's use of "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." They've donned red devil suits and picketed the "imposition" of gay tolerance at school workshops. And they've attracted media attention -- from outlets as big as CNN and USA Today -- at almost every turn.

The Otterstads and their church brought those tactics to Sacramento … orchestrating rallies against Dave Terwilliger, the San Juan High School principal …

Ever since, rallies in front of San Juan High have become a routine part of life, with supporters using bullhorns and cardboard signs to make their case. …

The Otterstads entered the fray … by taking the protests a step further -- to the principal's home and house of worship … Celtic Cross Presbyterian Church in Citrus Heights. As Terwilliger worshipped inside, the group hoisted signs labeling him a "hypocrite" and called for his excommunication.

After the service, the group followed Terwilliger to his home on Pomeroy Way, where the rally continued. The group distributed flyers to neighbors that, according to Dick Otterstad, essentially read: "Your neighbor is persecuting Christians. You need to confront him over his tyrannical behavior at a public high school."

Local church officials, school leaders and even one supporter of the suspended students said Monday that such tactics mark a nasty, personal turn in a debate that's so far remained peaceful.

"It's extreme, I would say," said Peter Ganchenko, a self-described Christian conservative who has organized many of the high school demonstrations. "I don't know why they would do that."

Dick Otterstad said the Bible calls on adherents to expose sin and what they see as perversions of biblical truths. If that means protesting at someone's home or church, so be it.

His church has done it before. In February, Otterstad and church members protested outside the First Baptist Church in Davis to call for the ouster of a member of that congregation, Freddie Oakley, Yolo County's clerk-recorder. The protest targeted Oakley's decision to issue "Certificates of Inequality" to gay couples who wanted to marry. The certificates have no legal basis, but Oakley said they were intended to highlight the unfair treatment of gay couples under the law.

Otterstad, who wants public schools abolished and sodomy laws reinstated, owns a company called "No Gay Gear Inc." that sells anti-gay materials such as T-shorts and magnets. Last year, his company provided T-shirts that the students wore to school in a similar protest.

Trent Allen, a spokesman for the school district, says the shirts aren't about religious belief, but rather are targeting homosexuals and implying they will go to hell. "We don't want an intimidating environment where students feel harassed and persecuted because of one of their identifying qualities." The district says it supports the students' First Amendment rights – just not at school.

And the First Amendment is really what this dispute comes down to. The Illinois First Amendment Center links to several landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that lay out the extent of students' expressive freedom on public school property. One of the more important cases is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In that case, the Court said, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The Court also stated, "Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots."

Another pertinent case, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, summarized previous cases as stating that students "cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises … unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will 'substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students.'" Nevertheless, "[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its 'basic educational mission,' … even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." Determining what speech is appropriate is the responsibility of the school board. However, the Court said in Hazelwood, the school's ability to restrict student speech is limited to school-sponsored speech, such as "publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that … bear the imprimatur of the school." The school cannot "silence a student's personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises."

GLSEN has addressed the matter of First Amendment protection in the debate of homosexuality between students at schools very well at its website. The group offers a link to consensus guidelines that were designed to help deal with conflicts over views of homosexuality in light of the First Amendment. One item in those guidelines reads:

Be careful that you do not discriminate against student clubs or expression simply because the political or religious message is unpopular or potentially offensive to some. Educators can and should require that all viewpoints be expressed in a respectful manner, but they may not exclude some views merely because they don’t agree with them. To do so constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

In short, schools cannot impose a religious viewpoint in the matter of homosexuality, but they also cannot prevent students from expressing their religious beliefs on the matter. So long as the exchange remains peaceful and non-disruptive, it must be allowed. I am surprised the Citrus Heights area's school board is not being advised by an attorney to drop the suspensions and allow the students to wear their shirts, despite the fact that they are offensive. On the other hand, the situation appears to this outsider to potentially be disruptive and contributory toward an unsafe atmosphere for some students. So I will be very interested to see if this goes to court, and if so, how it flavors the overall interpretation of First Amendment protection for student speech.

Posted by Becky at 10:43 AM |

Fox tries to pander to the Christian market

I'm probably the last person to notice the Fox Faith Movies site. But better late than never, eh?

Undoubtedly, Fox believes it can pander to Christians who don't want to view sex on the big screen. The film they're currently pushing is rated PG for "thematic elements, some violence and language". So apparently you can knock somebody around or use a swear word or two (no "F" bombs, one would think--I doubt that would pass muster) and still be chummy with the Christian viewership.

No tits and ass, tho.

Posted by Carla at 08:39 AM |

May 22, 2007

Rudy: It's Clinton's Fault

In case you thought that going to war in Iraq was Bush’s decision and Bush’s mistake, it turns out that, like everything else that’s gone wrong in this country, it was actually Bill Clinton’s fault. So said Rudy Giuliani last night on the Late Show with David Letterman. He reminded Letterman that a lot of Democrats initially supported the war and praised Bush for deciding to attack Iraq. Of course, he neglected to mention that their support was based on trusting that the President was telling them the truth.

It was the policy of the Clinton administration to have a regime change in Iraq, so in a way, George Bush carried out what Bill Clinton wanted to do and didn’t get the opportunity to do.

Hmm. "I have never heard that before. And I have heard some pretty absurd theories."

Posted by Becky at 06:42 PM |

"Corrupt, Inept, Mendacious and Venal"

David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru, writes, "the Bush dictatorship is the domicile for many monsters cloaked in human attire" in a piece on Pravda entitled, Ignoring evil in America." And, he says, though the "Bush dictatorship" is "corrupt, inept, mendacious and venal," Americans are, for some reason, suffering from "a great reluctance to use the term 'evil' when describing the cabal of thugs, hypocrites and war criminals who stole the White House in 2000 and 2004." Hoffman apparently feels quite passionate about his subject matter. If you can see past the wild, inflammatory rhetoric, however, he makes a good point.

“Why are Americans so willing to acknowledge the presence of evil when it comes to foreign governments, but so unwilling to acknowledge the presence of evil within their own government?”

Hoffman offers four reasons:

1. "[T]he 'arrogance syndrome.' Americans want to believe they are somehow more 'civilized,' and therefore less gullible, than other nations of the world."

2. "[T]oo many powerful people profit from it."

3. "[T]he uncanny ability of human beings to rationalize anything.

4. "[T]he terms 'good and evil' often take one into the realm of religion. When science and logic fails, faith often prevails."

In Bryan Singer’s remarkable film The Usual Suspects, a character named Verbal Kint remarks, “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Sadly, this trick will continue to be effective as long as Americans refuse to acknowledge that their nation is being controlled by people who are “purely and simply evil.”

It looks to me as if Hoffman is saying Bush is the Devil (though not literally, of course). He wouldn't be the first to find a diabolical connection. For example, did you know that Bush is the AntiChrist (also known as "the Devil's Spawn")? In fact, irrefutable proof exists that he worships Satan. And that scary thing is, he is not the only one. Thank goodness we have a few very sincere people out there with no life who are hard at work compiling meaningless data that can make us chuckle as we consider the very discomfiting fact that the Bush Administration is being increasingly described around the world as "corrupt, inept, mendacious and venal" - and even "evil."

Posted by Becky at 02:58 PM |

When Do Schools Cross the Line in Sex Ed?

A series of recent incidents in which school children have been provided with information about sex and drugs from a very open-minded perspective has got me thinking about just how much schools should defer to parents when it comes to such delicate topics. When kids are not provided with information, whether due to inattention by their parents or religious and moral belief systems, they can end up in trouble because they failed to recognize danger and/or did not know how to avoid it. On the other hand, if you give kids too much information, they might think they have carte blanch permission to do anything or, for those who always want to push the boundaries, go further in their experimentation than they otherwise might have gone. Some kids are already in the process of rejecting their parents' beliefs or perhaps are afraid to tell their parents about their sexuality and want information their parents will not give to them. The question is, at what point does the public school system cross the line in providing information on sex and drugs to children without their parents' knowledge or permission?

One of the recent incidents involves an assembly at Boulder High School in Colorado where a psychology professor told students as young as 14 to go ahead and have sex and use drugs "appropriately" because they were "going to do it anyway." A partial transcript puts the comments into better perspective, but is still disturbing to me as a parent – even though I have had somewhat similar (but less explicit) conversations with my own children. Except for that drug part. I mean, is it really a healthy thing to tell high school students that there is even such a concept as using drugs "appropriately," particularly when by saying so you are encouraging illegal behavior? I think the assembly, if allowed at all, should have been optional and parents should have been invited so they could have had the opportunity to engage in follow-up discussions with their children.

The reason I question whether the assembly should even have been allowed is explained best by this:

Priscilla White [an upset parent] told [school] board members it's inappropriate for such a message to be delivered by a public school. She was reading excerpts of the presentation to the board when board President Helayne Jones told her to stop, because the language was inappropriate.

If adults in a school board meeting are offended by a transcript of the presentation, then clearly the presentation should not have been made to the students. I understand the generational differences in attitude toward these topics and the desire to overcome the hang-ups that caused problems for today's adults. So to say this was "Strike 7,867,960,071 Against Public Education" is a bit over the top. But I also think high school is too early to expose kids to viewpoints that are completely contrary to their parents' beliefs without their parents' knowledge or permission. That should wait until college when they are adults.

I'm a little less, but not much less, offended by a recent seminar held at North Newton High School in Newton, Mass. that explained to students how to know if they are gay, where to meet other gay kids, and other related issues. The problem was not that it taught "the homosexual agenda," but rather that parents were banned from attending the seminar. As a parent, I find that absolutely galling. At the same time, I understand some parents are so radically intolerant of homosexuality that they would deny their children the sort of information that could help them live emotionally and physically healthy lives.

A third recent incident occurred at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, where 14-year-old students were required to attend a seminar on homosexuality that basically, if we're being honest, was an effort to de-program their homophobia. Again, I don't personally have a problem with this. My kids have developed their own views on the matter and are pretty locked into them, and we have discussed it a number of times. The catch here was that the students had to sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell anyone what was said in the seminar – including their parents. That makes me wonder how explicit the information was – and if it was explicit, why the school thought that information was necessary to give to straight kids.

I am not a big fan, to put it mildly, of locking parents out of the information being given to kids who are still minors. Healthy family relationships are built on trust and honesty, and to ask kids to hide something from their parents that they normally might want to discuss with them is flat out wrong.

As for the Christian parents who are having so much trouble with the modern approach to this entire topic, I really cannot blame them for increasingly pulling their kids out of the public school system and putting them into private, religious schools. But for the rest of us, I believe we need to know what our children are being told. It isn't so much a matter of "rights," as in our kids being our "property." Rather, it's a matter of our responsibility to our kids to do our best for them. Parents know their kids better than anyone else, know what they're ready to learn, and have a set of values they want to pass on to their children. All of that should be respected.

Posted by Becky at 10:00 AM |

May 21, 2007

Gingrich Wants to "Convert All of America"

This weekend brought us another reason to be afraid of Newt Gingrich. Speaking to Liberty University's graduating class yesterday, Gingrich said, "A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded. We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights." If that had been all he said, I would have yawned and moved on. I mean, this sort of rhetoric is as trite as it comes. But after his speech, Gingrich said a most breathtaking thing: "Anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created." (Emphasis mine)

Posted by Becky at 02:12 PM |

The Press is Being Rather Nice to Teachers

I'm trying to figure out why Dan Brown has a problem with the media's reporting of pedophile teachers, but I don't get it. Brown seems to think there is some sort of conspiracy to defame teachers because every time he Googles "teacher" on Google News, 20 to 30 percent of the headlines he pulls up involve scandals (usually sex scandals and usually involving children).

This is bad. With similar methods in how the media has skewed and perverted perceptions of the dangers and criminality of African-American men, teachers are in the crosshairs of disproportionately sensational, negative reporting. This kind of coverage preys on people's fears and weaknesses, and it poisons an ostensibly informed citizenry.

I support the First Amendment wholly, and am not calling for certain egregious incidents not to be reported, but here in the blogosphere, I must shout into the amorphous vacuum of media interests: Why the hate on teachers?

Brown then goes on at length about how wonderful teachers are and all the wonderful things they do for America and decries the lack of media coverage of all their goodness. It's just plain a silly assertion. Media doesn't cover the goodness about anything as a general rule because goodness is rarely newsworthy. But Brown seems to think that with all the stories of pedophile teachers, people are beginning to view teachers as creepy (Catholic priest-type creepy). I can only say, "Wow."

I have plenty of reason not to trust teachers. I have two family members who actually were molested by teachers, one male and one female. My son's 6th grade teacher lost his job after two girls (not from the school, but of the age he was teaching) accused him of molestation. I once was friends with a girl who started dating her husband back when he was her 6th grade teacher. Creepy, I know, but true story. But even with all that, I still believe in teachers. I know my kids' teachers and the way they have positively influenced my kids' lives. In no way do I see teachers as creepy.

Brown then tries to claim that because people are beginning not to trust teachers not to molest their kids, they're also no longer trusting them to be able to teach their kids.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002, soon to be up for renewal, is based on a tacit mistrust of teachers. Within the legislation, virtually all accountability is defined through a very small number of high-stakes standardized tests, forcing teachers and students to endure rigid, test-centric, "teacher-proof" curricula.

Does Brown honestly believe that parents will begin to distrust teachers' ability to teach because they've heard of a few cases of molestation? Isn't it more important to publicly shame pedophile teachers and force them out of the profession? I think the statistics are such that we're not giving the problem of pedophile teachers anywhere near the attention it actually deserves.

A 1999 report found that many teachers who were caught having molested kids were able to play the system and get teaching jobs elsewhere, undiscovered by their new employer. Many actually got help from their former bosses finding a job in another district or state (it's called "passing the trash"). Only rarely do pedophile teachers actually pay the price they ought to pay. In fact, when students report sexual abuse by school staff or teachers, the teachers only resign 38.7% of the time. 17.5% are "spoken to informally," 15% are terminated or not re-hired, 11.3% receive a formal reprimand, 8.1% are suspended and resume teaching, and 7.5% are said to have "not meant it." All but 1% of those who resigned, weren't rehired, retired, or were fired actually retained their teaching licenses. When the press does their job and reports these people, it is easier to prevent them from hiding from their past.

Brown says the news coverage of pedophile teachers is disproportionate, but statistics say otherwise. As many as 5% of teachers sexually harass or abuse students, and rarely does it occur only one time. Most of these cases are never reported. A 2002 Department of Education report estimated that from 6 percent to 10 percent of all students in public schools would be victims of abuse before graduation.

After reviewing the statistics, Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft said, “[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem? The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” Richard Dangel, a child psychologist in Dallas, said, “Only about 4% of offenders get busted. The other 96% don’t.” If the media was out to smear teachers, then why are we hearing so much more about Catholic priest abuse than we are about teacher abuse? Maybe it's because too many of us have that Dan Brown attitude that teachers are perfect and lovely and can do no wrong. I think the papers are being very subdued in their reporting of this problem, specifically because they don't want to destroy the public's faith in our school system. It's a difficult balancing act when your putting children's futures on the line.

I mentioned four cases I knew of involving teacher molestation. In one, the teacher was asked to relocate, but kept on teaching. In another, it was never reported and the teacher became "Teacher of the Year" not long afterward. In the case of my son's 6th grade teacher, the school was aware of the allegations the entire year my son was in his class, but we parents were never told and he was allowed to stay teaching. Only during the summer following school did the information become public knowledge. I have not heard any more about what happened in that case. And my friend who married her 6th grade teacher? Why, of course nobody knew that she had been having sex with the man since she was 11 years old because she was in love and never told on him.

In the end, I don't think revealing pedophile teachers denigrates the entire profession. If we cracked down on these people and got them in jail where they belong, instead of shuffling them around to new schools and waiting for them to be re-discovered, then the teaching profession would be seen as even more credible and worthy of trust than it is now.

Posted by Becky at 01:59 PM |

May 20, 2007

Harry Reid shows off his new cojones

And they are a thing of beauty.

Posted by Carla at 01:48 PM |

Convicted for convictions

Members of the military blowing the whistle on the Bush Adminstration unfortunately get the shaft:

A military jury recommended that a Navy lawyer spend six months in prison and be dismissed from the service for sending a human rights attorney the names of 550 Guantanamo Bay detainees in an unmarked Valentine's Day card.

Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz was convicted Thursday at his court martial of communicating secret information about Guantanamo Bay detainees that could be used to injure the United States and three other charges of leaking information to an unauthorized person.

"Injure the United States" is a pretty heavy-handed charge..especially given that nothing he sent was marked classified.

Further, according to the woman that received the information--many of the names sent by Diaz were already listed with human rights organizations such as Amnesty International.

In other words, Diaz was sending information that was likely already available through non-military channels.

Imagine a military attorney so distraught by what he's seeing in the name of his country that he's willing to risk his career and his freedom by telling what he knows.

Then imagine the right wing excuse machine applauding his sentence.

The fucked up priorities of conservatives in this country never cease to amaze me.

Posted by Carla at 01:29 PM |

False Patriotism Endangering America

Missy Beattie responded to the exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani in last week’s debate the same way I did – with deep concern over the audience’s blind acceptance of Giuliani’s cowboy mentality and rejection of Paul’s warnings. Beattie points to a woman she saw on television a few days after 9/11. The woman was asking, "How could they do this to us when we are so good?" I wondered that myself. "They hate our freedom" was an answer that felt good, but it was the wrong answer. It wasn't until I read Chalmers Johnson's "Nemesis" that I really understood it. Sadly, too many Republicans so deeply believe that to be a patriot, one must believe America can do no wrong, that they reject out of hand the notion that we have done wrong and that the chickens are coming home to roost. To talk about blowback to a Republican is to risk being called a traitor. They don’t seem to realize that their “patriotism” is putting this country in grave danger, and those who are raising alarms are doing so because they are patriots who want a bright future for this country!

If the citizens of this nation don't examine the role our conquest-driven foreign policy played in bringing terrorism to our shores, then, we will elect politicians who will continue the strategies that inspire terrorists, thus, denying our children and grandchildren a peaceful world.

Ron Paul suggested we listen to what the people who attacked us had to say about why they did it. Beattie offers a few excerpts from bin Laden’s fatwa and many other brave, patriotic Americans have done the same. Interestingly, just as Paul said, our bombing of Iraq, along with the imposition of sanctions that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, really was part of what led to 9/11. And it isn’t traitorous to say so. In fact, it’s downright patriotic to tell the truth if we want to build a better future for America.

Posted by Becky at 12:08 PM |

May 19, 2007

Another GOP perv gets caught

At least this one isn't a minister:

A former South Dakota lawmaker is accused of molesting his own foster children and legislative pages.

Ted Klaudt, 49, a Republican rancher from Walker, faces a long list of charges: eight counts of rape, two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of witness tampering, sexual contact with a person under 16, and stalking.

Court documents mention five possible victims. Three were foster children between the ages of 15 and 19 who lived with Klaudt's family. One is a cousin of one of those girls, and the fifth is a friend of Klaudt's daughter.

In the most disturbing accusation, the girls say Klaudt had them convinced they could earn up to $20,000 by donating their eggs to a fertility clinic. And even though he has no medical training, the girls say Klaudt did all the supposed "exams" and "procedures" himself.

Over at Digby's blog, Tristero notes the laundry list of predictably austere legislative offerings from Klaudt:

establish certain legislative findings pertaining to the health and rights of women, to revise the physician disclosure requirements to be made to a woman contemplating submitting to an abortion, and to provide for certain causes of action for professional negligence if an abortion is performed without informed consent.

clarify the application of certain provisions pertaining to the sale of pistols.

provide for recognition of certain valid nonresident permits to carry a concealed pistol.

provide for limited confidentiality of certain firearms information.

establish a task force to study abortion and to provide for its composition, scope, and administration.

prohibit the performance of abortions, except to save the life of the mother, and to provide a penalty therefor and to provide for a delayed effective date.

In support of free religious expression in public schools.

Proposing and submitting to the electors at the next general election an amendment to Article XXI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, relating to the definition of marriage. [The proposed amendment:: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota."]

revise certain provisions regarding the performance of abortions on unemancipated minors and those found to be incompetent. [The bill required a 48 hour delay after notification of a parent befor an abortion could be performed, with certain exceptions noted.]

prohibit the performance of abortions, except to save the life of the mother, and to provide a penalty therefor and to provide for a delayed effective date.

The only plausible conclusion I can reach with this guy is that he recognizes his twisted, deviant soul and has used his legislative position to assuage the guilt he feels for his perversions.

Given the excesses of religious extremism against sex by the likes of the disgraced Ted Haggard and Paul Barnes--the picture is clarifying.

Sometimes they're just trying to hide from their homosexuality.

Or those individuals who move to the extreme fringe preaching against healthy, normal sexual activity by consenting adults are often tasting the forbidden fruit of their own deviant sexual urges.

Either way, its about covering up for things they hate about themselves.

Posted by Carla at 10:45 AM |

May 18, 2007

The "War on Christianity" Claims Fall Flat Again

It looks as if another effort to scare Christians into believing the end of the world is right around the corner has fallen flat. Yesterday, Christians around the world were warned that Hong Kong was on the verge of banning the Bible because of its "indecent" contents, which some 1406 people told Hong Kong's Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority "made one tremble" because of its stories of rape, incest, cannibalism, and bestiality. So desperate were the scaremongers that they were forced to quote someone who posted on an Internet message board to ramp up the fear: "Wow, another excuse to try and remove Jesus or anything about Him from the world, so to speak. The Enemy is hard at work in these last days." Alas, the Television and Licensing Authority refused to bite, saying, "The Bible is a religious text which is part of civilization. It has been passed from generation to generation," and refusing to submit the Bible to the Obscene Articles Tribunal for classification.

Posted by Becky at 04:59 PM |

So maybe I'll register as a Republican

Now that Jerry Falwell has done the mortal coil shuffle, James Dobson has decided once and for all to take the reins of Christianofascism and ride it like the Rocking Horse Winner.

That Dobson really is a piece of work:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Religious conservative leader James Dobson will sit out the 2008 presidential election if former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the Republican presidential nominee, he wrote Thursday in an online column.

In a piece published on the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily, Dobson wrote that Giuliani's support for abortion rights and civil unions for homosexuals, as well as the former mayor's two divorces, were a deal-breaker for him.

"I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision," he wrote.

"If given a Hobson's -- Dobson's? -- choice between him and Senators Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran -- or if worse comes to worst, not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."

Just the idea that Giuliani's candidacy would thwart the efforts of Dobson and his minions of intolerance-bordering-on-insanity...is almost enough to make me run down to the local elections office and switch my voter registration to Republican.

I might even consider giving the guy money, too.

Posted by Carla at 02:47 PM |

Act Now to Protect Organic Standards

Democracy in Action is gathering e-signatures as fast as it can in an effort to stop the perversion of organic standards by the USDA.

The USDA has announced a controversial proposal, with absolutely no input from consumers, to allow 38 new non-organic ingredients in products bearing the "USDA Organic" seal. Most of the ingredients are food colorings derived from plants that are supposedly not "commercially available" in organic form. But at least three of the proposed ingredients, backed by beer giant Anheuser-Busch and pork and food processors, represent a serious threat to organic standards, and have raised the concerns of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as well as a number of smaller organic companies and organic certifiers.

Specifically, the OCA disagrees with the "Budweiser exemption," allowing conventionally grown hops, produced with pesticides and chemical fertilizers, to be used in beers labeled as "USDA Organic". Also, OCA strenuously objects to the USDA's proposal to allow the use of conventionally raised factory-farmed animals' intestines as casing for sausages labeled as "organic."

Adding salt to the wound, the USDA has indicated the public comment period will not be the standard 30-60 days. Although the USDA has been working closely with industry on these proposed changes as far back as 2002, the agency will only be accepting public comments for seven days.

If this makes you as angry as it makes me, please do as I did and go sign the petition!

Posted by Becky at 11:41 AM |

Fear and Torture Changing America's Character

Two former military leaders have penned a great piece on fear, torture, and who we are as Americans. Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999 and Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994. Their piece, "US policy on terror breeds new enemies," probably won't win them any friends in the White House, but it's a very insightful analysis of what the politics of fear has done to this country.

We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.

The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night’s presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.

Their indictment of torture could not be more appropriately timed. A new survey shows that Marines are more likely than other soldiers to condone torture. Fewer than half would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian and 39% support the use of torture to gain information from insurgents. We also have disturbing testimony from a marine in a pretrial hearing in the 2005 Haditha killings and cover-up. Krulak and Hoar explain why Americans need an attitude adjustment forthwith:

Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA, but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.

I would certainly like to see us return to the days when we could hold our heads high, knowing that we did not torture or abuse prisoners, but rather respected human rights and human life. If we lose that aspect of ourselves, then we have lost what makes America great.

Posted by Becky at 11:32 AM |

Gore Decries Television, Praises Internet

Time has an excerpt available online from Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason. In it, he asks the question "Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned?"

It is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know I am not alone in feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong.

If you share that feeling, then you'll be very interested in what he has to say about it. He doesn't point at the President or the media or anyone else we tend to want to blame. He points directly at us and our addiction to television.

Our Founders' faith in the viability of representative democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry, their ingenious design for checks and balances, and their belief that the rule of reason is the natural sovereign of a free people. The Founders took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas so that knowledge could flow freely. Thus they not only protected freedom of assembly, they made a special point—in the First Amendment—of protecting the freedom of the printing press. And yet today, almost 45 years have passed since the majority of Americans received their news and information from the printed word. Newspapers are hemorrhaging readers. Reading itself is in decline. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by the empire of television. … According to an authoritative global study, Americans now watch television an average of 4 hours and 35 minutes every day—90 minutes more than the world average. When you assume eight hours of work a day, six to eight hours of sleep and a couple of hours to bathe, dress, eat and commute, that is almost three-quarters of all the discretionary time the average American has.

I've got to tell you, before I even got to where Gore said it I already had concluded that the answer to this problem of reasoned public debate is the Internet. We need to get more people into reading and debating issues on the Internet, where they are actively engaged by speaking their mind, facing challenges to their views, and learning from each other. It is amazingly powerful.

Even more amazing to me personally is how my own view of Al Gore has been completely transformed over the past year. Although I don't agree with him politically in a number of areas, I have to admit the man is an incredible visionary who, through his activism in the development of the Internet and in increasing public awareness of global warming, has had an incredibly powerful and positive long-term impact on the future of this country and of the planet itself. He is the classic example of why the demonization of individuals whose politics are different from your own is so harmful.

Posted by Becky at 11:09 AM |

May 17, 2007

If Falwell Thinks He's in Hell Now ...

Nods to Jesus' General for noticing that Fred Pehlps's Westboro Baptist Church plans to picket Jerry Falwell's funeral. I guess he wasn't enough of a fag-hater to satisfy their god, because, as they now are saying, "God Hates Jerry Falwell" for spending his life "prophesying lies and false doctrines like 'God loves everyone'."

The "corpulent false prophet Jerry Falwell" said a lot of things about homosexuals that one might easily mistake as having come from the mouth of Fred Phelps himself. For instance:

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

He also said 9/11was God's punishment for America's tolerance of "the gays and the lesbians."

The strange thing is that Phelps also criticizes Falwell for "warmly" praising "Christ-rejecting Jews" (when Falwell actually said some pretty harsh things about Jews) and "backsliders" like Billy Graham (when Falwell also came down hard on him). I nearly wrote a post the other day comparing Falwell to Phelps. I was thinking of doing a quiz with several quotes by Falwell and asking the reader to guess which ones were by him and which were by Phelps. I decided enough people had written about him that I'd let it go.

It looks to me as if the only legitimate complaint that Fred Phelps has against Jerry Falwell is that Falwell was at least sensible enough to distance himself from his fellow crazy hater. Falwell did, in fact, care about the "filthy lucre," whereas Phelps only cares about the hate. If there is, indeed, a Hell, I think Phelps's eventual arrival there - God willing, sooner rather than later - will make Falwell's eternal torment all the more unbearable.

Posted by Becky at 01:23 PM |

Comey is a Hero

If you have not yet heard or read the testimony that Former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey gave Congress on Tuesday, you really need to check it out (I'm not linking to the video, but it should be easy to find). Comey tells of how he and Attorney General John Ashcroft, in March of 2004, had decided that warrentless wiretapping, otherwise referred to by Comey as "a particular classified program," was illegal. Ashcroft decided he would not provide a signature certifying its legality and allowing the program to continue. Shortly thereafter, Ashcroft was hospitalized and Comey became the acting Attorney General - and the person who had the difficult job of telling the President that the program would not be re-certified. Comey then tells of how, on March 10, Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card, at the direction of President Bush, decided to circumvent Comey's authority and visit the hospital bed of the gravely ill John Ashcroft to try to convince him to allow the continued use of the program. The drama that unfolded is so astounding that it reads more like a movie script than an actual occurrence. Needless to say, Comey's testimony has reignited the investigation into the warrantless wiretapping program.

What strikes me about this is the fact that Comey is a Republican who, if you listen to him speak and pause and struggle with his testimony, is clearly very upset at having to push down the pillars holding the roof over this Administration. He has had to make the very difficult, gut-wrenching choice to do the right thing even though it will harm his Party and perhaps even efforts he supports. The pressure coming down on him for this must be incredibly intense. I, for one, have a profound admiration for his courage and integrity.

Posted by Becky at 12:16 PM |

FEMA is no Longer About Aiding Disaster Victims

Republicans are constantly harping these days on the need for limited government and self-reliance. To that end, they attack the social safety net of Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid and Medicare, the food stamp program, etc. When government steps in, they say, charity goes down, and if the government backed out of these programs and let people help each other, then efforts to help the needy would actually cost less and be more effective. These efforts should be an activity of churches and neighbors and families, they say. So why it is that with a Christian Republican president, our government is actually turning away volunteers who want to help the victims of disasters?

A very compelling account of one group's efforts to help the victims of the tornado that flattened Greensburg, Kansas on May 4 shows how entirely heartless and anti-volunteer FEMA has become. The group, like all volunteers who were bringing food, supplies, and manpower to Greensburg, was denied entry by armed guards at checkpoints set up outside of what was left of the town – because those were FEMA's instructions. It was a week before Americorps was given permission by FEMA to establish and coordinate volunteer efforts.

This sounds all too similar to FEMA's actions after Hurricane Katrina, where volunteers were turned away from helping victims who were trapped in their homes. FEMA also turned away water, aid, and fuel and cut emergency communication lines – all in the name of security and safety. Would-be volunteers told of days upon days of sitting in tents while people were dying, waiting for permission to enter and provide assistance. But until the city was "secured," FEMA would not let them in. And the same thing happened this month in Greensburg.

Shortly after the tornado, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) took control of the recovery efforts in Greensburg. The United Way became the coordinating organization for relief volunteers but, after orders came from FEMA, halted the flow of volunteers into Greensburg. FEMA demanded that Greensburg needed to be “secured” by the National Guard before the area could be opened to real recovery efforts.

So, as hundreds of recovery volunteers were told to not come to Greensburg by the United Way, hundreds of police from dozens of Kansas jurisdictions were mobilized to enter the city and establish “control.” …

FEMA’s mission was to safeguard the property of businesses in the area and offer “low interest” loans to property owners affected. The National Guard was on hand along with the local police, to act as the enforcement mechanism for FEMA, while occasionally hauling debris and garbage out of the city.

In another similarity to FEMA's actions in New Orleans, legal firearms were confiscated from residents of Greensburg.

Something stinks pretty badly here. Once again, we have a devastating disaster hitting a poor area, FEMA rushing in and blocking all volunteer assistance efforts while doing little or nothing itself (rumor has it that all FEMA has done for those people is mail a packet of information to them – which, of course, cannot be delivered as their homes and, therefore, mail boxes, are gone), destitute people looting, and those whose stuff is being looted being disarmed, only to finally receive help when they have reached a state of utter desperation. Why?

It is tempting to think of this as an effort to get Americans to distrust the government's ability to be there for them in their time of need and then to dismantle the safety net, but I don't think that's what's going on here. Just two months ago, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., wrote a piece for the free market Heritage Foundation upholding the role of the federal government in disasters. Rather than concluding the federal government should butt out, as you might expect, he said it plays an important role in providing national assistance in disasters. But, he said, federal assistance should be supplemental to local grassroots responses because "community-centered disaster preparations are far more effective than Washington-centric planning."

[A]s the scale of the disaster increases, so does the likelihood of confusion and ambiguity. Under these conditions, improvisation and adaptation are crucial to eliciting an effective response, particularly in the first hours and days of a catastrophe before organized responders can reach the scene. Research has found that the communities themselves are the best source of innovation and ingenuity, and the stronger the community, the more resourceful and robust is the nature of its adaptive qualities.

And of course we know that. Volunteers have always turned up in droves - loaded up with food, water, fuel, medicine, blankets, etc. - to help disaster victims. And it has always been the local churches and civic organizations that coordinated volunteer responses. Until FEMA became part of Homeland Security and its counter-terrorism efforts in 2003. And that leads me to what I think is going on here.

FEMA's entire angle has been changed. It is treating natural disasters as it would terrorist attacks. That is why before any assistance can be provided, it must first disarm and establish military control. Only then, after lives have been needlessly lost, can volunteers be allowed in to help the victims.

Posted by Becky at 11:52 AM |

May 16, 2007

Odds and Ends from Last Night's Debate

Last night's debate between the Republican presidential candidates offered numerous ironies, some comedy, and some moments that simply made you say, "Huh?" Here's a recap of the portions I didn't specifically highlight elsewhere today:

Mitt Romney, a member of the spend, spend, spend Republican Party, tried to pretend his party hasn't become the party of big government and fell back on the "limited government" blather that the faithful lap up like the thirsty dogs they are:

MR. ROMNEY: We need to have fundamental change in the way business in Washington is carried out. What that means is we're going to have to have leadership that can reorganize the government. We're going to have about 40 percent of the government employees turn over in the next couple of terms. And if we can -- we can reduce the employment there, but more importantly, is to go through all the agencies, all the departments, all the programs and cut out the unnecessary and the wasteful.

John McCain, who understands the big government problem, had perhaps the funniest answer of the evening:

SEN. MCCAIN: We didn't lose the 2006 election because of the war in Iraq; we lost it because we in the Republican Party came to Washington to change government and government changed us. We let spending go out of control. We spent money like a drunken sailor, although I never knew a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination of my colleagues.

Mike Huckabee, who quipped that Congress has "spent money like Edwards at a beauty shop," said he wanted to eliminate the IRS, thereby eliminating the $10 billion per year expenditure for operating the IRS, and change the entire tax structure.

MR. HUCKABEE: … If we had a fair tax, it would eliminate not just the alternative minimum tax, personal income tax, corporate tax, it would eliminate all the various taxes that are hidden in our system, and Americans don't realize what they're paying.

Rudy Giuliani boasted about the report that the infamous (at least around here) Club for Growth put out on his fiscal behavior while mayor of New York City and said if he could reduce taxes there, he could certainly do it in Washington, DC because "Washington is easier than New York City to deal with!" His plan:

I'd do Reagan-like across- the-board budget cuts 5 to 20 percent. And there's a great opportunity that we have coming up. About 50 percent, just about 50 percent of the federal employees are going to retire in the next 10 years, during the term of, maybe, one of us. And we have the opportunity of not refilling all those positions. And I would pledge not to refill 50 percent of them.

When asked how he would prevent rising gasoline costs, Sam Brownback, whose daughter apparently has a lead foot, attempted to straddle the fence on energy and the environment while also trashing the latest bogeymen:

SEN. BROWNBACK: How I'd prevent that is us getting more supply in the system through biofuels for one thing, like ethanol from Kansas or maybe Iowa would be a nice state, too, for it to come from -- (laughter) -- biodiesel. Us being able to drill more at home here in the United States, and we can do this in places like ANWR safely, environmentally sound, but get the supply up here. And, we have to in the future work on more conservation here. My family, we have a hybrid car. In that car you can get up to 42, 43 miles to the gallon. Now my 17-year-old daughter does about 25 on it, so it does matter how you drive it. But the point of it is, is you can do better, and we can do better. And we can do this through technology, and we can do this through increasing supply here. And by that mixture we can become energy-secure in North America in 15 years, which I think should be one of our key objectives, so that we're not held hostage to a guy like Chavez in Venezuela or Ahmadinejad in Iran. We can do better, and we need to do better than $4-a-gallon gasoline.

Tommy Thompson bragged about his "over 1,900 vetoes." Ron Paul said he would eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security. Tom Tancredo expressed what can only be summed up as embarrassment at the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republican-led Congress.

And Jim Gilmore positively baffled me with this statement:

MR. GILMORE: … I looked back at the California debates, and I think that some of the people on this stage were very liberal in characterizing themselves as conservatives …

He promised to talk about who he meant by that today on his website today, but I'll be damned if I can find it. Perhaps he changed his mind in light of the fact that later he was asked to "name names," and pointed to Rudy Giuliani for his abortion views, Mike Huckabee for his "dramatic" tax increases while governor, and Mitt Romney for his health care stance. John McCain felt "left out," particularly in light of Gilmore's earlier "Rudy McRomney" comment.

Gilmore wasn't the only one making baffling statements. Giuliani said of Hillary Clinton:

… there's something I think really big at stake here. We're looking at a race here in which the leading Democratic candidate for president of the United States has said that the unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America. That's a quote -- or that's a quote she agreed with. She's also said, with regard to taxes, that we have to take money from you in order to give it to the common good.

What's baffling is how a credible candidate could say something like that. That is a message targeted squarely at the far, far right. Since when did the mainstream Republican Party ever stand for an "unfettered free market"? And if taxes aren't meant to support the common good, then what are they for?

Mike Huckabee showed some balls, in my opinion, on the tax issue:

MR. WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, you got slammed for raising taxes. How do you respond, sir?

MR. HUCKABEE: Well, it's a form of flattery to be attacked, but … the truth is I cut taxes 94 times when I was governor. Yes, we raised gasoline taxes in my state to build a road program that we desperately needed, but 80 percent of the people of my state voted for it. Do I apologize for going along with what 80 percent of the people of my state supported? No. Nor do I anyway apologize for building roads. Do I apologize for complying with a Supreme Court order to improve education in a state that desperately needed it? Of course I don't, because our education system did improve. But I don't also apologize for being a Republican governor in a very Democrat state and getting 94 different tax decreases, the first ever in my state's history, done. And I think that's a pretty doggone good record.

Mitt Romney also has run into trouble with right-wing Republicans over his governance record in a "blue" state:

MR. WALLACE: Governor Romney, in 1994 you said you were a stronger advocate of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. As recently as five years ago you still supported a woman's right to choose. And as governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country. Are you a clear and consistent conservative?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support Second Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. An in the -- with regards to gay rights, I have always been somebody who opposes discrimination. But I also consistently feel that it's critical to have marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. Look, I've been governor in a pretty tough state. You've heard of blue states. If you ever bought a suit and you look at it and you can't tell if it's blue or black, that's how blue Massachusetts is. And in that state I've had to stand up for life, and I have. I've had to stand up for traditional marriage, and I have. In that very difficult state, I stood to make sure that we could have English immersion in our schools, because I think kids should be taught in English. I fought for the death penalty. I fought for abstinence education. In the toughest of states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.

Giluiani was the only candidate to say anything I found interesting regarding immigration:

MR. GIULIANI: Well, first of all, I'd like to thank Congressman Tancredo for saying that I'm soft on anything. (Laughter.) That's the first time in about 20 years, since I was U.S. attorney, that anybody accused me of being soft. So it may help my reputation. The reality is, the focus on immigration should be to know everyone who's in the United States. We should have a tamper-proof ID card; we should have a database in which we can identify the people who are in this country. I know something about security. I think I've had more experience at having to secure a city, having to deal with security in the Justice Department, than, I would say, anyone on this stage. And the reality is, we've got to be sensible about immigration. If we do the kinds of things that some of the people here are talking about, this country's going to be in greater danger; it is going to be more insecure; we're going to face a situation in which terrorists like the Fort Dix people, three of whom were illegal, can find a big underground to hide in. So we need a fence. We need a technological fence; we need a tamper-proof ID card. And we need a way that people who are working in this country can come forward, sign up for the tamper-proof ID card, get in the database and start paying their way.

And Ron Paul had some very interesting comments about our actions in the Middle East:

REP. PAUL: …We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

Of course, Giluiani couldn't let that one slide, and had to take it to lengths that were ridiculous on their face:

MR. GIULIANI: … That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

Fortunately, Paul has a brain:

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Next, McCain had to deal with the Confederate flag issue. First of all, can you believe this is an issue in this country? It's like those kids who only just this year had their first integrated prom. Anyway, McCain said that South Carolina's continued flying of the Confederate flag is OK because it's in front of the Statehouse as opposed to flying on top of the capitol and said we should all just "move on" on this issue.

And move on they did – to global warming, where Tancredo wandered into (and back out of) a coherent thought amidst all of his craziness. Well, sort of.

REP. TANCREDO: Okay. First of all, the whole issue of global warming, for every single scientist that tells you it's happening and that it's our fault -- and they'll stack up to here in this reports -- I can stack up another group of reports that say just the opposite. I don't believe that -- well, I'll tell you this, I don't know whether or not we are responsible, we the human race, are responsible for global warming. It certainly could be happening, it certainly could be a natural phenomenon. If it's the latter, of course there isn't much we can do about that. If it's the former, there is something that we can do about it, and I'm all for it, and that is of course to reduce our dependence on petroleum products. If we do that, we automatically reduce the carbon emissions that people claim are causing global warming. And I'm all for doing that, because -- I'll tell you why. It's a national security issue. It just isn't an issue of fight over the science of global warming; it's a national security issue for us to move away from the use of petroleum products when they're coming from countries that want to kill us. And although my dear friend Ron here -- I dearly love and really respect, but I'll tell you, I just have to disagree with you, Ron, about the issue of whether or not that -- whether Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it's a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves.

Romney was asked to talk about something where he changed his mind on an issue in opposition to the "base" and pointed to his support of No Child Left Behind.

Mr. ROMNEY: I have issues that take me in the same direction. One is No Child Left Behind. I've taken a position where, once upon a time, I said I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education. That was my position when I ran for Senate in 1994. That's very popular with the base. As I've been a governor and seen the impact that the federal government can have holding down the interest of the teachers' unions and instead putting the interests of the kids and the parents and the teachers first, I see that the Department of Education can actually make a difference. So I supported No Child Left Behind. I still do. I know there are a lot in my party that don't like it, but I like testing in our schools. I think it allows us to get better schools, better teachers; allows us to let our kids have the kind of hope that they ought to have.

Somebody might want to tell Romney that No Child Left Behind isn't popular with the left, either.

What a night.

Posted by Becky at 04:57 PM |

Republicans Look to Be Next Jack Bauer

Last night's debate between the Republican presidential candidates concluded with an imaginary terrorist scenario, a la an episode of "24," and asked the candidates how they would respond.

The questions in this round will be premised on a fictional, but we think plausible scenario involving terrorism and the response to it. Here is the premise: Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they are being questioned. U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is planned and could come at any time.

First, John McCain, himself a torture survivor, was asked "how aggressively" he would interrogate Guantanamo Bay prisoners in an effort to learn about the next attack, and earned back a bit of my respect.

SEN. MCCAIN: If I knew for sure that they had that kind of information, I, as the president of the United States, would take that responsibility. That is a million-to-one scenario. But only I would take that responsibility. The use of torture -- we could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went -- underwent torture ourselves, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know. It's about us as a nation. We have procedures for interrogation in the Army Field Manual. Those, I think, would be adequate in 999,999 of cases, and I think that if we agree to torture people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world.

When specifically asked about water boarding as an enhanced interrogation method, Giuliani was all for it:

MR. GIULIANI: In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of –

MR. HUME: Water-boarding?

MR. GIULIANI: -- and I would -- and I would -- well, I'd say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that because I've seen what -- (interrupted by applause) -- I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.

Note the interruption by applause – the Party faithful apparently like torture.

Romney's turn was next. He focused on prevention – in other words, he did not want to talk about what he would do in such a situation, but rather how hard he would work to make sure that situation did not occur in the first place. And then he said something very, very shocking about Guantanamo, accompanied by more of that frightening audience applause.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, first of all, let's make sure that we understand that the key in electing the next president is to find somebody who will make sure that that scenario doesn't ever happen, and the key to that is prevention. We've all spent a lot of time talking about what happens after the bomb goes off. The real question is, how do you prevent the bomb from going off? And that's what I spent my time doing as a governor over the last four years, and serving on the Homeland Security Advisory Council. And that means intelligence and counterterrorism. Now we're going to -- you said the person's going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo. We ought to make sure that the terrorists -- (applause) -- and there's no question but that in a setting like that where you have a ticking bomb that the president of the United States -- not the CIA interrogator, the president of the United States -- has to make the call. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.

I wonder how they distinguish between "torture" and "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Sounds like semantics – or spin – used to ease the burden of the conscience to me. A bit later McCain was asked whether he thought "enhanced interrogation techniques" were torture, and he said he did.

SEN. MCCAIN: … during the debate, when we had the detainee treatment act, there was a sharp division between those who had served in the military and those who hadn't. Virtually every senior officer, retired or active- duty, starting with Colin Powell, General Vessey and everyone else, agreed with my position that we should not torture people. One of the reasons is, is because if we do it, what happens to our military people when they're captured? And also, they realize there's more to war than the battlefield. So yes, literally every retired military person and active duty military person who has actually been in battle and served for extended times in the military supported my position, and I'm glad of it.

At this point, the scenario was "enriched":

Let's assume for the sake of discussion here that we now also have additional intelligence that indicates with high certainty that the attackers were trained in a West African country hostile to the United States, in camps openly run by the terrorist organization that sent them.

Tommy Thompson was asked what he would do about that.

MR. THOMPSON: I would do the first thing that President Ronald Reagan would say: Trust but verify. Verify that that information is correct. And I would go in with all the power necessary. Colin Powell said, and I quote him, he says, "If in fact you're going to war, have a reason to go to war. Make sure you go with all the force necessary in order to do so, and have an exit strategy." If there's a country in Africa that is not friendly to America, that is anti-America and is promoting terrorism, and those terrorists are going to attack, it's -- be incumbent on all of us to make sure that we do what is right. The president of the United States has got to lead that effort, and if it's necessary, it's got to take those camps out as deliberately and as methodically as possible, as long as that information is credible and can be checked and make sure that it is accurate.

Sam Brownback was asked whether he would do the same and whether he would seek U.N. authorization first, a notion he rejected out of hand.

SEN. BROWNBACK: I would not go to the United Nations in the situation you've described. You've described a situation where American lives have been lost and we think more are pending to lose. And I think your real question you have to have here as the chief executive, as the leader of the country, what are you measuring here? Is your primary concern U.S. lives or is it how you're going to be perceived in the world? And my standard is U.S. lives, and I'm going to do everything within my power to protect U.S. lives, period. I will do it. I'll move aggressively forward on it. If we have to later ask and say, "Well, it shouldn't quite have been done this way or that way," that's the way it is. But the standard must be protection of U.S. lives. That's the job of president of the United States, and I would take it seriously, and I would do it.

Duncan Hunter was ready to rock and roll:

REP. HUNTER: Yeah, let me just say this would take a one-minute conversation with the secretary of Defense. (Laughter.) I would call him up or call him in. I would say to SECDEF, in terms of getting information that would save American lives, even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: Get the information. Have it back within an hour, and let's act on it. Let's execute with Special Operations or whoever else is necessary, and I will take full responsibility. Get the information.

Gilmore said he would go to the U.N. to let them know what we would do and why, and to ask for world support, but would not "ask for permission." Huckabee said Americans would be asked to "join together in a sacrifice," as opposed to being asked to go on with "business as usual." Paul said he would cut taxes and spending to protect the economy and then said that the notion of "enhanced interrogation techniques" sounded to him like "Newspeak." He then ran past the bell to say, "here you have a hypothetical attack that you're dealing with; we ought to be dealing with the one we have right now on our hands."

Tancredo finished up by taking the discussion back over the edge.

REP. TANCREDO: Well, let me just say that it's almost unbelievable to listen to this in a way. We're talking about -- we're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that -- that nuclear devices have gone off in the United States, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a -- a bad thing to do? I'm looking for "Jack Bauer" at that time, let me tell you. (Laughter, applause.) And -- and there is -- there is nothing -- if you are talking about -- I mean, we are the last best hope of Western civilization. And so all of the theories that go behind our activities subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the United States, they go out the window because when -- when we go under, Western civilization goes under. So you better take that into account, and you better do every single thing you can as president of the United States to make sure, number one, it doesn't happen -- that's right -- but number two, you better respond in a way that makes them fearful of you because otherwise you guarantee something like this will happen.

How do people get to the point in politics where they are running for president and have so little understanding about what is going on?

Posted by Becky at 04:52 PM |

Republican Abortion Debate

Last night's debate between the Republican presidential candidates at one point focused heavily on "life" issues – abortion and stem cell research. Their various responses, in my opinion, gave a pretty clear picture of the range of views within the Party - and to some extent even within mainstream America - on this issue.

Rudy Giuliani's answer to the abortion question revealed that he does not view it in the same way as the pro-lifers do.

MR. GOLER: You have said that you personally hate abortion but support a woman's right to choose. Governor Huckabee says that's like saying, "I hate slavery, but people can go ahead and practice it." Tell me why he's wrong.

MR. GIULIANI: Well, there is no circumstances under which I could possibly imagine anyone choosing slavery or supporting slavery. There are people, millions and millions of Americans, who are as of good conscience as we are, who make a different choice about abortion. And I think in a country where you want to keep government out of people's lives, or government out of people's lives from the point of view of coercion, you have to respect that. There are things that you can oppose, things you can be against; and then you can come to the conclusion, in the kind of democracy we have, the kind of society that we have, and the kind of society we have where we want to keep government out of people's personal lives, that you can respect other people's view on this.

Here's what I mean. Pro-lifers view abortion as murder, plain and simple. Clearly, "there is no circumstances under which" someone could choose or support murder. His answer, then, reveals that he does not consider abortion to be murder. It is something that he finds distasteful and something that should be reduced (including through pregnancy prevention), and I think most people would agree with that. So to say he is against abortion, including him with pro-lifers, implies something inaccurate. He has tried to spin his position so as not to offend the far right because he is, after all, in a primary, but the fact is he does not qualify as a pro-life candidate.

Mike Huckabee's answer to the abortion question would tend to support my take on this:

MR. HUCKABEE: … I'm pro-life because I believe life begins at conception, and I believe that we should do everything possible to protect that life because it is the centerpiece of what makes us unique as an American people. We value the life of one as if it's the life of all, and that's why we go out for the 12-year-old Boy Scout in North Carolina when he's lost; that's why we look for the 13 miners in Sago, West Virginia, when the mine explodes; that's why we go looking for the hikers in Mount Hood, because we value life, and it's what separates us from the Islamic jihadists who are out to kill us. They celebrate death. They have a culture of death. Ours is a culture of life. Now, if something is morally wrong, let's oppose it. The honest argument is I don't think it's morally wrong, and someone could take that position and then justify abortion. But if it's wrong, then we ought to be opposed to it, and we ought to find ways to find better ways to deal with our respect for human life.

Sam Brownback, when asked to explain what he would say to a rape victim about having to carry the resulting baby to term, further clarified the pro-life view:

SEN. BROWNBACK: That would be a very difficult situation, and it is a very difficult situation. But the basic question remains. Is the child in the womb a person? Is it a viable life? And if it is a person, it's entitled to respect. And is it an innocent person? And I think that's the thing we've got to really look at here, is, what are we doing? We talk about abortion, but abortion is a procedure. This is a life that we're talking about. And it's a terrible situation where there's a rape that's involved or incest. But it nonetheless remains that this is a child that we're talking about doing this to, of ending the life of this child. Will that make the woman in a better situation if that's what takes place? And I don't think so, and I think we can explain it when we look at it for what it is: a beautiful child of a loving God, that we ought to protect in all circumstances in all places, here in the womb, somebody that's struggling in poverty, a family that's struggling. We should work and look at all life, be pro-life and whole-life for everybody.

Mitt Romney didn't really clearly state his position, but explained the cause of the angst about the issue within the Republican Party quite well:

MR. GOLER: Governor Romney, I want to give you another difficult abortion situation. You've explained that you once were pro-choice because a relative died after she underwent an illegal abortion. Tell me what you would say to someone else who lost a wife or a daughter to an illegal abortion, if you named the Supreme Court justice who tipped the balance and over turned Roe v. Wade.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, obviously, a terrible circumstance that you described; something of that nature, it just makes you sick. And I can't imagine my heart not being rent by virtue of having a circumstance like that presented to me. I can tell you that I've looked at this long and hard. I've always been personally pro-life. I've taught that to others, it's been part of my faith. The question for me was: What should government do in this kind of setting? And the Supreme Court stepped in and took a decision, and I said I'd support that decision. And then I watched the impact of that decision as I was governor of Massachusetts. And when we came to debating cloning and embryo farming and we saw human life, human life rack after rack that's going to be experimented upon and then disposed, I said Roe v. Wade has gone to such an extent that we've cheapened the value of human life. And I believe that a civilized society has to respect the sanctity of human life. And what I'm saying is that, in my view, the people should make this decision, not the court.

I'm seeing that this issue is actually forcing the candidates to search their souls and figure out what they really personally believe. I think the media and the activists may be trying to place the candidates into nice, tidy little boxes on this issue, but the reality of their positions reflects the reality of this country's view of the issue. And that is that it is not an easy question, that the human consequences are gravely serious no matter what we do, and that ultimately the shades of opinion in the matter boil down to a combination of answers to two fundamental questions:

1. When does a human being become a human being? and
2. How does the value of an unborn human being measure up against the value of a born human being?

I don't expect we'll ever stop debating those two questions. Neither do I expect the abortion debate to ever, ever end.

Posted by Becky at 03:49 PM |

Republican Candidates on the War

Last night's debate between the Republican presidential candidates (Sam Brownback, James S. Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson) began with questions about the war. None of the candidates' answers made me feel very good about any of the candidates. Rarely did they show any sort of depth of knowledge or thought; rather, it was one campaign slogan after another, much of it trite and erroneous.

John McCain fell back on the old "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" line:

SEN. MCCAIN: ... If we fail in Iraq, we will see Iraq become a center for al Qaeda, chaos, genocide in the region, and they'll follow us home. After we lost the war in Vietnam, we came home, they didn't follow us home. You read Zarqawi, you read bin Laden, you read al Qaeda, they'll tell you they want to follow us home.

Tommy Thompson completely avoided answering the first question he was asked:

MR. WALLACE: Governor Thompson, in the last debate, you said that you would, quote, "Require the Maliki government to vote on whether or not they want us to continue to stay in Iraq." You said that you would, quote, "Require the 18 provinces to elect governments and that you would split oil revenues." This is a freely elected government, sir. How can you require them to do anything?

MR. THOMPSON: There is no question that the al-Maliki government needs to step up and do what is right. The United States government has been there for four years. We've lost many individuals -- 3,400 individuals as of today, and it's time for the al-Maliki to vote whether or not they want us in the fifth year to stay in their country or whether or not they want us to go home. Secondly, if in fact they do allow the 18 territories, which, geographically defined, allow them to elect their leaders like we elect the 50 governors and 50 legislatures in the United States, they will elect individuals that they would feel -- are comfortable with them, that they are -- feel that they have a stake in their government. And if you split the oil revenues -- one-third to the federal government, one-third to the territories, and one-third to every man, woman and child -- every man, woman and child will feel they have a stake in their government, stake in their country, and they'll start using that money for peace and for building businesses and making sure they build their country. That's why my plan will work, and it will win the peace in Iraq.

Then it was Mitt Romney's turn:

MR. WALLACE: Governor Romney, can you foresee any circumstances under which you would pull out of Iraq without leaving behind a stable political and security situation?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, I'm certainly not going to project failure, and those kind of circumstances that you would suggest would be projecting failure.

He then went on to describe the importance of winning in Iraq as part of winning in the global jihadist conflict, using all the right terms so as to sound very well-informed. Sam Brownback also believed that the war could be "won" – if everyone could just hold hands, sing Kum ba Yah, and work together.

SEN. BROWNBACK: And we will win if we can pull together, and we can win the war. And I think as well, if you look at it, it's difficult for democracy and particularly for the United States, for us to win with one party for the war and one party against the war. And I condemn the statements of Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate, saying we've already lost. We haven't lost. That's his declaration, but we've got to pull people together here. And when we can do that, and when we do that, we will win.

Rudy Giuliani demonstrated the fine art of spin:

MR. WALLACE: Mayor Giuliani, in our interview the other day you said that congressional Republicans who say they must see progress by September are, quote, "fundamentally irresponsible," and that in effect they are giving a timetable for retreat to our enemies. Is your commitment to winning in Iraq open-ended?

MR. GIULIANI: First of all, that isn't exactly what I said. I was talking about the timetable for retreat that the Democrats passed in Congress, in which they did something extraordinary and that I've never heard of in the history of war, which is to give your enemy a schedule of how a retreating army is going to retreat. That was irresponsible, highly irresponsible.

He then went on to use the case of the "Fort Dix Six" as proof that al Qaeda will "follow us here," even though that attack was clearly identified as an independent effort having nothing to do with al Qaeda or international terrorism.

I think Senator McCain is correct, these people do want to follow us here and they have followed us here. Fort Dix happened a week ago. That was a situation in which six Islamic terrorists, who were not directed by al Qaeda but claimed to have been inspired by them, were going to kill our military in cold blood at Fort Dix. It was a 16-month investigation done by the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office, and thank God they caught them. But we have to remind ourselves that we are facing an enemy that is planning all over this world, and it turns out planning inside our country, to come here and kill us. And the worst thing to do in the face of that is to show them weakness.

Tom Tancredo has a rational opinion, but shirked responsibility for acting on his beliefs about the war because of the convenient "support the troops" excuse.

REP. TANCREDO: … I will support our troops while they are in the field in every single way I can. That is my responsibility as a member of Congress, by the way. It is not to general the war, it is not to micromanage it, it is to support the troops that are in harm's way.

Ron Paul was the rational sounding one:

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul, you're one of six House Republicans who back in 2002 voted against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq.

REP. PAUL: Right.

MR. WALLACE: Now you say we should pull our troops out. A recent poll found that 77 percent of Republicans disapprove of the idea of setting a timetable for withdrawal. Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party? (Scattered laughter.)

REP. PAUL: But you have to realize that the base of the Republican Party shrunk last year because of the war issue. So that percentage represents less people. If you look at 65 to 70 percent of the American people, they want us out of there. They want the war over.
In 19- -- 2002, I offered an amendment to International Relations to declare war, up or down, and it was -- nobody voted for the war. And my argument there was, if we want to go to war, and if we should go to war, the Congress should declare it. We don't go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea, because the wars never end. And I argued the case and made the point that it would be a quagmire if we go in. Ronald Reagan in 1983 sent Marines into Lebanon, and he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, the Marines were killed, 241 were killed, and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs. And he says, "I said I would never turn tail and run." He says, "But I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics," and he changed his policy there. We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan.

Duncan Hunter seemed at least like an honest person – not out for unearned glory:

REP. HUNTER: …One of us is going to be a commander in chief in a few months with a tough military operation and situation to deal with. I've been the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for the last four years. I served in uniform in Vietnam -- didn't do anything special, but I served. My son has done two tours in Iraq. I can look at the American people and say, we are in this together, and I think the other guys ought to lay out their credentials to be commander in chief.

As for Mike Huckabee, I can't figure out where he's coming from. I mean, read the following, keeping in mind that many of "the generals" have been telling the President things he didn't want to hear, so he has been ignoring them; meanwhile, we've spent - and lost - an ungodly amount of money over there on who knows what and the President vetoed money to give our troops the equipment they needed.

MR. WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, you said in the last debate that President Bush made a mistake listening too much to civilians in suits and silk ties and not enough to the generals with mud and blood on their boots, especially when it came to how many troops were needed to stabilize the situation in Iraq. If the generals were to come to you as president and say, we don't have enough troops there; we need, let's say, 300,000, would you be open to significantly increasing our presence in Iraq?

MR. HUCKABEE: A president had better be open to listening to the generals who are going to lead people into battle and put their lives on the line. That's one of the problems we face now, Chris. We listen to the diplomats; we listen to the civilians; we listen to the people running the Defense Department -- more worried about the budget than worried about the blood that might be spilled by our own kids. That's why I think it's critical that if you're going to be commander-in-chief, you make tough decisions. But you'd better get the best advice that you possibly can get. And that advice comes from the people who have earned the right to say to the president, Mr. President, this is what it's going to take to do the job right. There's an old saying in the South that I'm sure people in South Carolina are familiar with. "It takes more money to do it over than it does to do it right." We're now seeing that in the United States. We're doing a lot of things over. Maybe we should have just done it right.

James Gilmore pulled a Tommy Thompson and danced around his question on the war so as to avoid making any concrete public statement that could get him into trouble later:

MR. WALLACE: Governor Gilmore, we have an internet question for you from Harry from Boston, who says, we should look ahead to the threat from Iran. He asked, quote, "What would you do to resolve this nuclear issue? And will you launch a pre-emptive strike if they were close to achieving a weapon?"

MR. GILMORE: Well, I appreciate the question about Iran, because I think it is one of the real emerging problems. And you have to look at this Middle East issue beyond just the Iraq issue. You have to look at all the complexities of Israel and Palestine and Iran and Iraq and the entire issue of the Middle East. With respect to Iran, I think that there is no choice at this point other than to join up with people across the world in order to put on serious mandatory sanctions against Iran and to do everything that is going to be necessary to try to bring them to the notion that it is better for them to give up this sort of plan rather than to proceed the way we are. However, I think that we have to have an honest discussion with the American people about this. We have to ask ourselves this question: Are we prepared to have Iran have a nuclear weapon? What will be the consequences of that when Saudi Arabia says, "The people on the other side have got a nuclear weapon, we have to have a nuclear weapon." What if they go to Pakistan and ask for assistance in that? What about Egypt? And I think the American people have to at some point come to a real serious conclusion about the tough decision that has to be made when we may have to in fact strike.

After going through all that, I am not at all certain I know anything more about these gentlemen than I did before. It's no wonder Republican leadership has got us into this mess.

Posted by Becky at 12:37 PM |

May 15, 2007

Let's Get This Story Straight

You all remember that game "Gossip," in which everyone sits in a circle, one person whispers something in the ear of the person next to him, who does the same on and on around the circle to the end, where the story is inevitably very different than it was when it began. Well, I was reminded of that game this morning when I heard Kari Chisolm on KPOJ talking about today's post on Blue Oregon about the initiative reform legislation making its way through the Oregon Legislature. He rightfully decried efforts by petitioners to mislead people as to the purpose of ballot measures so as to increase the number of signatures collected, but in the process repeated a story I have told that has apparently morphed over time into something other than what actually happened. So for the record, and to make sure nobody thinks I'm spreading lies, I thought I'd straighten the story out.

As Kari told it, and I'm certainly not faulting him for it, Bill Sizemore bragged around about how he would have his petitioners, who were seeking to overturn light rail funding, go to cafes and stores and other places to gather signatures and tell people that they were petitioning in favor of light rail. The general idea is fairly correct, but the particulars aren't.

When I was working for Bill Sizemore, he told me the story himself. Funding for light rail had been approved, but opponents (rightly, as it turned out) did not believe the public supported the project. To overturn the funding, Sizemore led a signature drive to refer the matter to the voters.

The way the referendum process works, the bill itself is circulated until enough signatures are gathered to put the matter to a vote. To the uninformed (people who don't know what a "referendum" is), it can look as if the petition is intended to ask voters to approve the bill, and they might easily assume that unless sufficient signatures are gathered, the bill, like an initiative, will die. So unless the person is sufficiently aware of the debate and knows a referendum is underway, or unless the petitioner explains it to them, they will not likely recognize that signing the petition will actually help provide a mechanism for doing the opposite of what the bill says by putting the matter before the voters for the purpose of overturning it. To make it more simple, in this case, funding for light rail already existed. By signing the petition, which looked like it was asking for funding for light rail, people were actually taking steps toward de-funding light rail. Back in March of 2006, Blue Oregon quoted me here about what Sizemore had told me:

He later gloated several times to me about how his petitioners collected a ton of signatures from people who were actually riding public transit at the time they signed the petition by telling them that the petitions were an effort to fund light rail - implying the petition was an initiative. People signing the petitions could not tell otherwise by looking at the form.

In other words, if the petitioners were being honest, they would have told signers that they were working to repeal funding for light rail. Instead, they specifically targeted people who supported light rail funding and lied to them to get them to sign the petition. (It would be the equivalent of petitioners collecting signatures to refer the two gay rights bills passed by the Legislature by asking people at a gay rights march to sign petitions to put gay rights measures on the ballot and not telling them they were collecting signatures to put a repeal before the voters.) I wrote about it again here, and Sizemore entered his own response in the comments, specifically denying foreknowledge and limiting the problem to one unnamed individual:

While I am at it, your memory of the light rail event is somewhat flawed. That drive was a referndum [sic] and was over before I knew that a single petitioner (not multiple as you state)was collecting signatures on the light rail line. His words were different than you quote and not false.

As I responded to Sizemore, I am willing to grant that he did not know at the time that this was being done. However, Sizemore was very clear to me when he relayed the story to me on multiple occasions that the petitioner (or petitioners) intentionally misled pro-transit signers into believing they were helping fund light rail when the opposite was true. It was the fact that they had misled pro-light rail people into helping overturn light rail funding that made the story funny to him and was the reason that he told it to me several times. The point is that Kari is correct that petitioners are not forthright at times in their efforts to collect signatures. And when it comes to referenda, so far as I can tell, it is still difficult to tell that the signature gathering effort is intended to repeal the bill be circulated.

Posted by Becky at 11:28 AM |

May 14, 2007

Best Campaign Ad I've Ever Seen

You know, this ad just might be the most powerful campaign ad I've ever seen. It actually makes you forget everything you know and makes you really want to believe.

Posted by Becky at 08:58 PM |

May 12, 2007

Prayer Wouldn't Have Stopped the War

The Archbishop of Canterbury said that Tony Blair should have prayed with George Bush before invading Iraq. If they had, he said, they might have received a different answer than the one they wanted. Blair and Bush are both Christians, and the Archbishop's comments were in response to Blair’s having told a reporter he and Bush had not prayed together before the war. The problem with the Archbishop’s suggestion is that God told Bush to invade Iraq, and seeing as how God doesn’t change his mind the answer probably would not have changed even if the two had prayed together.

For those who do not recall the President’s reference to instructions he received directly from the Big Man Upstairs, one of the Palestinian delegates attending a meeting with Bush during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at Sharm el-Sheikh in 2003 reported the following:

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

Maybe it’s the Archbishop who should be praying for discernment of God’s will about the war. Come to think of it, I'm not too clear on it myself. Hey, God, what's up with that?

Posted by Becky at 09:16 AM |

May 11, 2007

Coulter Skates

Ann Coulter has been cleared in the investigation into her having voted illegally in a district where she did not actually live at the time. It would seem she has friends in high places. It took a phone call from a big-wig in the FBI (Supervisory Special Agent Jim Fitzgerald of the FBI Academy's Behavioral Analysis Unit in Quantico, VA) but the call apparently worked. Crisis averted – for Ms. Coulter, anyway. Because now the FBI is wondering why the guy who made his name going after the Unibomber took the time to help out a blond bombshell (or so they say). And the County Supervisor of Elections is also miffed about the "FBI intrusion" and "preferential treatment" that Ms. Coulter received.

The justification Fitzgerald gives is that Coulter was afraid of a stalker so she intentionally put the wrong address on her voter registration. Fitzgerald says he simply called the county to confirm that he was, at that time, "working a stalking incident" involving Coulter. The "stalker" turned out to be conservative Christian blogger Dan Borchers of coulterwatch.com, but the investigation – which entailed a five-minute conversation – actually occurred eight years prior to the voting incident and nine years prior to Fitzgerald's call stating he was actively working the case.

The County says it was the testimony of a poll worker that led them to dismiss the case. According to the poll worker, Coulter ran out of the polling place when asked to write down her new address. The poll worker then bragged on the radio that he saw her commit a felony, but three months ago he changed his story and said he thought she may have misunderstood him and it may have been partially his fault that she voted in the wrong precinct.

Brad Blog, which has been following this story from the beginning, promises additional bizarre plot twists yet to come.

And since we're on the topic of hate speech and homosexuality today as well, this editorial referencing Ms. Coulter's anti-gay hate speech and entitled "'Femiphobia' sanctions bigotry in hypermasculine Americans," adds some interesting flavor to the mix. (If the link takes you to a subscriber-only website, you can get to it via a Google search.)

Posted by Becky at 02:22 PM |

One man's terrorist....

The alleged "war on terror" apparently doesn't count if the Bush Administration wants to make sure that they don't offend a secure GOP voting block:

The Cuban-born Posada was trained by the CIA at the School of the Americas in 1961. From Venezuela, he later planned the successful 1976 bombing of a civilian Cuban jetliner (apparently with the knowledge of the CIA). He was arrested for the crime, but he escaped from a Venezuelan prison before standing trial.

Posada later aided Ollie North's illegal efforts to get arms to the Nicaraguan Contras, tried repeatedly to assassinate Fidel Castro and was behind a 1997 string of Havana hotel bombings. Recently declassified U.S. government documents suggest that, throughout most of his career, Posada remained in close contact with the CIA.

Posada entered the U.S. illegally in 2005. Human rights groups and the Cuban and Venezuelan governments urged that he be tried or extradited for his terrorist activities, but for several months the Bush administration denied that Posada was even in the United States.

On May 17, 2005, the Miami Herald shamed the administration into action by publishing a front-page interview with Posada (who sipped his peach drink on his Florida balcony, described his leisure reading and commented cheerfully that at first he "thought the [U.S.] government was looking for me" but eventually realized that U.S. officials had no interest in finding him). Only then did the administration detain Posada — but on immigration charges, not terrorism-related charges.

Since 2005, the administration seems to have done everything in its power to botch the immigration case against Posada, mishandling it so blatantly that on Wednesday an exasperated federal judge declared herself "left with no choice" but to throw out the indictment. Although a different judge previously ordered Posada deported, Posada can't legally be extradited to Venezuela because the court concluded that he might be tortured there.

So as long as the guy is trying to blow up pinko commies and helping to secure illegal arms for Reagan's illegal pet project via Ollie North--he's good to go.

Can't afford to alienate that Florida Cuban-exile voting block, dontcha know.

Posted by Carla at 12:48 PM |

Vote for Romney - Vote for Satan!

Here's an example of religious-based hate speech, in which the speaker does not, I guarantee you, think of what he is saying as hateful. Bill Keller, host of Live Prayer, a television program in Florida, said, "If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!"

Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God's Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith's cult began that it was a work of Satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell. …

I have been warning you for years now about this cult born out of the pits of hell and responsible for sending millions of souls to eternal damnation. For the nearly 200 years this cult has been in existence they have strived for mainstream acceptance. They are the most devious of all the cults since they have always tried to portray themselves as "just another Christian group" when in fact, they are no more Christian than a Muslim is! Their deception starts with their name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Sounds like a Christian church doesn't it? Some Mormons have recently changed their name to simply Community of Christ to disguise even better who they are in an attempt to lure people in.

Keller also had some choice words for Christian leaders who have reached out to Romney:

I have watched in horror over the past weeks as one evangelical Christian leader after another has either endorsed, supported, or just as bad, refused to denounce Romney's run for the White House and those Christian leaders who support him. Last weekend Pat Robertson, founder of CBN and Regent University, had Romney deliver the keynote address to the graduates of Regent. Regent is one of the great Christian colleges in this nation, and Robertson allowed this cult member to deliver the commencement address. Is he out of his mind? Do you think there would ever be a true Gospel preacher giving the commencement address at Brigham Young?

And his conclusion is simply priceless:

Romney getting elected president will ultimately lead millions of souls to the eternal flames of hell!

If nothing else, Romney's campaign is sure shining a powerful light on the beliefs of many in the fundamentalist Christian community. When I was part of a fundamentalist community, these sorts of comments were made, but only in small groups and private discussions between members of the group itself. How interesting it is to me to see these thoughts being broadcast to the larger community. How interesting to notice that they feel so much different when whispered between people who agree than they do when exposed in the naked light of day.

Christians would call this exposure a matter of casting pearls before swine, saying that God's truth simply isn't understood in a secular world and Christians ought to keep such things between themselves so as to avoid bringing disgrace on the Church. Funny, it seems to me Mormons once said the same thing about polygamy. I can see the reasoning involved, because the opposite is also true. The secular approach of rational, loving acceptance of fellow human beings and their human frailties isn't understood in the fundamentalist world, either. And those from the fundamentalist world who read that last statement will strongly disagree, but those on the secular progressive side, I am betting, will instantly understand my meaning and nod with enthusiasm.

Despite being misunderstood, secular progressives should continue to cast their pearls far and wide, recognizing that not all who receive them will comprehend the value of acceptance and respect for them as human beings, but being confident in the knowledge that it is the moral thing for human beings to do.

Posted by Becky at 11:04 AM |

May 10, 2007

Hate Crimes Legislation and Christian Persecution

A lot of fundamentalist Christians are absolutely convinced that federal hate crimes legislation will wind up getting them and their pastors thrown into jail over their views on homosexuality. WorldNet Daily writes about this in an article entitled, "Diss a 'gay'? Go to jail!." A lead article this weekend at Cutting Edge stated, "Secular people are soon going to be seriously considering Christians to be such a threat to the rest of society that they need to be restrained and/or controlled." Another Cutting Edge article calls the legislation "the most ominous attack on 'free speech' and Christianity since the founding of our nation." And Whistleblower Magazine this month features an article about the legislation entitled, "Criminalizing Christianity."

These articles frequently cite cases in other countries as "proof" of what is to be expected here in the future. For instance, "Diss a 'gay'? Go to jail!" talks about three Christians in Australia who have been indicted for criticizing other religions, and a fourth individual who was threatened with arrest for using the term "homosexual" instead of "gay." It also references a German priest facing jail time for criticizing abortionists, a Swedish Pastor who was jailed for preaching that homosexuality is sin, the laws in Holland against criticizing "fornicators" and "adulterers," and the fining of Canadian and French legislators for publicly criticizing homosexuality (disclaimer: I have not researched to find out whether these assertions even have merit). Never mind the fact that the First Amendment does not apply in Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Canada, or France and never mind the fact that the liberals these people most fear are the very same people who most strongly defend the First Amendment. In these people's minds, the legislation is "stealth legislation at its most devious" and will led to the end of free speech.

Michael Marcavage, director of RepentAmerica.com, claims that under federal hate crimes legislation, if someone even reads the Bible in public, a homosexual could claim emotional damage and press charges, resulting in fines and imprisonment for the person reading the Bible. Okay, maybe if some unauthorized person was reading anti-gay quotes from the Bible over the public address system in an airport. But in church? Come on. Yet Jim Clymer, national chairman of the Constitution Party, says the legislation would make the Bible "hate literature" and says preaching from it would be "hate speech." I can find plenty of rational reasons someone might oppose hate crimes legislation, but this seems to me to be ridiculous.

Oregon's own Mary Starrett, communications director for the Constitution Party, is even getting in on the act. "H.R. 254 would make certain types of speech a federal offense. So-called 'hate crimes' legislation is dangerous for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the blatant unconstitutionality of such laws. 'Hate crime' laws would allow federal 'thought police' to interfere in the law enforcement authority of states and localities - something our founders were clear was NOT to be allowed. H.R. 254 would require every state to pass and enforce 'anti-hate' laws. It would outlaw stating a 'bias' against certain 'federally protected' groups such as homosexuals."

How can people who claim to be members of the Constitution Party fail to understand the First Amendment's protections to this degree? People say hateful things in this country every day. Did Don Imus get prosecuted for hate crimes for making a disparaging remark about people who are already included in hate crimes legislation? Of course not!

Then how can it be that these people are so convinced they will end up in jail for opposing homosexuality? Cutting Edge explains:

At this point, the persecution foretold in Revelation and Daniel will be imminent. … This bill will set the stage for the Federal Government to attack Christians all across the board all at once, which is something dictators love to do! Adolf Hitler proved that using militant gays to attack the Old World Order was a very effective weapon; he used the Brown Shirts vigorously to tear down the old political system in Germany so he could install his version of the German New World Order.

The fact is, fundamentalist Christians are fully expecting to be persecuted for their faith. It is a fundamental tenant of their faith. It says so right there in Revelation! They are sure of it to the point that you simply cannot put their minds at ease. They will, therefore, never ever give up on their opposition to hate crimes legislation, nor will they ever be rational enough to argue against it with the sort of reasoned arguments that might actually make a difference in the debate. What a shame.

Posted by Becky at 11:53 AM |

Make Him Veto It Again and Again and Again

Back in February, Christopher Preble of the CATO Institute wrote about whose decision it would be to pull out of Iraq. He pointed out that "members of the Bush administration" have told us that we would leave Iraq if its government asked us to leave. President Bush himself, just prior to Iraq's first nationwide election, said that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, we would do so, "absolutely," because "they are a sovereign government." It looks as if he may have to eat those words because on Tuesday, the Iraqi parliament passed a legislative petition calling for a timetable for withdrawal, and as we all know, Bush "absolutely" does not want to leave.

Preble says that a January poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that 76% of the Iraqis believe the United States would ignore a request by the Iraqi government to withdraw and 80% believe we intend to stay in Iraq permanently. Bush has, by his veto of the Iraq war spending bill, already made it clear he will reject the will of the American people, as expressed through our duly elected representatives. Why would anyone expect him to respect the will of the Iraqi people, as expressed through their duly elected representatives? Preble points out that by ignoring such a demand, Bush would be undermining Iraq's democracy. I would suggest that his dictatorial stubbornness is undermining our own democracy, as well.

The Iraqi parliament's petition is nonbonding, so the government does not have to formally request that we leave the country. However, the petition is being presented to the Speaker with a demand that a binding measure be put to a vote, and they have the votes to pass it. No one knows for certain what will happen next.

Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, in their analysis of the Iraqi parliament's vote Tuesday, find an explanation for the intractable will of President Bush:

What is clear is that while the U.S. Congress dickers over timelines and benchmarks, Baghdad faces a major political showdown of its own. The major schism in Iraqi politics is not between Sunni and Shia or supporters of the Iraqi government and "anti-government forces," nor is it a clash of "moderates" against "radicals"; the defining battle for Iraq at the political level today is between nationalists trying to hold the Iraqi state together and separatists backed, so far, by the United States and Britain.

The continuing occupation of Iraq and the allocation of Iraq's resources -- especially its massive oil and natural gas deposits -- are the defining issues that now separate an increasingly restless bloc of nationalists in the Iraqi parliament from the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose government is dominated by Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish separatists.

By "separatists," we mean groups who oppose a unified Iraq with a strong central government.

I think a lot of Americans would be surprised to learn that, contrary to the will of the majority of all three major ethno-sectarian groups in Iraq, we are supporting the separatists and actively opposing a unified, peaceful Iraq. What could possibly be the reason? Could it be that the separatists also favor privatization of Iraq's oil and gas and decentralization of its petroleum operations and revenue distribution? Jarrar and Holland have come to that conclusion. I urge you to read their editorial. Because if they are correct, this war may indeed be about oil after all, and we may, in fact, be encouraging the ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq because it helps us achieve our oil interest.

Al-Shammari said this week: "We're afraid the U.S. will make us pass this new oil law through intimidation and threatening. We don't want it to pass, and we know it'll make things worse, but we're afraid to rise up and block it, because we don't want to be bombed and arrested the next day." In the Basrah province, where his Al-Fadhila party dominates the local government, Al-Shammari's fellow nationalists have been attacked repeatedly by separatists for weeks, while British troops in the area remained in their barracks.

Preble explained in his article for CATO that the notion that we must remain in Iraq to protect America from terrorism – the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" concept – is false.

If an enormous military presence inside of Iraq were necessary to protect Americans from terrorism, then we might have to override the wishes of Iraqi elected officials.

But the visible U.S. presence in Iraq is not needed in order to hunt down terrorists in Iraq, and it has obviously failed to resolve sectarian tensions there. Some cynical manipulators, such as Sadr and the notorious terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have even used widespread resentment toward the occupation to stir up religious and ethnic divisions within the country.

The United States will continue to hunt down terrorists in Iraq, even after the occupation ends, in the same way that we do it everywhere else in the world: by deploying small units of military personnel at times and in places of our choosing, usually in concert with the host nation’s forces.

The Bush administration should stop saying that a U.S. military withdrawal would represent a victory for the terrorists, and should focus instead on ways to convince the Iraqi people that they will soon be responsible for their own security.

We want out. They want us out. Our military presence is making the violence worse, not better. We can protect our anti-terrorism interests better another way. How much longer will we be polite with this lying Administration? What will it take to get the Republicans to join their fellow Americans across the aisle and force the President to end this madness now?

It's time for Congress to out-stubborn the President. Send the same Iraq war funding bill back to him over and over again. Meanwhile, America needs to get on the phone to all our Republican hold-outs until we get a veto-proof majority. It's high time we showed the man who is Boss.

Posted by Becky at 10:55 AM |

Sharpton and the "M" Word

The Rev. Al Sharpton has stepped in a pile of it and the Republicans just couldn't be happier. He of the incessant claims of bigotry has himself said something that on its face appears bigoted. Though Sharpton (of course) denies he meant what he clearly said, the fact is he in essence called Mormonism a godless religion. Oh, the glee!

Here's what went down. During a debate with atheist author Christopher Hitchens, Sharpton said:

As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation.

Here's the funny part, though. As the Rev. Chuck Currie points out, fundamentalist Christians routinely say much worse things than that about Mormons, and Republicans don't say squat about it. In other words, all this is really about is hoisting Sharpton on his own petard.

Posted by Becky at 09:58 AM |

May 09, 2007

Is a Chimp a Person?

If Austrian courts grant basic legal rights to a chimpanzee, will that set global legal precedent? That's what Fox News is suggesting. In the news outlet's own words:

In a closely watched test case that could set a global legal precedent for granting basic rights to apes, Austrian animal rights advocates are waging an unusual court battle to get the 26-year-old male chimpanzee legally declared a "person."

Before you succumb to Fox-listener inanity and allow that statement to run roughshod through your brain, destroying synapses and causing a hyper-reactionary fit, understand two things. First, Austrian law applies in Austria. Period. And second, they aren't asking that the chimp be allowed to vote. They're asking that he be allowed to receive donations, get a guardian, and live without being tortured.

The chimp's home, an animal sanctuary, has gone bankrupt and activists simply want to be sure he does not wind up homeless or sent to a pharmaceutical laboratory for scientific experiments. Several people are willing to donate money for his care, but the problem is Austrian law only allows donations to go to a person. Without basic rights, the chimp could be sold. Setting up a trustee also will not work because someone can only act as the trustee for another in the case of mental impairment or emergency, and a court already ruled neither of those cases exists.

The obvious issues are being debated, even within the animal rights activist community, where some would go further than others in recognizing the rights of animals:

Not all Austrian animal rights activists back the legal challenge. Michael Antolini, president of the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said he thinks it's absurd.

"I'm not about to make myself look like a fool" by getting involved, said Antolini, who worries that chimpanzees eventually could gain broader rights, such as copyright protections on their photographs.

But Stibbe, who brings Hiasl sweets and yogurt and watches him draw, paint and clown around by dressing up in knee-high rubber Wellington boots, insists he deserves more legal rights "than bricks or apples or potatoes."

I think it's a bit dangerous to start assigning human rights to animals, but I absolutely agree that respect must be built in to our law for animals, particularly those with higher intelligence. If Austria and these activists asked me, I'd say they ought to change their law to allow animals to receive donations and have court-assigned guardians rather than go down this road to personhood.

While they're at it, they might consider having a little chat with the scaremongers over at Fox News.

Posted by Becky at 11:41 AM |

Saxton Hiring By Wendt is No Mystery

A breaking news story reporting that Dick Wendt has just hired Ron Saxton to serve as his senior vice president of external affairs may have some people puzzled about what Dick Wendt is up to. If you can't quite figure out why the same man who gave so much to a right-winger like Bill Sizemore and who supports all the well known libertarian think tanks could at the same time hire on a moderate Republican after having supported his gubernatorial candidacy with a ton of money, then I'm here to help.

First, forget Republican party platform, because that is not what it is all about. What it is all about is ending the so-called "welfare state" through privatization efforts, attacks on organized labor, and efforts to dismantle worker protections. See if you can spot what I mean:

While running for governor, largely on Dick Wendt's dime, Ron Saxton proposed broad-based privatization of government services (which would result in lower wages for those workers) and performance-based pay for teachers. After hammering away at PERS during his 2002 campaign, he described public employee retirement benefit packages as "gold plated" and suggested the solution may be to fire all public employees and then rehire them under a new retirement promise so as to eliminate the PERS problem. He also, beginning in 2004, endorsed the privatization of Social Security. And let's not forget his use of low-wage illegal immigrants on his own farm, otherwise known as Saxtonville.

I won't bother providing all the links on Sizemore, but if you don't believe me feel free to research my comments (the information is well-known). While on Dick Wendt's dime, Sizemore wrote and filed several ballot measures relating to privatization of government services, though none received an acceptable ballot title. He also ran a performance-based teacher pay ballot measure in 2002 and is collecting signatures on another one now. He rose to real notoriety initially because of his 1994 measure to "fix" PERS and has since been involved in endless efforts to attempt to deprive public employee union members of the ability to easily pool their resources and use them for political purposes, such as fighting his efforts to dismantle public employee unions, privatize government services, and limit government so that it cannot afford to provide a "safety net." And, of course, he is an outspoken advocate of privatizing Social Security.

Dick Wendt founded "For Our Grandchildren," a group dedicated to the privatization of Social Security. That group shares an office with Wendt's "American Institute for Full Employment," a group that works to eliminate welfare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits. That group works with Wendt's JOBS Plus program, which Wendt founded in 1994, the same year Sizemore was working to undo PERS in the form of Measure 8. JOBS Plus grew out of Measure 7, approved by voters in 1990. That measure replaced food stamps, public assistance, and unemployment insurance with private sector jobs paying 90% of minimum wage. JOBS Plus has the government reimburse employers for a portion of the wages they pay to workers, rather than paying the "safety net" benefits to those being employed.

I'll leave it to the reader to judge the motivations behind these efforts.

Posted by Becky at 11:35 AM |

May 08, 2007

Sex Toys and Incest and Polygamy, Oh My!

I don't know whether it's on the list of Republican talking points or a matter of pure coincidence, but it seems everyone today is talking about the implications of the "gay rights agenda" for the traditional family. WorldNet Daily, a conservative news source, says that it turns out when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas's anti-sodomy law, the decision opened the door to legal acceptance of incest, sex toys, gay adoption, and polygamy. Sen. Rick Santorum, the freak who brought home a dead fetus for his children to play with, said at the time, "If the Supreme Court says you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

The sticking point for the bedroom police is the statement in the decision by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, that "The state cannot demean [homosexuals'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." That sounds very fair and decent to me. But conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby writes that this statement opened the door to much more. He fears the fact that the decision is being used as an argument in court in support of the notion that adult incest should be a private matter as well, despite the fact that the Court has rejected that argument repeatedly. The fear is justified, he says, because someday the Court might change its mind and make incest legal because "plaintiffs are still trying." It's irrational, I know, but that's what he says.

Sen. Santorum expressed his and other conservatives' paranoia and its basis quite well:

What I feared the Court would do … in striking down the Texas sodomy statute is finally and completely eliminate marriage as a privileged institution in our laws and simply expand the zone of privacy in sexual conduct to all consenting adults. That is exactly what they did: Marriage has now completely lost its special place in the law. The Court said in effect that marriage has not only outlived its legal usefulness, it said it is discriminatory to treat people differently based on such an outdated social construct. Therefore, over the past generation, it has decided to change the zone of sexual 'privacy' from one man and one woman in marriage to consenting adults, period. … If consent is now the only standard to have your sexual behavior protected by the Constitution, then how can the Court prohibit any consensual sexual behavior among two, three, or more people? The answer is logically, judicially, that you cannot – for other than arbitrary reasons.

Time Magazine is picking up on the same thread in its new article, "Should Incest Be Legal?" Time notes the fact that people attempting to legalize the sale of sex toys in Alabama, polygamy for Mormons in Utah, and gay adoption in Florida have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to use this decision to advance their legal cases. In fact, Time notes, the only time it has been successfully used is in Massachusetts, where it was used to legalize gay marriage. But to read the right-wing's editorializing, you would think that the U.S. Supreme Court launched us into an anything-goes state of morality, and before you know it people will be allowed to marry their pet dog.

A test case in Ohio has especially caught their eye. A Cincinnati man was convicted of incest for sleeping with his 22-year-old daughter and wants to rely on the decision in his case. What you may not hear if you're reading the frightening end-of-the-traditional-family tirades on the right is that the two aren't blood relatives. She is his stepdaughter. Besides, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Ohio, has already ruled that forbidding incest among blood relations is a legitimate state interest (as opposed to anti-sodomy laws, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled are not).

Jacoby also refers to the case of Patrick and Susan Stubing of Germany. The brother and sister couple have four children, two of which are special needs (which is in line with the statistical incidence of special needs children resulting from incestuous relationships – and the reason the State has a legitimate interest in banning such relationships). Patrick has spent two years in prison for the relationship. Yet for some reason, though Germany is another country and is banning the relationship, thereby making it a moot point, Jacoby seems to think the couple's story adds to his argument that we are headed for legalized incest in the United States. He also writes about the case of a brother and sister in Wisconsin, Allen and Patricia Muth, who had several children together, were imprisoned, and unsuccessfully appealed based on the very decision Jacoby feels will open the door to legalized incest. In other words, despite the mounting case law to the contrary, he is simply trying to scare people into believing that the next such case will be successful.

What could possibly make him or any of his readers believe that will happen here in the good ol' U.S. of A.? Because that's simply the way those godless liberals will go.

In Germany, the Green Party is openly supporting the Stubings in their bid to decriminalize incest. According to the BBC, incest is no longer a criminal offense in Belgium, Holland, and France. Sweden already permits half-siblings to marry. Your reaction to the prospect of lawful incest may be "Ugh, gross." But personal repugnance is no replacement for moral standards. For more than 3,000 years, a code of conduct stretching back to Sinai has kept incest unconditionally beyond the pale. If sexual morality is jettisoned as a legitimate basis for legislation, personal opinion and cultural fashion are all that will remain.

Not to be left out of the excitement, Ted Piccolo at Northwest Republican is writing about a similar issue today: the threat to the traditional family because of the breakdown of morality by liberals – and the "homosexualist political lobby" in particular. The hullabaloo is over the awarding of triple parenting status by a Pennsylvania court to a lesbian couple and the male sperm donor. In other words, the child will have three legal parents. If you ask me, a child's birth certificate should only list biological parents. I also believe both biological parents should be allowed to retain their official parenthood status unless they have abused or neglected that child to the point where the Court has to step in. But beyond that, if one or both parents' legal partner wishes to adopt that child as his or her own, I'm sorry, but I just can't see where this is a negative for the child; therefore, I cannot see a compelling state interest. But to the hard-core traditionalists, the notion comes as a bit of a shock, and some, like Piccolo, can't help themselves – they have to go to the next level and assume that if a child has three legal parents, then we are facing the imminent legalization of incest and pedophilia:

Of course folks within the Christian right have been saying that stuff like this is really the direction that the radical homosexualists want to take society. I remember the ridicule bestowed upon some conservatives when they would dare suggest that there is a contingent amongst the homosexualists who are driving for legalization of sex between adults and minors. But then again anyone merely mentioning such taboos must be making garbage up right?

Can some explain to me how we get from two biological parents and one parent by marriage loving a child and wanting to be official parents of that child to homosexuals trying to legalize pedophilia? I really do not get it. To believe that the homosexual community would condone the harming of children, one would have to have a pretty tweaked opinion of homosexuals. And to believe such an effort, if it ever was launched, would be successful, one would have to have a profoundly tweaked view of America. Just because a few evil creeps call for legalization of their victimization of children does not mean they are going to ever get what they want. Nor does their behavior typify the behavior of homosexuals.

National Review also has a write-up on this triple parenting issue. Their concern is that triple parenting "would lay down a clear precedent for multi-partner marriage." This might seem plausible to someone with absolutely no understanding of law. But they're forgetting that matter of compelling state interest. Where is the state interest in barring triple parenting? It's very shaky, and in Pennsylvania the Court could not find it. But is there a state interest in barring multi-partner marriage? Over and over again the courts have found the state has a definite compelling interest here. The two matters are night and day, both legally and culturally.

I would expect over the coming months, as campaigns build their momentum, these issues will be brought up with greater frequency. Right now, the effort is probably aimed at modifying the platforms of the Republican candidates. But once the hysterical message is refined, it will be brought out again at General election time as a means of keeping disillusioned Christian and traditional Republican voters in the fold and convincing them that they must not sit out for this election.

Posted by Becky at 10:53 AM |

May 07, 2007

Veteran = Freedom?

Driving home this afternoon I saw a bumpersticker that I've seen before, but this time it got me to thinking. It said, "If you love your freedom, thank a vet."

With all due respect to veterans, and without wishing to denigrate or minimize their sacrifice in any way, I respectfully disagree with the sticker.

Philosphically it is an untenable assertion. Military veterans are simply those who fought in an armed conflict on behalf of a government. As such their service is morally neutral because once they joined they were no longer free to do as they wish. They follow orders, go where they're told to go and fight who they're told to fight. There are many, many military veterans in this world and many of them fought on behalf of governments in such a way that we find immoral... such as Nazi soldiers during WWII or Serbian soldiers in the Balkans wars or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Simply being a military veteran doesn't necessarily mean anything other than that the person was ordered into an armed conflict by his or her superiors.

Constitutionally it is also an untenable assertion. Our form of government is deliberately designed to be bottom/up rather than top/down. As President Lincoln famously stated, ours is a government "of the people, by the people and for the people." Our military serves at our pleasure, not the other way around.

Historically it is a woefully untenable assertion. During my lifetime there has only been one armed conflict that produced veterans and which was (is) arguably on behalf of my freedom: the post-9/11 Afghan War. The Iraq War, Vietnam War, Korean War, that brief thing in Somalia, the Gulf War, etc... didn't do diddly to protect my constitutional freedoms as an American citizen. They were fought (allegedly) for other people's freedom, with widely varying degrees of believability.

I respect and admire our military veterans. My best friend from High School is a veteran of multiple armed conflicts. It takes guts to do what they do. But I don't owe my freedom any more to them than I do to anyone else driving on that highway today. My freedoms stem from the Constitution and only the Constitution.

Posted by Kevin at 05:39 PM |

Blaming God for Tragedies

I'm predicting that it will not be long before Fred Phelps will be blaming Rep. Dennis McKinney (D) of Greensburg, Kansas for Friday's tornado that took out nearly the entire town. Phelps has made it is life's work to prove that every horrible tragedy that occurs is directly linked to gay rights activism. And exactly one year to the day before the tornado hit Greensburg on Friday, Rep. McKinney publicly criticized a bill that was intended to address the nasty military funeral picketing habit of Phelps's congregation, the Westboro Baptist Church, saying the bill did not go far enough to protect grieving families. "Telling a family that their son, who died defending this nation, is going to hell is a gross obscenity," he said. Three months earlier, Greensburg had hosted one of the soldiers' funerals where the Phelps family protested.

But if the Phelpses do blame Rep. McKinney for "God's" destruction of Greensburg, there is an obvious flaw in the rationale. One of the only structures in town that survived the tornado was the Bar H Tavern, the only bar in town. If God was the one who sent that tornado, why on earth would he spare the town tavern and destroy apparently all of the town's churches?

If Phelps has the gall to suggest that God inflicted his wrath upon that town, he should be reminded that just days ago, it was reported that several members of the Phelps family are employed by the Kansas State Department of Corrections, and God could just as easily be punishing Kansas for that.

According to Seattle-based Prison Legal News, members of the Phelps clan who adhere to patriarch Fred Phelps' viciously anti-gay worldview while in the employ of the state of Kansas include offspring Margie Phelps, the DOC's director of re-entry planning; Fred Phelps Jr., a staff attorney with the DOC; and Timothy Phelps, a spokesman for the Shawnee County DOC. (Margie Phelps was even awarded "Kansas Correctional Association Employee of the Quarter" in late 2005 — this despite her arrest at a 2004 protest at a dedication ceremony for the Brown v. Board of Education Historical Site in Topeka, Kansas.)

Abigail Phelps, another Westboro activist, is employed in the staff development office for Kansas' Juvenile Justice Authority. Lee Ann Phelps and Elizabeth Phelps both formerly held positions with the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department.

The point is, these catastrophic, tragic events are not caused by God. They are random, horrible events. We may wish to find some meaning or explanation for them, but the fact is, unless you're willing to admit that God and Mother Nature are one and the same, and I know of no fundamentalist Christian who is, then Mr. Phelps, you don't have a leg to stand on. (That goes for you, too, Jerry Falwell. And Pat Robertson, too.)

Posted by Becky at 02:08 PM |

Cape Kiwanda Exhilaration

I have for several years been in love with Cape Kiwanda at Pacific City. The rock formations are incredibly gorgeous, with fascinating patterns woven through, and eroded from, the rock. The dark blue and green water juxtapositioned against the orange rock cliffs and caverns is just breathtaking, and this time of year the top is covered with lush, flowering plants and weather-worn trees that rival the beauty of any tropical holiday spot, in my opinion. But this weekend I saw something out there that was one of the most exciting and beautiful things I have ever seen. My husband and I ventured as far out on the point as we could get – all the way to the cliffs at the end and sat there enjoying the ocean sounds. Suddenly we spotted whale spouts. We spent the next 45 minutes transfixed watching several grey whales feeding. They moved closer and closer to us, so that we could see their features, and one even gave us the classic tail flap when diving under. The highlight of all highlights, however, came when one whale surfaced immediately below us at the foot of the cliff, giving us a clear aerial view of it from a distance of a mere 50 feet – close enough to see the barnacles in clear relief, which is saying something, considering my deteriorating eyesight! It was a truly magnificent moment that I will never forget.

Posted by Becky at 09:11 AM |

May 05, 2007

Do You Believe?

We’ve been having what I think is a very interesting discussion about the nature and existence of God the past day or so. Part of the reason I believe in God is because I have had so many experiences that were outside of what we normally consider to be “natural” that I am willing to entertain the notion of the “supernatural.” I thought it might be worth exploring further, so I will share with you some of my own experiences and a couple of my family’s and ask you to share yours and then discuss what it all might mean.

I fairly frequently get premonitions. They are markedly different from hunches. With a hunch, you think you should probably expect something. With a premonition, there is no maybe; you just know it.

For example, one day I was cleaning out the trunk of our car after a camping trip. As I picked up a stack of bedding, I suddenly knew that I needed to leave one blanket in the trunk in case I came across an accident and someone needed it. In retrospect, that’s a pretty odd thing to think, but it didn’t at all feel strange at the moment. Literally two days later I was one of the first people on the scene of a motorcycle accident. The rider was laying on the pavement in the rain and it was late evening, so it was very cold and he was hurt pretty bad. I ran to my car, grabbed the wool blanket, and took it over to the man to keep him warm until the ambulance arrived.

Another time, my husband was driving us home on a road we traveled every day. I was doing what I usually do – staring out the side window looking at the scenery, lost in my own thoughts. Suddenly, I knew I had better look out for deer. Bear in mind that I had never once seen a deer on that road. Within seconds, we rounded a corner and I spotted a deer headed out into our lane. My husband did not see it, and if I had not been looking for it I wouldn’t have seen it, either, but because I was expecting it I was able to point it out in the nick of time so he could avoid hitting it.

One of my premonitions was a bit more wild. Shortly before the San Francisco Bay Area's 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, I dreamed I was driving on the lower deck of the I-880 freeway, where I had only been twice before in my life and had no reason to even be thinking about. In my dream, the top deck collapsed on top of me and several other cars. It was so vivid I was jolted awake in terror and to this day I remember the dream as if it was a real experience. When I heard soon after about that freeway collapsing in the quake, it scared the living daylights out of me.

These are just a small sample of many, many such experiences I have had.

I also believe people who are close to each other can feel each other’s experiences. For instance, back when I was in college, in the pre-cell phone days, I was driving home for spring break and was suddenly hit with a feeling of panic, which soon eased. When I arrived home I learned that at that exact moment, my mom and brother had been in a car accident. Fortunately, no one was hurt. My grandmother tells of a similar experience. She is one of those people who never cries. She is a very warm person, but she just does not cry and hasn’t since childhood. But one day, out of the blue, she started crying for no apparent reason. At that precise moment, unbeknownst to her, my grandfather had a heart attack and passed away.

One other interesting experience I’d like to share relates to my father’s death a couple of years ago. He was a bowyer living in Montana near his brother, and the two were very close, often hunting together. His symbol had always been the hawk. He named his bowmaking company “Hawk Bows” and the logo was a hawk. After he passed away, his brother went out to where they hunted together to remember him and say goodbye. He stood on an outcropping looking out over the valley and shot an arrow out across the valley in honor of my father, then took a short walk across the ridge. When he returned to that spot half an hour later, a hawk was sitting on the very spot from which he had shot the arrow. The hawk stared at him for several minutes, then flew away. My uncle believes it was my father’s spirit saying goodbye.

I don’t know what to think about any of this, but it leads me to believe that we don’t have all the answers and that a spiritual world may, indeed, exist. What do you think?

Posted by Becky at 01:20 PM |

May 04, 2007

Why the Evolution Question Matters

It's interesting to me that three Republican presidential candidates in last night's debate said they did not believe in Evolution. I think it's interesting because Evolution is something that has really been on my mind lately as I have been watching the incredible BBC's series Planet Earth. Watching the magnificence of the natural world in action has both reinforced my belief that there simply must be a God AND convinced me that Evolution is absolutely true. To put it simply, I have come to believe that Evolution was actually designed by God, who got the whole ball rolling the first place and gets involved now and then when need be. In any case, the more I learn about science and the natural world, the more incredulous I am that anyone who has reached the level of being a credible presidential candidate could still deny that Evolution is true.

For instance, the episode I watched last night was the one about caves. I have always loved geology and been awestruck by all sorts of geological formations. I've never had the opportunity to formally study it, however. So even at my age with my lifelong interest in it, it is still really easy to knock my socks off. And this episode really did that.

One of the things that never really sank into my head before was the incredible amount of time it takes to form stalagmites and stalactites. I have thought about how long it takes for them to drip down and form, but that's not what I'm talking about. Before that eons-long process to even begin, you have to have the eons-long process of cave formation. Stalagmites and stalactites form in limestone caves. And limestone caves form through erosion from water, chemical processes, the eating away of the stone by microorganisms, etc. Think about how hard limestone is. Think about how big and long limestone caves are. Think about how long it would take for them to erode. Wow.

But even that isn't the beginning. Because before the limestone could be eroded it had to be formed. Limestone is a sedimentary rock. That means it is formed by gradual layering and compaction. It is composed largely of calcite, the primary source of which is marine organisms. Can you imagine the eons of time that would go into creating limestone slabs hundreds of feet thick? Now consider that had to have occurred at the bottom of the ocean. So how did it make it all the way up into the mountains? After forming for eons of time at the bottom of the ocean, it slowly was pushed up over more eons of time, after which it was eroded for eons of time into caves, after which the slow drip-dripping of water from the ceiling of the caves over eons of time formed stalagmites and stalactites. This didn't happen in 6,000 years. It happened in a period of time that is so great my mind cannot wrap itself around it. And just to make sure my mind went that little bit further, the episode showed underwater limestone caves with enormous stalagmites and stalactites that are no longer developing. They stopped developing at the end of the last ice age – 10,000 years ago – at which time they became flooded.

You cannot rationally dismiss all of that. Obviously, life existed so far back in time we can't grasp it. Nor can you dismiss all the bizarre life that has developed inside all those caves and the eons of time it took for that life to get to where it could withstand highly acidic water or living without any form of light, not to mention how many generations of mutations it would take for a species to lose its eyes altogether.

And here's another thing I've been thinking about – what the natural world really tells us about the nature of God, if God exists, and, as I said, I believe he does. It seems very clear to me that God is inconceivably great, creating an enormous universe that is breathtakingly beautiful, but God is also not exactly the soft, sweet, and nice Christian God. Life outside our protected society (and even inside it at times) is really excruciatingly difficult. Chance and weakness can take you down in a pretty heartless way. BUT God is fair and gives every living thing a fighting chance. We can adapt for survival. We can learn to work together for survival. Of course, so can the predators. But ultimately, the balance between life and death, survival and defeat, joy and fear, is all maintained so that life has existed here on this planet for at least millions of years. The harshness of life gives us a sense of appreciation for the good things and keeps us working together. It's a pretty phenomenal system if you think about it. Take away the negatives – the pain, hunger, and death - turn it all into Heaven, and it quite simply would not work.

In my opinion, the three Republican candidates who said they did not believe in Evolution were also saying they do not believe in science and that they prefer faith over long, deep contemplation about life. Bring it all back from the existential to the mundane and you can see why it matters. As this blogger wrote, the focus by the candidates on competing "with China, Mexico, and other countries, where low cost labor is abundant," is a prime example of what happens when candidates are in denial of science. Were they thinking about science, they would not even want to compete with these countries. Instead, they would be working to transform our country "from an industrial economy to a knowledge and service driven economy." We could be focusing on innovation in the development of alternative energy sources or developing cures for diseases through stem cell research, for example. These are the sorts of things that a curious, scientifically interested leader will pursue. And that is why the question of belief in Evolution matters.

Posted by Becky at 01:52 PM |

Are We Ready to Really Talk Religion?

Ken Connor, in his editorial on the Christian Post entitled, "The Kennedy Catastrophe: Banishing Religion from the Public Square," argues that it was John F. Kennedy's efforts to overcome the public's concerns about his Catholicism that brought about the modern concept of separation of church and state. The "catastrophic" result has been that political leaders no longer will discuss "life's most important questions in public." You know, questions such as the meaning of life, how did we get here, and where are we going. And, Connor says, these questions are at the root of "why" politicians take the political stances that they take. In a nutshell, he wants Christian political leaders to come out of the closet.

Connor implies in his piece that Christians value each other more because they believe humans were created in the image of God, while those who believe in Evolution might not hold their fellow man in such high regard (he discusses his mistaken view of atheists in "Resisting the Atheist Attack"). He thinks politicians should let us know if they believe in God because that way we can tell those politicians will actually care what happens to us. I categorically reject this notion. If we do not have a personal God out there looking out for us, and instead we are the product of Evolution, then all we have is each other. When no God will save us, we have no choice but to work very hard to preserve the health and safety of this planet and our human society. We must work together for our survival, and our love and concern for even the weak among us are an important part of that. Without it, we cannot trust each other, and without trust, society cannot be cohesive and survive.

He is correct that a candidate's religious beliefs are important indicators about their approach to legislation. Abortion is the classic example of this. If a voter believes a human being exists from the moment of conception, and that human being has a soul and human rights and is known personally by God, then that voter also will believe that abortion is murder and should be outlawed. (It is a short leap from there, in my opinion, to believing abortionists should be executed.) If, on the other hand, the voter believes that human beings evolved, then we can look to science to tell us at what point that embryo becomes sensitive to pain, cognitively aware, or some other developmental point, and make a decision as a society as to precisely when our concern for the rights of the mother are outweighed by our opposition to cruelty to a developing human. If a candidate will speak freely about his or her underlying beliefs in this area, we might finally get around to talking about why those who believe in the separation of church and state take the positions they do on this and many other issues.

Candidates could, if they would, simply tell the public what they think about controversial issues like abortion and what philosophical or religious basis they have for believing as they do, and then let the chips fall where they may. And some do just that, and pay the inevitable price of looking either godless or superstitious. They are politicians, after all, and knowing the public is sharply divided on the whole Christianity – Evolution debate, and that no matter what they say they will face ardent opposition, they choose not to tell us, instead dancing around the questions and letting us figure things out for ourselves. And we pretty much do figure them out.

Connor is an ardently pro-life attorney who is very well-connected to the upper levels of the Republican Party, having represented Gov. Jeb Bush in the Terry Schiavo case and heading up several prominent organizations through the years. An interview he gave right after George W. Bush was elected the first time helps to explain his rationale for urging Christian political leaders to come out of the closet. Connor wants to change the culture and he wants religious politicians to use their bully pulpit to speed that change along. But like most Christian political activists, bully pulpits aren't quite enough for Connor. As the interview shows, he also has a very strong interest in the make-up of the Supreme Court as an implementer of his religion-based political views. (Truth be told, the cultural change he seeks is required so that the public will not resist the theocratic decisions of the Court. Of course, he would not say that, but it is obvious.)

Abortion is one of his most burning issues. In October of last year he called Roe v. Wade a "breathtaking act of judicial activism." And when Justice O'Connor stepped down, Conner said, "You cannot underestimate the significance of who will replace Justice O'Connor. From the right to life to the Pledge of Allegiance to property rights, no area of American life is untouched by our nation's courts." The recent Carhart decision in the Supreme Court prompted him to say, "At best, this decision represents a small step forward in our long struggle to protect the lives of unborn children. While it is significant that this is a step forward, it would be excessively optimistic to imagine that the Carhart ruling has paved the way for the overturning of Roe v. Wade."

This piece also explains a little bit about his interest in convincing political leaders to speak up about their religious beliefs:

Only two judges, Scalia and Thomas, were willing to call a spade a spade. They wrote a concurring opinion indicating that they felt that the court's abortion jurisprudence has no basis in the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito did not join them in this opinion, but that does not necessarily mean that they do not agree; they were simply not willing to show their cards just yet. Nevertheless, the inescapable fact is that unless three more judges come to agree with Scalia and Thomas, we will continue to have rampant abortion across America. The Carhart decision ultimately begs the question: who is a person? Though it is a step forward, it is still a very small step. In the aftermath of Carhart, it is apparent that we must redouble our efforts to turn this small step into true forward progress.

Right Wing Watch has more on Connor that will help further flesh out his rationale.

I have to think it would be a good thing for politicians to tell us why they hold their religion-based views instead of dancing around the issues. That way their opponents could also quit dancing around the issues and actually apply reason and science to the debate. I think it would be exciting. But I'm betting the political leaders on both sides of the aisle who are soft-peddling the issues think it would be too explosive, and they're not interested in being the one who steps on the landmine that blows the debate into the wide-open.

Posted by Becky at 12:27 PM |

May 03, 2007

PSU Student Observes Misrepresentation by Petitioners

How very interesting. If this post is honest and accurate, then it looks like the paid petitioners on Bill Sizemore's merit pay ballot initiative are back to their old tricks. It seems one "Alex D.", a student at Portland State University (whose typos I have taken the liberty to correct), has decided to do a project on Oregon's initiative system and the practices that are corrupting it.

So, here at the park blocks I was approached to sign petitions for "merit pay" public teacher pay. I am against merit pay, so I did not sign it. Merit pay establishes pay raises for teachers who have students who do better, usually on standardized tests. This means that teachers in rich white neighborhoods make more than in poor black neighborhoods.

Then, all the single roaming petitioners disappear and a crew that works together showed up. They erected a tent in front of our library and wore P.S.U. sweatshirts. I walked by and saw the operation and said to myself, "these guys are good, they probably have that merit pay petition." I have long despised these people who pass around bad petitions, but have always respected their right to do what they do.

However, one day I was playing chess in the Park Blocks and I heard the head guy of the crew say "Please help us increase teacher pay." I was floored!!! This guy was lying about the content of the petitions. Merit pay is not increasing teacher pay!!! Students were lining up three deep at a time to sign this petition. He had a stack of five petitions- all had a lie connected to them. The petitions are hard enough to understand as they are written, but to lie about them is ridiculous. Even worse he was doing so in the name of P.S.U. People thought their signature was improving schools but it was really harming poor schools, among all the others.

I'm not at all surprised by what Alex has discovered. As I've said before, Sizemore gloated to me on more than one occasion about how his petitioners collected signatures for his light rail funding referendum while riding public transit. They would tell people the petition would provide funding for light rail when in fact the funding had already been approved and the petition was actually an effort to overturn that funding (and succeeded in doing so). While that lie may not have been his idea, he thought it was pretty clever and to my knowledge never fired any of the petitioners for having told it.

Posted by Becky at 11:21 AM |

Sizemore Goes Gunning for Smith

Bill Sizemore is apparently moving forward with his challenge to Gordon Smith, if his latest editorial is any indication. NW Republican titles the piece "The Case Against Gordon Smith," but Sizemore titled it, "Is Sen. Gordon Smith a Globalist? Why do people vote for chameleons?" After reading through the op-ed, I think Ted Piccolo did a better job of titling it. Not that it really matters, because the piece is nothing but a laundry list of right-wing complaints about the moderate votes of a moderate senator in a state that likes moderates.

Sizemore begins by charging Smith with being a Republican who "is not a conservative." To back this up, he looks at Smith's scorecard from the American Conservative Union, which gave Smith a lifetime score of 74.5% and a 2005 score of just 58%. That's very interesting to me and explains why the Democrats I've actually spoken to about Smith say they think he's doing a pretty good job, working well with Ron Wyden, and gaining a level of seniority that benefits Oregon. Many actually say they think he could be the next Mark Hatfield. I don't personally like Smith, but I am intrigued that what I'm hearing in face-to-face conversations doesn't match what I'm reading in the liberal blogosphere. That said, I really have to wonder why Sizemore thinks a true conservative could win in this state. Oregonians seem to be very fond of moderates.

Sizemore doesn't like Smith's approach to social issues. He takes Smith to task for his support of hate crimes legislation, and his real problem with it seems to be that Smith is working with gay and lesbian groups – giving them something that they want. He also criticizes Smith for his support of embryonic stem cell research. He argues that "adult stem cell research has proven to be far more valuable and useful than research using stem cells from human embryos." What he is not pointing out is something you can even find on the White House website: "Although scientists believe that some adult stem cells from one tissue can develop into cells of another tissue, no adult stem cell has been shown in culture to be pluripotent. ... To date, adult stem cell research, which is federally-funded, has resulted in the development of a variety of therapeutic treatments for diseases. Although embryonic stem cell research has not yet produced similar results, many scientists believe embryonic stem cell research holds promise over time because of the capacity of embryonic stem cells to develop into any tissue in the human body." Sizemore could at least tell the whole right-wing version of the story, but he is so far to the right he does not want to acknowledge any valuable use for embryonic stem cell research at all.

Sizemore is also making an issue with Smith over his support for light rail. He accuses Smith of "twisting arms, wielding threats and offering political bribes to fellow Republicans for votes" in favor of light rail back when he was in the Oregon Legislature. The reason, says Sizemore, was that Smith had his eyes fixed on becoming a U.S. Senator and he "knew that a Republican cannot win statewide in Oregon, unless he garners at least 33 or 34 percent of the vote in vote-rich Multnomah County where the City of Portland is located." Aha! Sizemore does realize that a conservative Republican cannot win in Oregon. So why would he be trying to push Smith out in the Primary and get a conservative Republican to run against a Democrat in November?

Sizemore, who, when running for Governor, gave a speech to an environmental group saying he thought 1000 Friends of Oregon had done a good thing for the state by bringing environmental issues to people's attention, and claimed to be an environmentalist himself, derides Smith for voting against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Perhaps he didn't realize that Smith was a consistent supporter of ANWR drilling and only voted against it at the end, when he could be assured it wouldn't pass anyway, because he wanted to strengthen his "moderate" credentials. Sizemore further shows his lack of knowledge by tying ANWR drilling to the price of gasoline, despite the reality that ANWR contains so little oil it will barely make a dent in our dependency on oil from the Middle East.

And speaking of the Middle East, Sizemore also berates Smith for his vote to join "Democrats to set a time table for withdrawal from Iraq" and for daring to call our presence there "criminal," which really was one of the most meaningful statements Smith has ever made, in my opinion. At this point, I have no more patience for anyone who continues to defend this war, and Sizemore's rationale is so uninformed and smacks so much of the cowboy mentality that it makes me sick.

Al Qaeda’s highest priority in all the world is to defeat the United States in Iraq and send us home with our tails between our legs. An American defeat in Iraq would inspire them to export terror to American cities, schools, shopping malls, and sports arenas. Volunteer suicide bombers would line up for “service,” gloating over the weakness of American resolve.

His admission that we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place is at attempt to look reasonable, but he offers absolutely no ideas about how to "fix it" – in fact, nobody seems to have any idea how we can fix what we have broken. We are right now spinning our wheels in the mud, digging the holes under our wheels deeper and deeper and splattering mud all over the place. I guess Sizemore would have us continue to press the gas peddle to the floor until we think of something better to do. Pulling out would give us a chance to look at the situation, clean off the mud, and find a better way through the swamp.

Other issues on which Sizemore disagrees with Smith include Smith's support of the Healthy Kids Plan, which would have funded health insurance for poor kids using an 85 cent per pack cigarette tax (Sizemore ignorantly equates this with "government health care"); Smith's opposition to building a fence along the Mexican border and support for helping illegals become legal (because they'll likely vote Democratic); and his failure to reform Social Security (read: privatize it). Interestingly, that last one is a pet issue for Sizemore's sugar daddy, Dick Wendt.

Running down Sizemore's list of reasons to vote against Gordon Smith makes it pretty clear why Gordon Smith has had a fairly secure seat in the Senate. In fact, I think Smith's biggest problem is that he has been working so hard to be a moderate that he forgot about the fact that he has to run in a primary election and will have ungrateful, ignorant wing-nuts coming after him. I don't care one way or the other whether Gordon Smith is elected come next November. But I sure as hell would never vote for a right winger like Bill Sizemore, even if I didn't know a thing about his past.

Posted by Becky at 10:40 AM |

May 02, 2007

Paul Harvey Shocks and Appalls

Have you ever received one of those emails attributing some outrageous statement to a famous person, only to find out later it was a hoax? Well, that's what I thought when I found in my inbox some really horrible things being attributed to Paul Harvey. Only problem is, they are actually true. As I read through his most recent diatribe I was shocked to learn he's said even worse things before now. Even more shocking was that after he said them, he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Where have I been?

The most recent tirade involved his disgust over the media's labeling of "women and children" killed in war as "civilians" and compared the innocent victims of war in Afghanistan to the 9/11 terrorists. If you don't believe me, Think Progress has a link to the sound clip so you can hear it for yourself.

On his News and Comment radio show this morning, ABC Radio Networks host Paul Harvey said “the media should put a stop” to labeling “women and children” killed in war as “civilians.” He said, “It was civilians, for goodness sake, who decapitated New York City.”

Dictionaries define a civilian as “one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force.” Harvey disagrees. According to him, “Since the invention of the aerial bomb five wars ago, there have been no civilians.” In other words, innocent people who are killed in war are military combatants because they are victims of a military attack.

President Bush personally bestowed on Harvey the Presidential Medal of Freedom in November of 2005 with these words:

[O]ver the decades we have come to recognize in that voice some of the finest qualities of our country: the patriotism, the good humor, the kindness and common sense of Americans.

Yet just a little more than four months earlier, Harvey had said he wished we had nuked Afghanistan and Iraq (again, there is a link so you can listen for yourself) and praised the use of "smallpox-infected blankets" and slavery to win and build this country.

"We're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies--more moral, more civilized," he said. Drawing a contrast with what he cast as the praiseworthy nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, Harvey lamented that "we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq and kept our best weapons in their silos"--suggesting that America should have used its nuclear arsenal in its invasions of both countries.

Harvey concluded:

We didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever.

And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy.

I don't even know what to say.

Posted by Becky at 04:22 PM |

What's the Big Deal Over Foot Baths?

Can someone please explain to me why the outrage over the fact that some public facilities are beginning to install foot baths to accommodate Muslim members of the community? The hullabaloo has been going on for awhile, but it began in earnest a couple of weeks ago when it was reported that the Minneapolis Community and Technical College was proposing the installation of the foot baths for its Muslim students, who have been conducting their 5-times-a-day required prayers and foot washing ceremonies in the restroom sinks. The Minnesota Legislature responded by requiring equal spending and accommodations for all religions, which had the effect of blocking the project. Now the uproar has been renewed with the revelation that the Kansas City airport, home to many Muslim taxi drivers, has just installed four foot baths in one of its public restrooms. The facilities were funded by the cab drivers, 70% of whom are Muslim, and not by taxes, and yet you would think by the reaction from the nutcases on the right that we had just officially become a Muslim country.

Michael Savage was the bigot who really got it going, and it's not surprising considering his last name is really Weiner. In other words, he's a Jew who hates Muslims. And his listeners are a bunch of ultra-conservative haters themselves, so they're naturally spewing the same trash. Again, no surprise.

What is surprising is how this reaction on the right has apparently freaked out the airport. Its spokesman is trying to pass the foot baths off as an Internet "myth," saying they are nothing more than "wash areas" that can be "used for any wash purpose by any of the users, including filling car wash buckets." This makes the provided prayer rugs a bit hard to explain, however.

Also confusing to me is the fact that the Airport Police have been struggling with the question of whether they should overtly tell people of the Islamic faith where they can go to prepare for their prayers or whether doing so would be "catering" to Islamic rituals. They are particularly concerned because airports have been used and targeted by Islamic terrorists such as the 9/11 terrorists, who conducted ritual bodily cleansing – or foot washing - prior to martyring themselves. My guess is they probably ate a "last supper" as well, but we aren't looking at closing all airport restaurants. In any case, the lack of foot washing facilities at the airport did not prevent their hijacking the planes and killing thousands of people.

Lest you think the Worldnet Daily article is unbiased in its reporting, note that accompanying it are links to other past articles of interest on the subject, some of which are "Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad," "Report: 'Moderate' Islamic charities back terror," "'Terrorist apologist' CAIR to meet in Capitol," and, comically, "Internet, talk radio blamed for 'anti-Muslim violence,'" as well as many more just like them.

The response from the public on this is absolutely amazing to me. For instance, a thread at Google Groups began like this:

The latest attempt to Islamize America comes in the form of tax-payer funded Muslim footbaths - Michael Savage did his entire show this evening on the subject. The crux of the discussion centered on the Separation Clause - that is the argument that the state should not be paying for religious practice. We've had foot baths for the Dirty Muslims here at De Paul and at various Islamic "Prayer rooms" (they used to be called gay bars) for a few years now so we must all strive for diversity. I was speaking with a good friend of mine about this who suggested a great solution: Since the Muslims can have foot baths, I AM ENTITLED TO A TESTICLE BATH! My Friend all say I've got balls and suggested I ought to wash them before prayers - so HOW ABOUT IT ?

I mentioned this to a gay friend of mine later and he suggested a PENIS BATH FOR GAY MEN and a Lesbian with him suggested a DOUCHE BATH FOR GAY WOMEN TOO! Someone had better tell Alderperson TOM TUNNEY! (D 31st)

If the Muslims can wash their filthy feet (at taxpayers expense): I HAVE A RIGHT TO WASH MY BALLS!

This really has potential and can lead to great things (and some wild sights) - so let's all Wash whatever part we want and get the government to pay for it!

Praise the Lord and God Bless America.

I hope Leonid will notice that I was not the one who associated hate with the Good Lord. Here's another less repulsive, but equally ignorant post on the subject:

Turn on any news program lately and you’ll likely to come to the conclusion that the world is going to the dogs. Actually, that might not be a bad idea…

For instance: Just now I’m listening to Michael Savage who is outraged at some of our country’s universities building special foot baths for Muslims to wash their feet. I have to agree with him on this one. If we can’t say a Christian prayer, or even mentioned Jesus without the thought police (ACLU) coming down on us, then Islamic practices should not get special privileges that the Christians do not have.

And if we keep this up, we will have to get rid of our dogs, because Muslims don’t like them. Dogs will not be allowed on the streets because they OFFEND them.

God hope it never comes to that, but hey, someone has to warn America.

Today foot baths, tomorrow…your dog.

I'm sure I don't need to remind any of our regular readers about the great lengths to which the ACLU has gone to protect religious freedom in this country, but I would also note that if Christians were required to wash their feet prior to praying, and they had to do it five times a day, we would have foot baths in every single restroom in this country and nobody would be asking why. Providing accommodations for a growing population in order to protect their safety (washing feet in a sink is risky business) and protect the public's health (do you want to be washing up where someone washed their feet?) is nowhere close to the same thing as Christian prayer in public school or posting of the Ten Commandments, which include forced rest on the Sabbath, in a court of law. Nobody is making anyone wash their feet or say a prayer.

Geez, I don't think these people will be happy until they've managed to lock all the Muslims up in internment camps (and had a bit of frat-boy fun with them, too).

Posted by Becky at 02:27 PM |

Abused Kids Forced into Baptist Religion

Several abused and neglected children of a variety of faiths (Catholic, Pentacostal, Jehovah's Witness, and atheist) have come forward saying that while staying in the state-funded Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children they were forced into Christian practices and discouraged from practicing their own religions. Some said they were forced to participate in Bible readings, prayer times or Baptist services. The Homes' directors say the proselytizing was not policy, but rather done by employees working contrary to policy. Nobody is accusing the Homes of having taken poor care of the children; in fact, the truth appears to be quite the opposite. Nonetheless, government funding does appear to have been used to advance not merely Christianity, though that would be bad enough, but a particular version of Christianity -- the Baptist version.

The State's attorney thinks the children just misunderstood the situation, though some have said they were told if they did not go to church or participate in Bible study, they would face "consequences."

Attorney Jonathan Goldberg, representing the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, said …"If a child says, 'I don't want to go to the Baptist church,' then the child does not go." ... He said some children might have erroneously believed they were forced to go, or there might not have been a church of their faith nearby.

I know a lot of Christian people who would wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, a little church never hurt anybody, right? Back in the olden days, it was just expected that good people went to church. But times have changed. Today, we're locked in a major battle between the "Secular Progressives" (or "SPs"), as Bill O'Reilly likes to call them, and the "theocrats," as they're often viewed (and rightfully so) by those who value the separation of church and state. I think Charles Haynes, who is a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Virginia, hit the nail on the head in his comments, explaining why the battle should end for the good of everyone:

The case "takes us back to a fundamental problem with government funding of religion," he said.

"Generally, it's not good for religious organizations to enter into an arrangement which would restrict its mission."

So true. Churches get into social service as a means of fulfilling the "great commission" to take the gospel to the whole world. Those in need are receptive to the message and, in the minds of most good Christian people, are also most in need of the comfort of forgiveness and a loving Savior. Their public service efforts really are inextricably linked to proselytizing, and that really is how it ought to be. That is the entire problem with the Faith Based Initiative program.

Whether you view government funding of faith based social service programs as cover for government sponsored religion or see it as an act of slapping duct tape over the mouths of Christians, either way it still is wrong. And people who are driven by a belief that God wants them to spread the Good News just cannot help themselves. Nor should they be expected to – after all, the sharing and debating of ideas and beliefs about how we got here and where we are going is one of the most fascinating discussions we can have as human beings. We just shouldn't have government sticking its nose into the middle of the debate and skewing it through the power of its incredibly huge purse.

Posted by Becky at 01:23 PM |

The Abramoff Spin Cycle is On High

If you've never seen the write-up "Six Degrees of Jack Abramoff" you really ought to go read it. Among many interesting things the piece references is a golf junket to Scotland by Tom DeLay, courtesy of Abramoff. Another recipient of an Abramoff-paid Scotland golf junket, Rep. Tom Feeney, wrote an op-ed yesterday in which he sought to "clarify facts" about the trip. Comically, he would not name Abramoff outright, not wanting to accentuate his association with that pariah. Brad Blog reprints the op-ed with the mysterious references replaced with actual terms (i.e., "a high-profile case" becomes "Jack Abramoff"). Brad Friedman's version is much more clear -- and more amusing. But to really get the joke, you first need to read it as written in Feeney's own words.

Posted by Becky at 10:00 AM |

May 01, 2007

Insane McCain?

Frank Pitz at the Atlantic Free Press is asking a question that a lot of us have been pondering lately: Is John McCain nuts? From his "joke" about giving Jon Stewart "a little IED to put on your desk," to his singing of "Bomb, bomb, bomb – bomb, bomb Iran," to his 22 pets, to his major flip-flops on every issue, it just seems the guy gets weirder at every turn. And Pitz isn't the only one who's noticed. A. Alexander at the Progressive Daily Beacon says McCain "has become the mad uncle that the family keeps locked in the attic, but always manages to escape." He cites McCain's recent "shopping trip" in an Iraqi market, which he said was as safe as any in Indiana. Having been to Indiana, which is boring as hell, I'd have to agree that was a really crazy thing to say.

McCain may, indeed, be insane, I don't know. Pitz doesn't actually make a very good case for it, and though the signs are everywhere I tend to think it's something else. Back in the Clinton era, McCain could easily run a little contrary to the GOP, make the Democrats somewhat happy and the Republicans somewhat happy, and be viewed as a maverick who could take the political heat. But during the Bush era, as contention between the parties has intensified along with his desire to be elected President, his desire to please everyone at least a little bit has ended up pleasing no one at all. And every time we see the Bush Administration beat him back into submission we realize he can't take the heat after all, and he probably never really stood for anything in the first place. So while he seems crazy, I think the truth is he's weak and is tiring to the point that he just can't pull it off anymore.

Now if you really want crazy, take a look at Shirley Dobson (James Dobson's wife). She actually believes that if Cho Sueng Hui had seen the Ten Commandments on the wall of his classrooms growing up, he might not have shot 32 people.

Posted by Becky at 02:26 PM |

Heterosexual Love Makes a Woman Thinner

Do you remember that study that found that married men were healthier than single men? Not much publicized was the part of the study showing that happily married women were also more healthy (and thin) than unhappily married women or single women. They were thinner, gained less weight over time, and exercised more. Now we have a new study that has found that lesbians are twice as likely as heterosexual women to be overweight. I don't find this surprising in the least, and my reasoning fits in with the earlier study.

I think women who are happily married tend to want to please their men, and generally, men tend to like thinner women. Hence, the happily married women work harder to stay thinner. Single heterosexual women are still trying to catch a man, hence they stay thinner, too. But unhappily married women no longer give a damn, and neither do lesbians care what men think of them. And since women's bodies tend to store up fat reserves faster than men's bodies so they have enough for the nourishment of their developing and nursing babies, when nature alone is the guide (as opposed to men's desire for a slender mate), women naturally get fatter.

No doubt the reader will know of exceptions to this theory of mine, and they are certainly valid. In fact, I like to think of myself as somewhat of an exception. I've been thin all my life, but when I hit 40 it started being more difficult to maintain my weight, and this last year has been just awful. I've gained 15 pounds despite endless dieting and I'm very happily married! So go figure. But studies look at general trends, so I'll stick with my theory.

One interesting point in the study is that it concluded that despite being more overweight, "lesbian women have a better body image than do heterosexual women.” As a woman whose body image plummets in proportion to her increase in weight, I think I understand at least a part of that phenomenon. Heterosexual women are the perfect counterpart to heterosexual men. Men like to look; women like to be looked at. So when our bodies become less of what we perceive as attractive to men, our body image takes a hit. Lesbians don't have to worry about pleasing a man. Their bodies reflect their lifestyle choices, and if they're satisfied with their lifestyle, they're probably going to be satisfied with their bodies. And their mate is likely to be very understanding about it.

I'm glad I am healthier as a result of being happily married to a man and wanting to please him, but I have to say there are times when I'd trade a bit of that away for the better body image.

Posted by Becky at 01:10 PM |