« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »
January 31, 2008
Mann Coulter Endorses Hillary (Sort of)
When I first read this, I was a little surprised. Ann Coulter says in her latest column she'd rather vote for Hillary Clinton than John McCain. Her rationale:
With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility ...At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back.
That pretty much makes sense. If you're a conservative Republican, that is.
Posted by Becky at 09:51 PM |
Non-Profits, Televangelists and Bloated Salaries.
I recently ran across a fascinating Oregon blog called FreeGoodNews.com that restores some measure of my faith in the basic goodness of at least some Evangelical Christians in America. It's actually just the online face of a local non-profit by the same name. The executive director and board chairman is a man named Bernie Dehler who appears to do all of the writing on their blog. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that one of the other board members is D. Wilbanks who is described as an "Activist for Palestinian & Humanitarian rights." Clearly this is not a run-of-the-mill pro-Zionist, war-mongering, money-grubbing group of Evangelicals.
What initially caught my interest was a two-part series that Bernie wrote detailing 2008 Salary Review for the Top 20 Christian Ministers(part 1). He points out that these are all publically available records of registered non-profit ministries behind some of the best known (and richest!) televangelists and that some of the biggest players' financial data is unavailable because they structure their operation as part of an individual church "so they can hide all their salary and revenue data." That would include folk like Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family which cleared a cool $142,279,843 but doesn't disclose how much of that Dobson takes home.
Part two focuses mostly on the highest paid shyster... I mean televangelist - 2008 Christian Executive Pay: The Popoff Scandal. That would be one Peter Popoff whose "ministry's" total revenues barely make the top 10 most profitable at $23,556,469 but which pays him a cool $628,732 salary.
By way of comparison, Beaverton Oregon-based Luis Palau Ministries report gross revenues only slightly behind Popoff's at $22,155,039 and yet Luis Palau's salary is more than $400,000 less than Popoff's but still at a very comfortable $210,399.
All of which begs the question of: What exactly constitutes being a "Christian"? Specifically I'm thinking of the infamous account of the encounter between Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler.
Luke 18:18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 20You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother."21"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.
22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
23When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
This blog is hardly an appropriate forum for defining what is or is not "Christian." I just offer the above quote as food for thought, nothing more.
Perhaps a more appropriate question here would be that of tax-exempt status. There's been talk for the last few years of reigning in executive salaries in the corporate world. Seems to me that at some point one has to question just how "non-profit" a job is that pays in excess of $600,000. But at the same time I don't know where the line ought rightly be drawn. Well... unless maybe it was a straight-forward formula based on median income, the official poverty level or something along those lines that is completely neutral to the ostensible mission of a given "non-profit" organization.
As always we need to be mindful of Thomas Paine's exhortation:
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."
Posted by Kevin at 10:05 AM |
January 30, 2008
Confessions of an EX-McCainiac
Actually the letter I'll post below the fold was written by someone else, but it might as well have been written by me because I fully agree with all of it. In fact, my first venture on the world wide web, The Independent Voter, was originally intended solely to help John McCain garner support from Independents during the 2000 Presidential primaries.
The author of this letter was one of PK's earliest supporters and has a blog of his own (although disused in quite some time) called The Disenfranchised Voter. And now on to the letter itself which was written in July 2005 and actually sent to Senator McCain:
Dear Senator McCain,Hello, my name is Robert Skaggs. I am a 20 year-old college student from New Jersey. I first want to thank you for your service to our country. I am politically independent and have had much respect for you. With that said, I want to take you back seven months ago...
It was February and I had just recently purchased Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them. I came upon a passage in which I read what George Bush did to you in the Primary in South Carolina and I was outraged. How dare he not only question your service but his campaign was also behind an attack in which they pretended to be an independent voter polling group and made claims about you having an illegitimate black child and that your wife had DUI's among other things. So as you can understand, it was a total surprise for me when you came out in support of Bush. You have a right to your opinion but I could not fathom how you could support a man who acted so despicable in your primary against him. I then heard that you said you had put it in the past, and that made me respect you even more Mr. McCain. But that was then, and this is now...
George Bush is now attacking John Kerry's heroic service. You know it, and I know it; but you still support him. You have betrayed me, Mr. McCain. I cannot believe you are still supporting this man. He is attacking his third Vietnam Vet Hero in four years! Do you have no backbone, sir? On top of this new attack, you know Bush is not the man for the job. He does not represent what the Republican Party stands for...fiscal responsibility, being very strict on amending our sacred document, The Constitution, small government, and protecting our civil liberties! He recklessly went to war with Iraq and people in his Administration clearly lied to us to get us there. Here's another little interesting tidbit, the Bush Administration actually produced fake news reports for the Medicare bill that just passed this year. THAT IS PROPAGANDA! THIS IS NOT WHAT AMERCIA STANDS FOR, THIS IS WHAT WE FIGHT AGAINST! I am so, so disappointed in you. Your allegiance isn't to our country; your allegiance is to the Neo-Conservatives who have hijacked your party. You are putting your party before our country and mark my words, Mr. McCain; by supporting President Bush this time around you have committed political suicide. You may have enjoyed a long ride there in Arizona for being your own man, but you are not that man anymore. You have lost the respect of me, my parents, and thousands of other independent voters across the country. By supporting President Bush for re-election, you have not only betrayed me--you have betrayed the very soul of America.
I will leave you with why I do not, rather cannot, support this current Administration.
I cannot support under funding legislation (No Child Left Behind). I cannot support destroying freedom in the name of protection from terrorism (Patriot Act). I cannot support using torture as a means of interrogation, even if they are terrorists. I cannot support fiscal irresponsibility--i.e. outrageously spending money, and cutting taxes when we can't afford to. I cannot support amending our Constitution for ridiculous reasons. I cannot support recklessly destroying our environment for profit. I cannot support propaganda. I cannot support reckless, aggressive foreign policy and I certainly cannot support unnecessary wars. I cannot support a man who attacks Vietnam Heroes' service...
But I guess you can.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Skaggs Jr.
Posted by Kevin at 08:50 AM |
January 29, 2008
Oregon Was Right to Close Trojan
We can never fully shield ourselves from the dangers posed by human nature and human error; hence, I wholeheartedly believe that nuclear power development has been a grave mistake that may ultimately wipe out life on this planet. As Canada is learning (read more about it here), all the standards and safeguards in the world can't stop people who feel they have good motives from taking enormous risks that endanger us all.
The former head of the Nuclear Safety Commission has told a Commons committee that the Chalk River reactor posed a safety risk one-thousand times greater than international standards when it was shut down last month.Linda Keen, who was fired by the Harper government, says she was simply acting according to the law when she refused to restart the reactor to deal with a shortage of medical isotopes.
Parliament voted unanimously to override the safety regulator's objections and the reactor was restarted December 16th.
We should never have developed so dangerous a tool. Humans simply are not trustworthy enough to handle it.
Posted by Becky at 01:53 PM |
Message in a Serial Killer Board Game
I have always been fixated on trying to make things better and make people feel happy. As an artist, I have been interested in creating beautiful things from which people would derive pleasure. So I will state right up front that I have always been entirely baffled by artists who are obsessed with portraying evil, degrading, revolting, cruel, inhuman, or depressing subjects. Same goes for dark musicians (such as Marilyn Manson, whose artwork is apparently as twisted as his music). It’s just not something that has ever interested me. So my first reaction upon hearing that someone who is, in truth, a very talented artist, has created a trivia board game featuring famous serial killers was revulsion.
The Serial Killer Trivia Game features Ted Bundy, the Green River Killer Gary Ridgway and Spokane's serial killer Robert Yates. The game places the players in the middle of some of the most notorious cases of our time with a roll of a dice."You would land on the victim's house and once you do that, you would grab a trivia card and attempt to answer it correctly in order to claim the victim," said Ryan Hobson, the game's creator.
The game, like any other board game, involves moving player pieces around the board and coming across a variety of scenarios. But the scenarios in the serial killer game involve killing.
"'BTK strangler' stands for 'bind, torture, kill.' So if you got the question right, you would claim one of these victims, the little baby," Hobson said.
The plastic babies are color-coated to match the killer (or player) who claims them.
What does this have to do with art? Well, Hobson describes his game as “an art piece.” He says, “I don't feel that art's job is to always be tasteful," and even an optimist like me can recognize and appreciate the value of shocking and horrifying works of art. Sometimes that is the only way to express something effectively and induce positive change in people.
Hobson does not say why he created this game, so I can’t speak for him, but even though I hope it doesn’t get reproduced and wind up on store shelves, I do think it expresses some interesting ideas. It serves as a commentary on the commercialism and trivialization of everything – of the value of human life, of the suffering of others, and even of our fascination with evil and our obsession with the mindset of the serial killer, which results from our inability to understand it. It also speaks to me as a commentary on the unquestioning nature of children – those most likely to play board games. In imagining children playing this game, which would surely happen if it was published, I am struck by the fact that children simply assume that life is supposed to be the way they experience it and, without moral judgment, they accept whatever evil is around them as “normal.”
With the mainstreaming into our culture of incredibly realistic horror and slasher films, brutal and bloody video games, dark music and its accompanying dark videos, and the constant onslaught of horrific real news stories featured every day, I suppose a serial killer board game won’t make much of a difference. We’re virtually saturated with inhumanity and barbarism. But I can’t help but wonder what will become of the kids today who are absorbing all of this ugliness, whose parents "enjoy" this media around their children, those impressionable young minds who are still establishing their moral compass. Adults can filter through these messages and find the deeper meanings, but children cannot. Will these children grow up thinking this horrifically inhuman "art" is an expression of what is normal? And will it thus escalate into the next generation?
Posted by Becky at 01:19 PM |
A tale of two ethical standards
NWRepublican attempts to turn the ethical tables on Oregon Dems in an obvious reaction to last week's revelation that a GOP tracker had been caught lying. But they ran into a logistical problem that would seem to be more appropriate to a Keystone Cops episode.
Specifically referring to the coverage at Blue Oregon, Ted Piccolo (aka "Coyote") cite's Russ Kelley of the Merkley for Senate campaign addressing ethical standards for campaign trackers: “But there’s an honest way to do it, and there’s a dishonest way to do it. You find out where they are through public notices and things like that. You don’t call and misrepresent yourself."
Apparently feeling supremely confident that he had the ultimate "Gotcha" rebuttal, Picollo posts pictures of a DSCC-paid tracker wearing a badge identifying himself as a member of the "press" as evidence that trackers for Merkley are equally deceptive because of course the tracker wasn't actually a member of the press. There was only one HUGE problem - the tracker was told to wear the badge by the GOP event staff AFTER he had willingly practiced full disclosure of who he was and why he was there. That revelation left Picollo sputtering rather comically.
There are two ironies here. One being that an attempt to challenge the ethics of Russ Kelley backfired badly. The other being that the Dem tracker who practiced pristine ethics was being payed by the DSCC. Yes, that would be the same DSCC that was much maligned in the Oregon Lefty blogosphere earlier in this primary season.
Posted by Kevin at 11:34 AM |
Bush speech fails to impress NW Dems
Seattle Post Intelligencer - A few that stuck out...
Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley, one of two Democrats hoping to oppose Smith this fall, said the wages of the average American family are lower than they were when Bush took office seven years ago, while such an average family's debt is higher and fewer have health insurance."Now they are experiencing the ravages of mass foreclosures - the result of too little scrutiny and too few protections in the mortgage industry," Merkley said.
Bingo!! The mortgage crisis is the direct result of following the intellectually bankrupt reich-wing philosophy of letting market forces dictate things. It was imminently avoidable!!
Congressman Brian Baird had a very interesting response to Bush's speech:
Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., said he wished Bush had called on the nation to invest in transportation infrastructure and energy conservation. He said Bush "should have shown bold leadership by calling on all Americans to cut their energy consumption and carbon generation by 20 percent in 20 weeks. That would immediately put money into people's pockets through savings on energy, and it would have promptly cut energy prices. It would also have shown the world that we are truly serious and willing to take the lead on stopping climate change and ocean acidification."
For his part Senator Gordon Smith called for Congress to follow Bush's lead:
Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., sounded a similar note."Now more than ever Congress must keep its focus on issues impacting most Americans - access to health care, the housing crisis, the family budget, a sputtering economy," said Smith, who is up for re-election this year. "Working together to find consensus is how we will tackle these challenges."
Of course "consensus" in Bush-speak means "do it my way," Which none of the NW Dems seem inclined to do. And given Bush's record I can't say that I blame them. The man has been an abject failure as a statesman.
Posted by Kevin at 08:14 AM |
January 28, 2008
Drug Tax - a reality in North Carolina
Okay... now I've heard it all.
MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer - More than a half-dozen states have a tax on narcotics and other controlled substances. Theoretically, a drug dealer in North Carolina can go to the state revenue office and get a tax stamp for $50 per gram for cocaine over 7 grams (the first 6 grams are tax-free). A moonshiner could get a stamp for $1.28 per gallon of mash.Then the dealer or the moonshiner can walk away — the law prohibits snitching on anyone who buys the stamps — with proof he paid his debt to the tax department.
The idea is that a peddler, even one who sells illegal substances, should pay taxes. But in reality the revenue is only collected after arrests, when dealers are slapped with a tax bill.
"The only folks we have buying those stamps are stamp collectors," said Kim Brooks, spokeswoman for the North Carolina Department of Revenue.
Posted by Kevin at 02:46 PM |
Full Disclosure for Non-Profits in Oregon
I just read about Bradbury group to examine campaign disclosures.
SALEM - Secretary of State Bill Bradbury will form a panel this spring to look at whether Oregon law should require non-profits to disclose who their donors are in campaign finance filings, his office announced Friday.
Personally, I feel strongly that they should have to disclose where the money came from if they are paying for anything campaign related, but should not have to outside of that. Right now it's too easy a way for an entity which would otherwise have to disclose to avoid that by funneling the money through a pliable non-profit.
Posted by Kevin at 08:56 AM |
January 27, 2008
Indies Rising
This is something that I've called for more of, particularly here in Oregon.
Independents to help pick nominees - More than half the states holding presidential contests next month on Super Tuesday allow unaffiliated voters to participate, giving millions of independents a chance to shape what is usually an insider affair among Democratic and Republican loyalists.Discuss.Two of those states — California and New Jersey — together have nearly 6 million unaffiliated voters who will be allowed to cast ballots. Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts and Alabama are among other prized catches with millions of independents eligible for the Feb. 5 contests.
Posted by Kevin at 08:56 AM |
January 25, 2008
Are You a Bush Republican?
This is just too funny. Hot on the heels of Peggy Noonan's accusation this morning that President Bush has "destroyed" the Republican Party comes a challenge from Americans United for Change to all those Bush-supporting members of Congress whose votes gave him what he wanted: Wear our button and tell the world you're a "Bush Republican":
For seven years, President Bush's allies in Congress helped push forward his failed Conservative agenda. This week, Americans United for Change began delivering "I’m a Bush Republican" buttons to all of the Republicans in the House and Senate today in advance of Bush’s Final State of the Union Address on Monday with the message: "your votes helped build his legacy; you should show your support for him by proudly declaring that you’re a Bush Republican."
Just to be sure you understand the context of this truth-or-dare moment, here are Peggy Noonan's exact words:
George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other.
Let's see how the weasels manage to play both sides this time.
Posted by Becky at 01:02 PM |
January 24, 2008
Support the FISA filibuster - Sign the Petition
Please sign the Petition calling on Oregon Senators Wyden and Smith to stand in support of Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and his filibuster of this unAmerican, anti-civil rights amnesty bill.
Posted by Kevin at 01:42 PM |
January 23, 2008
Orwellian Liars with Their Fingers on the Button
Two stories in this morning’s news, when placed side-by-side, are particularly disturbing:
1. We must be able to use a nuke to stop the use of nukes:
The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists. …the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world"…"The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups."In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.…The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.
The study, released Tuesday, says Powell had the second-highest number of false statements, with 244 about weapons and 10 about Iraq and al Qaeda.
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer each made 109 false statements, it says. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made 85, Rice made 56, Cheney made 48 and Scott McLellan, also a press secretary, made 14, the study says.
Have a nice day. (Hat tip to Spyder.)
Posted by Becky at 08:55 AM |
January 22, 2008
Snow Day Rituals?
It seems a good time to introduce a more light-hearted subject around here. So here goes...
Listening to NPR's "Talk of the Nation" today I heard them close out the show with a segment with guest Mark Dursin, author of "The Secret Power of Pajamas" and had the best belly-laugh I've had in a very long time.
Dursin teaches highschool English and wrote the piece in the Hartford Courant about Snow Day... um... rituals practiced by his students. Intrigued by what his students told him (and his kids too), he did some research and found that with only minor variations there is a single Snow Day ritual practiced by students up and down the East Coast and as far inland as Tennessee - the "Pajamas-Inside-Out, Spoon-Under-the-Pillow-Snow-Day Ritual." The point of course being that if students faithfully practice this ritual then the following day with be declared a Snow Day and they won't have to go to school.
The ritual involves basically what it's name implies: The student has to go to bed wearing his or her pajamas inside-out and place a spoon under their pillow. Some regional variations require licking the spoon first or eating an oatmeal cookie first. A few even involve wearing the pajamas both inside-out and backwards. But the essentials remain the same. Oddly, though... when told of a different Snow Day ritual tradition involving throwing ice cubes into a toilet, these kids thought that was just silly!
That got me to wondering about any Snow Day rituals here on the Left Coast. Although my family moved four different times between when I was in first grade and when I graduated from highschool, I don't remember any Snow Day rituals. But I attended private parochial schools the whole time and maybe that explains why I was never exposed to this. Both of my daughters have attended public schools and to my knowledge they've never practiced any Snow Day rituals.
So I figured I'd ask the readers here what, if any, kind of Snow Day rituals were you raised with? Do your kids have any?
Posted by Kevin at 03:39 PM |
Why do ethics matter in politics?
Why should Oregonians care?
The ongoing brouhaha over the ethical malfeasance issues swirling around the Steve Novick campaign and the new Oregon chapter of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) begs the question: Why is "full disclosure" such a big deal anyway?
Well, as The Art of Lying explains,
To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it's a gross violation of another person's right of self-determination.
The problem with the lack of full disclosure, or lie of omission, is that it is potentially on par with a rigged "shell game" where there is no way to win without the acquiescence of whomever is running the game.
A good example of this can be found three months ago in the example of Fox News' Sean Hannity failing to disclose his prior relationship with Rudy Giuliani before pimping Giuliani on his show. In so doing he lent an air of objectivity on his part which was false or at the very least highly questionable.
Another example can be found just last week over at the Huffington Post regarding Mark Green, the former Public Advocate of New York - Full Disclosure? Don't Bet on It.
A few years ago, we learned that right-wing commentator Armstrong Williams, who had been noisily touting the virtues of "No Child Left Behind' on his radio program, was getting handsomely paid for his labors by the Bush administration's Department of Education. The liberal commentocracy went crazy, and rightly so. I wonder whether those same people will now direct some of their fire and ire at Mark Green, the former Public Advocate of New York.
One of the profound ironies in the Novick Campaign/PDA story is that one of the PDA's five core priorities is "Clean, Fair, Transparent Elections."
Posted by Kevin at 08:17 AM |
Hard Left Hook - MIA
Why hasn't Steve Novick or someone on his campaign responded to the serious ethical questions that have been raised about his Online Director, Liz Kimmerly?
Why have his loyal bloggers been hung out to dry with lame talking points from an email that hardly resembles what actually took place at the meeting and written by someone who wasn't even there?
I was there at the meeting. Ben Dupree was there too and offers his insights and observations on the email over at Witigonen. I concur with what he's written. We were sitting right next to each other and discussed the night's events as I gave him a ride home afterwards.
It's hard to understand why a candidate whose claim to fame is his slogan ""The Fighter With the Hard Left Hook" has apparently chosen silence over full disclosure or even partial disclosure.
Posted by Kevin at 07:45 AM |
January 21, 2008
He's not Black - He's Pure Gold!
CNN is running side-by-side photos of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that make Obama look yellow. It's just way too obvious a problem for it to be accidental, in my opinion. But I'm all for making lemonade.
In a wonderful speech stressing unity as Americans, in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, Obama showed that rather than being yellow (which connotes cowardice), he is pure gold:
"In the struggle for peace and justice, we cannot walk alone."So I ask you to walk with me, and march with me, and join your voice with mine, and together we will sing the song that tears down the walls that divide us, and lift up an America that is truly indivisible, with liberty, and justice, for all."
I don't believe there is a perfect candidate out there, or even one with whom I have a significant amount of agreement. I don't believe much of substance will really change, no matter who is elected President. So this year I am voting for a concept that I long for - hope and unity - and Obama represents both on a far greater scale than any of the other candidates. I think that is the only way I have left to send a message to Washington about what really matters to me.
Posted by Becky at 03:22 PM |
January 20, 2008
A "shiny" moment with the Novick campaign
One of the modern slang terms my two daughters use is: shiny, which denotes something that is great, really cool, amazing, remarkable, etc. But most of the time they seem to use it sarcastically.
The imagery of the sarcastic use of the term is pretty colorful really. Loyal Simpsons viewers will instantly recognize it in how Homer constantly falls for something "shiny" such as a tasty looking morsel only to later wish he hadn't indulged his gluttony. That's a perfect description of the sarcastic use of the slang term "shiny" - a simple-minded idiot unable to think beyond whatever shiny bauble has captured his or her attention.
A person proffering a rhetorical shiny bauble to someone like Homer is known as a demagogue. As H.L. Mencken put it,
"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
What does any of this have to do with the Steve Novick campaign? Read on.
Last night I attended the initial meeting of what purports to be the new Oregon chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) after having learned that it was originally intended to be a sham endorsement meeting run by a paid staffer of the Steve Novick for Senate campaign. All the sordid, ugly details of the backstory can be found at Blue Oregon, Swing State Project, Senate 2008 Guru, Foreward Oregon and probably others that I'm not aware of.
Ben of Witigonen attended the meeting last night with me and offers a much more comprehensive report on the meeting over at his blog: Fake Endorsement Charade Continues; Threatens Legitimacy of New PDA Chapter.
Bottom line: This chapter of the PDA was formed by a paid senior member of the Novick campaign - Liz Kimmerly. The very first meeting (last night's) was originally intended to be an endorsement meeting for the Oregon Senate race which her boss just happens to be running in. Had it not been for the Eugene Register Guard newspaper's David Steves' exposing Ms. Kimmerly's attempt to game the system by publishing the details, last night very likely would have been a sham endorsement meeting.
All of which begs the question of why do political candidates and their paid staffers even care about receiving endorsements?
Aside from the potential compaign contributions that frequently come with an endorsement, and the "turn out the vote" help that members of the endorsing entity typically offer on the candidate's behalf... an endorsement is a feather in the cap of that political candidate. A "shiny bauble" if you will.
Potential voters can look at the choices facing them and assess both viability and ideological common cause by the endorsements each candidate has acquired. And these endorsements carry very real weight because the endorsing entities normally have very strict criteria that a candidate has to meet before receiving an endorsement. That criteria normally includes both the potential viability of the candidates as well as ideological common cause. Which is precisely why endorsements carry weight with voters.
Liz Kimmerly's nefarious scheme having been exposed, I attended the PDA meeting last night fully expecting it to be yanked back within the realm of ethical propriety, if for no other reason than to avoid damaging the national PDA's reputation since she had already trampled on numerous of the PDA's guidelines. But there was Liz Kimmerly, her boss Steve Novick and another staffer, all acting as if there was nothing wrong with one of his senior staffers running the meeting of an organizatin he hoped to get the endorsement of. Not once did any of them point out that "oh, by the way, Liz Kimmerly here is a paid staffer on my campaign and I just want to be upfront about that."
It was clear that the room was stacked with active supporters of Steve Novick and for them no disclosure was needed. But several members of the audience spoke up during a Q & A session and expressed bewilderment at the veiled talk of the process having been politicized - clearly they didn't know anything about it and very likely had no clue that the woman running the meeting works for one of the candidates vying for it's endorsement. Neither Steve Novick nor Liz Kimmerly enlightened those folk with the truth.
Steve Novick formally addressed the meeting, as did several others. Every single one of them practiced full disclosure by stating their full name (first and last) and their affiliations, both recently past and present.
Not once did Liz practice anything close to full disclosure. In fact, near the end of the meeting Liz got up and was addressing the meeting via the microphone at the front and an old man in attendance interrupted her with the question, "who are you?" Liz responded, "my name is Liz" and proceeded to describe herself as the state coordinator of the Oregon chapter of PDA. Nor did Steve at any point aknowledge that Ms. Kimmerly is a paid senior member of his campaign staff.
Effectively what happened last night was Steve Novick still glibly plowing forward trying to gain the endorsement of this group which his senior staffer had started, was running and is in charge of. Clearly he remains intent on garnering the endorsement of this sham chapter of the PDA so that he can add it as a shiny bauble for Oregon voters to consider.
Which brings me back to H.L. Mencken:
"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
Do my fellow Oregonians really want a politician who treats us as if we were Homer Simpson?
Do my fellow progressives really want a politician who would throw the reputation of the Progressive Democrats of America under the proverbial bus for personal gain premised upon our gullibility?
CAVEAT EMPTOR - BUYER BEWARE
Posted by Kevin at 11:47 AM |
January 18, 2008
Something's rotten in Oregon
Liz Kimmerly, a senior staffer with the Steve Novick for Senate campaign has been caught with her hand in the proverbial cookie jar and it stinks to high heaven.
On Tuesday, the Merkley campaign got an email inviting Jeff Merkley to an endorsement meeting this Saturday for the Portland chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America.Four days notice is pretty tight for an endorsement meeting, but that was only the first red flag.
The email was sent by the "State Coordinator" of the Progressive Democrats of America.... Liz Kimmerly. Who is Liz Kimmerly? She's a senior staffer for the Novick for Senate campaign.
That's right: The endorsement process by which the PDA would endorse a U.S. Senate candidate is being organized by the staff of one of the candidates. (I've posted a copy of the email after the jump.)
The full details are available over at Blue Oregon
The only thing that I'll add here is that we've all watched as elements of the rightwing pulled every dirty trick they could think of to defeat political opponents. Those of us who have rightly been harshly critical of such unethical behavior HAVE TO hold both sides to the same standard!! Anything less would be rank hypocrisy.
Posted by Kevin at 05:44 PM |
January 17, 2008
MicroCampaigns - ahead of their time?
In the comment thread after a post at Blue Oregon, T.A. Barnhart suggested that any Oregon Republicans looking of a decent Presidential candidate to support should consider Oregon's own Michael Smith.
As T.A. says of Smith, "he's a Republican in the old, liberal style. he's the kind of Republican Oregonians used to elect the way we now elect Dems."
It was a deja vu momment for me when I read that because I'd completely forgotten that back in 2006 I'd written about a really intriguing idea Smith floated on his campaign blog - MicroCampaigns as a political force.
In his own words:
Imagine hundreds of candidates for the 2008 Presidential primaries. Instead of just the few insiders with big money, envision each state with several local candidates, or dozens of candidates pitching specific topics to specific constituencies.After a somewhat dismissive comment about my campaign as being just a “protest” gesture, it occurred to me that perhaps my “microcampaign” might have soul-mates out there, and that collectively the effect could be amplified.
I can’t imagine finding the resources to take my campaign national – I’ve always figured that if I could get one delegate from Oregon, and use that credibility to represent a message to the Republican National Convention, I’d have been successful for a political novice with negligible resources. But if hundreds adopted my strategy simultaneously, what might be the effect?
Bill Frist or John McCain or Mitt Romney might be out there pandering to calculated segments – trying to carefully position themselves without offending too many people. All the while not really addressing any issues. But if in each state there were two or three local candidates talking about issues and appealing to specific, if not wide, constituencies – imagine the effect at convention time. The normal orchestrated coronation might be replaced with some real debate. The candidates might have to really address some issues. The process might produce some leadership.
I gotta say that the man makes sense.
Posted by Kevin at 06:50 PM |
Why did KATU include Giuliani and not Edwards???
In the two polls I wrote about previously, Washington and Oregon, Rudy Giuliani was one of four Republicans included while John Edwards was not one of the two Democrats included.
Why did Survey USA include Giuliani but not Edwards? Was it at the request of KATU who commissioned the polls?
I crunched some numbers this morning to see how these two candidates were received by voters prior to the polls:
New Hampshire:
Edwards: 48,681 = 17% of 287,322 (votes, % won, total cast)
Giuliani: 20,395 = 8.5% of 238,548 (votes, % won, total cast)
Iowa:
Edwards: 30% of 220,000 (final %, estimated Party turnout)
Giuliani: 3.5% of 124,000 (final %, estimated Party turnout)
Grand Totals:
Edwards: 114,681 voters
Giuliani: 24,735 voters (89,946 fewer than Edwards)
Clearly, viability was not the criteria used in these polls!!
The Iowa caucuses are obviously not a straightforward number, unlike the NH vote. For Iowa I went with the estimated turnout and the official final votes and extrapolated from there.
By ANY measure Edwards has proven to be a vastly more viable candidate thus far than Giuliani has. Yet he was omitted from the two KATU polls and Giuliani was included.
WTF???
Posted by Kevin at 09:08 AM |
January 16, 2008
Christian or Terrorist? It's Hard to Tell with This One
Former right-wing Christian Congressman and Reagan-appointed U.N. delegate Mark Siljander has been indicted on charges he helped an Islamic organization raise money for al Quaida and the Taliban. Siljander is not only a signer of the frightening document, “A Manifesto for the Christian Church,” he has been connected to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church. For the most part, these days he has been working to convince people of the commonalities between Christians and Muslims in an effort to, shall we say, unify them. How this terrorist fundraising helps in that effort is anyone’s guess, but if you take the time to read the links here, you’ll readily see what a scary individual this is, and what a scary movement he has been dedicated to advancing.
Posted by Becky at 12:20 PM |
January 15, 2008
It Really Doesn't Matter - Does It?
A couple thoughts are on my mind today. First, Jeff at Rigorous Intuition offers a very interesting opinion on the Presidential race: He says it really doesn't matter who wins the election in November.
The outcome of this contest for advancement upon our lives - American lives and everyone else with a seat at the arena - will mean just as much as who wins the Super Bowl or the Oscar, should we have any emotional investment in the outcome of those contests. Because the only change to be registered will be how we feel about it.
I hope that's not true, and that we're not that shallow a people. And that brings me to the second thing weighing on my mind. For several months now I've been working 7 days a week, from 8:00 a.m. until nearly midnight, and virtually never watching television. Instead, I spend a good deal of time every day interacting with a wide variety of people from all over the country. Every day I see the America I have always known with its real people - its good people.
But whenever I watch the news or television programming or movies, I get a very different view of Americans. The perspective I see in the media is of an America in dire need of judgment. It is vindictive, hateful, shallow, stupid, greedy, self-indulgent, thoughtless, cruel, and phony. It is a stomach-turning spectacle.
One that I think it's time we all quit believing.
Posted by Becky at 10:25 PM |
New Poll: Washington near mirror of Oregon
Again the poll is limited to Obama and Clinton for the Dems to Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani and McCain for the GOP. It's very unfortunate that Edwards wasn't included. He's certainly outperformed Giuliani thus far and is, IMHO, much more deserving of being included than Giuliani is. I'm skeptical that he could have performed better than Obama or Clinton, but he's damn sure earned the right to be in it whereas Giuliani hasn't. And who knows, Edwards could have surprised me... if they'd included him! Anyway, to the numbers...
Dems win every Washington match-up except for McCain v. Clinton, in which case McCain wins 49% to 46%. But that's slightly better than in the Oregon poll where she loses to McCain 49% to 45%.
Unlike in the Oregon poll, in this one McCain doesn't come close to tying Obama. In Washington Obama takes all comers handily. Instead of the 47% to 47% tie in Oregon, there McCain loses to him 43% to 52%.
Posted by Kevin at 07:59 PM |
Draft Bloomberg?
I received an email today from a group calling itself the Draft Bloomberg Committee. They are trying to collect as many signitures as they can at their website: draftbloomberg.com Presumably the point is to demonstrate enough popular support to entice Bloomberg into running for President. From that perspective it seems identical to the earlier effort to get Al gore to run.
What do you think?
Could Bloomberg get enough votes to play the spoiler?
Who would he likely take more votes from - the GOP or Dems?
Would you like to see him run? If so, why?
Posted by Kevin at 06:44 PM |
January 14, 2008
Poll: McCain and Obama tied in Oregon
Right here: Survey USA
In head-to-head match ups McCain and Obama tied at 47% each. McCain trumped Clinton 49% to 45%. Obama trumps Clinton in every match-up.
Posted by Kevin at 10:15 AM |
The Israeli problem
An OP-ED piece in yesterday's Oregonian by JOHH J. MEARSHEIMER cuts to the heart of the matter.
Once again, as the presidential campaign season heats up, the leading candidates are going to enormous lengths to demonstrate their devotion to the state of Israel and their steadfast commitment to its "special relationship" with the United States.Each of the main contenders emphatically favors giving Israel extraordinary material and diplomatic support -- continuing the more than $3 billion in foreign aid each year to a country whose per capita income is now 29th in the world. They also believe that this aid should be given unconditionally. None of them criticizes Israel's conduct, even when its actions threaten U.S. interests, are at odds with American values or even when they are harmful to Israel itself. In short, the candidates believe that the U.S. should support Israel no matter what it does.
As if to confirm Mearsheimer's opinion, we read today that Israel won't accept nuke weapons in Iran. Israel of course has her own nukes. Successive American administrations have used their veto power on the UN Security Council to shield Israel from the same international scrutiny that they hypocritically hold Iran to.
I may be Jewish but that doesn't make my opinion on this any more or less valid than any other citizen's. I'm solidly with Mearsheimer on this one.
What do you think?
Posted by Kevin at 08:26 AM |
January 11, 2008
Guest Post: Carbon Farming
(I'm on an email list by Sankara and occasionally he sends out an essay which can be published to help spread the word on whatever it's about. This one seemed particularly timely as well as interesting and it is with pleasure that I post it here on his behalf ~ Kevin)
The Green Hills of Earth
By Sankara Saranam and Darren J. Doherty
At times, we humans live on this planet as if we are in a Robert Heinlein science fiction novel, soaring through the infinite garbage yard of outer space with a longing for simpler days when a field of grass was sufficient. If Global Warming has done anything, it has delivered the bill for taking the earth for granted. Paying the bill, we are now squarely told, is going to require self-discipline.
Al Gore's Noble Prize-winning efforts have rightly placed a great deal of emphasis in reducing our carbon emissions. But even if we quickly exert all the self-discipline required by that avenue, we still won't be able to pay the bill and it will keep growing.
That's because Global Warming is not exclusively caused by what we've pumped into the sky. It's also caused by what we've done to the land.
Left alone, the earth has its own cooling system - one that is as old as the hills. In fact, it is the hills. Nothing not even trees stores carbon faster and more efficiently than rich topsoil, which becomes dust in the wind with overgrazing, poor land management, and modern agricultural practices.
As our population swells and we lose millions of tons of topsoil, the earth loses its natural carbon sink.
But we can help the earth get it back. Carbon farming, which includes planned grazing that mimics the presence of a predator, is a cooling technology that restores our grasslands, creating broadacres of surface area of carbon-hungry blades of grass that are more than happy to chew up our climate crisis. In return for helping the earth reinvigorate its carbon-starved topsoil, we get permanent agricultural production.
Farmers wise enough to implement carbon farming won't merely be considered cool or cutting edge, but will be enriching their lands. It doesn't require self-discipline either. If anything, it requires a bit of well-placed selfishness.
Do you want to live in a cool country? Would you like to be a cool world leader? How about marketing some very cool agricultural products or becoming rich in cool (carbon) credits, selling them by the square meter?
Politically, Global Warming can clean a nation's slate. It gives the so-named rogue states and axis of evil, tyrants, and nuclear threats a chance to become respected global players. If Kaddafi wants to reinvigorate his image in a heartbeat, he might drop the PR tactics and hire a permaculture designer, aligning himself as the enemy of our common enemy, Global Warming. That is, if Libya can use any rich topsoil.
The earth is willing to cover our bill if we're willing to help ourselves. Since we aren't overly fond of self-discipline when it comes to emitting carbon, let's at least harness our long-term greed in the right direction. In positively facing Global Warming, a new permanent agricultural industry capable of generating enormous wealth for humanity is just around the corner. In making the turn, the only things we lose are the antiquated ways of land custodianship and any chance that we will miss the earth we once knew.
Sankara Saranam is the author of God Without Religion and the founder of Cool Planet Technology.
Darren J. Doherty (Australia) is a certified Farm Planner & Trainer who has designed & developed over 1200 broadacre properties worldwide.
Posted by Kevin at 10:09 PM |
Judge threatens jail for Bush official
Judge threatens jail for Bush official
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Montana said Friday he's prepared to hold the U.S. Forest Service in contempt of court for a "duplicitous" strategy of skirting the law so it can keep fighting wildfires with retardant that kills fish.Judge Donald W. Molloy set a Feb. 26 hearing in U.S. District Court in Missoula to give the Forest Service a chance to convince him that Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey should not be put in jail and fire retardant drops from aircraft be stopped nationwide until the agency properly considers the dangers to the environment.
"The Forest Service, throughout these proceedings, evidenced a strategy of circumventing, rather than complying with," the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, the judge wrote. "The apparent pattern suggests a strategy of looking for ways to avoid the law's mandate as opposed to looking for a means of complying with the law.
Posted by Kevin at 02:02 PM |
News Flash: Bush is an abject idiot
Yeah, yeah... that's not telling anyone anything that we haven't known for years now. But his abject fucktardary in Israel underscores it in glowing neon.
JTA - Israel The United States erred in not bombing Auschwitz during the Holocaust, President Bush said.
Set aside the fact that I am Jewish, Set aside the fact that I'm an American. AS A HUMAN BEING I find this statement by Bush appalling.
When should we have bombed Auschwitz? When it was occupied by JEWS as the Fucktard in Chief said? Should it have been bombed afterwards and give that much MORE ammo to the Halocaust deniers? WHEN???
Posted by Kevin at 10:25 AM |
January 10, 2008
Sexist Women Feeling Empowered
My son told me yesterday that his female Spanish teacher was talking about the Presidential election earlier this week. I asked him what she said. He said she told the kids this was an extremely important election and she hoped they were paying attention because everyone needed to vote. Fine, I thought. Then he told me she said she was supporting Hillary Clinton. Okay, I thought. I see no problem with her sharing that. Then he said she told the kids the reason she was supporting Hillary Clinton was because women had been held down too long. Hmmm, I thought. I don't personally think that's a good reason to vote for Hillary, but we are talking high school and the kids ought to be exposed to various opinions. Then he said she told the class that the best man for a job was a woman. And that made me mad. I have two boys. I don't appreciate their being talked to as if they are second-class citizens.
Sexism is really just another variation on the hate-those-who-are-different theme, and women looking down on men is no different from men looking down on women. We have had enough of these divisions in this country, haven't we?
Posted by Becky at 10:23 PM |
NCLB - setting the record straight
The differences between Senate candidates Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick's plans for how to deal with No Child Left Behind have been much ballyhooed across the Oregon blogosphere. At issue seems to be Novick's call to eliminate NCLB compared to Merkley's call to "improve" it.
But as The Oregonian's Jeff Mapes says, "in the end, it may be a distinction without much of a difference."
Why? Because Merkley's improvements amount to rolling back the clock to the pre-NCLB state level decision making without giving up the extra funding that NCLB has brought to Oregon. Novick wants to roll back the clock to pre-NCLB state level decision making and also doesn't want to give up the extra funding from NCLB.
While it's easy for partisans to criticize Merkley for not wanting to get rid of NCLB completely, the reality is that Novick really doesn't either... otherwise he wouldn't want to hold onto the extra money that NCLB brought in.
As always, take what partisans (including me) say with a grain or two of salt. Investigate whatever the issue is for yourself. Only then will you be able to discern who is blowing smoke and who is being straight with you.
Posted by Kevin at 10:23 AM |
Un-freaking-believable
It seems that a 20 year old man in Idaho thought he saw the Mark of the Beast on his hand so he cut it off and put it in a microwave before calling police.
Needless to say he is currently in protective custody in the mental health unit of a nearby medical center. Apparently his severed hand is there too, although whether it too is being guarded is unknown.
Posted by Kevin at 08:46 AM |
January 09, 2008
Diebold Strikes Again?
Hmmmm... Sorry, but my conspiracy antennas are tingling.
Posted by Becky at 01:16 PM |
7 Faces of Dr. Novick
(shameless riff on the classic Tony Randall/Barbara Eden movie 7 Faces of Dr. Lao)
Yesterday, Oregon U.S. Senate candidates Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick released their education plans. You can read Merkley's plan here. Novick's can be found here.
Novick's plan came the same day as a reported press conference in Salem, where he took the opportunity to take another weak swipe at Merkley:
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Steve Novick, the self-described underdog in Oregon's Democratic U.S. Senate race, says the presidential vote in Iowa showed that voters are ready for a change and aren't taking their cues from party establishment types.Novick likened his chief opponent, Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley, to Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose once formidable presidential candidacy was dealt a blow in last week's Iowa caucuses. Clinton rebounded to win the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night.
Bizarre.
Novick began his campaign last Spring by comparing himself to Jon Tester, the new Democratic Senator from Montana. But that ended up not working out so well for Novick. Tester endorsed Jeff Merkley and has been helping Merkley raise money and organize Farmers for Merkley.
Novick also tried comparing himself to Senator Paul Wellstone, who drove a big, green bus around his home state of Minnesota, talking up his grassroots campaign. As I recall, that sounds a lot more like Jeff Merkley's kick-off tour than anything Novick has done so far.
And now, Novick is busy comparing Jeff Merkley to Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Jeff Merkley is the head of John Edwards campaign in Oregon. And as Sarah Lane noticed, there's a huge amount of common ground between Edwards and Merkley. Novick's weak tea attempts to swipe at Merkley are getting lame.
Three faces thus far, Steve. Which face will be next? Hillary Clinton?
When do we get to see the real Steve Novick?
Why does the Novick campaign need to pretend that Novick is Tester or Wellstone or that Merkley is Clinton? Will Oregon voters ever get to know Novick and not some shallow effort to be something else?
It seems to me that Hillary takes a lot of heat for running very negative campaigns. The negative campaigning in the Oregon Democratic Senate primary is coming from one place: Steve Novick. She also takes a lot of heat for casting herself as this or that rather than just being herself. Again, that seems much more like Steve Novick's tactics than Jeff Merkley's.
Novick ought to reset his barometer for comparisons. It's obviously out of whack.
Update: Other blogs discussing the same issue: Edwards...Merkley...and the fight to come... - Presumptuous Comparisons: Who Is Steve Novick LIke This Week?
Posted by Kevin at 08:00 AM |
January 08, 2008
Forward or Back?
If you, like me, are ready for a revolution in this country, then you're probably focused most on two candidates who seem to be the most anti-establishment and pro-change: Barack Obama and Ron Paul. Both are promising to move this country in a different direction. The question we are facing in choosing between the two, however, is this: do we want to move forward as adults into a new, progressive, hopeful and inclusive future, or do we want to take this country back to the 1950s, when we felt optimistic and innocent, but racism and sexism were the status quo?
That's how I see it. Barack Obama strikes me as wanting to move us forward into a more enlightened future. And I think Ron Paul wants to take us back to the way we were before the liberals supposedly messed everything up. And if that message speaks to you, then head on back with Ron Paul and his blimp and don't let the door hit you on the way out. I, for one, am ready to move forward.
Posted by Becky at 12:23 PM |
January 07, 2008
Go Iron Your Own Damned Shirt
All day I've been wondering what was up with this emphasis on the fact that Hillary Clinton got a little teary over the setbacks in her campaign. It certainly seems like an effort to make her look like a weak female who falls apart under pressure. Obviously, Hillary is tough as nails and not about to start crying when the going gets tough. So the fact that she did tear up makes me wonder whether she's trying to turn the debate away from substance and toward equality for women. Then I read about some asshole at an event today who interrupted her and held up a sign reading, "Iron my shirt." What a chauvenistic jerk. If I had been in Hillary's position, I'd have told him to go iron his own damned shirt. Which is why I'd never be in Hillary's position.
Now the cynical side of me can't help but wonder, with all the extreme level of security, whether the chauvenist was actually a plant by the Clinton campaign, strategically placed to try to offset the effect - or augment it - of this morning's crying story. And maybe he was. Right now, though, I'm too upset at the message to care. Because we all know there are an awful lot of men out there who think precisely that. And unfortunately, their wives are probably all going to secretly vote for Hillary just to get even with them. No matter how it all came about, the events of this stupid day are going to make this campaign even more about girl power and less about policy than it already is.
Posted by Becky at 06:54 PM |
January 06, 2008
Be honest now...
How many of you thought three and a half years ago, when their engagement was announced, that Kevin Federline was the mature one of the duo, even if only by contrast?
Posted by Kevin at 12:44 PM |
January 05, 2008
Civil Unions for Everyone - The Prequel
If we look at the dictionary definition of the word Marriage we find that it's entymology dates back to the 14th century. That of course predates by a century the schism with the Catholic Church which produced the Church of England... because the Catholic Church wouldn't annul Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine. Thus we see that the modern English word "marriage" has always implied Church authority. Indeed, Henry VIII didn't reject Papal authority so that marriage could become a civil institution, he merely sought a more mallable Church authority over what he, the King of England, saw as an inherently religious institution.
Turning to the Catholic Dictionary we find an implied Church authority over Marriage. We also find that Matrimony is synonymous with marriage and considered " a more appropriate term for legal and religious use."
(update at end of post)
Going back even further to the late 6th and early 7th centuries we find St. Isidore of Seville, considered the last of the great early Church fathers and one of the great scholars of the early Middle Ages. And as a scholar Isidore clearly understood Church authority over what we have come to know as marriage
Along similar lines we find American Catholic Bishops urging a Constitutional amendment to "protect marriage" during Bush 43's first term.
Ironically, we find the impetus behind the modern movement to use the legal contract of "marriage" to distribute rights and privileges in FDR's New Deal centerpiece - the Social Security Act. You can read about that and more in History professor Stephanie Coontz's OP-ED piece in the NYT entitled Taking Marriage Private.
Professor Coontz argues, as I do, for returning "marriage" to religion. But she also argues for a return to an earlier time when couples decided for themselves when they were married.
Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.
Apparently she's arguing that the State ought to simply sanction these self-declarations rather than adopt a Civil Unions contractual approach.
The problem with her proposed remedy is that self-declared unions, also known as plight-trough marriages, are a pandora's box and partially explains why both Church and State were interested in exerting civil control over such unions.
I don't claim to be the smartest guy around. But it seems to me that formal Civil Union contracts avoid both the religious entanglements while also avoiding the pandora's box of self-declared unions.
Update: Contrary to the self-serving claims of a commenter, neither this post nor the one preceeding it are IN ANY WAY about the Oregon Democratic primary race involving Jeff Merkley, Candy Neville, Mr. Gooberman or Steve Novick. The fact of the matter is that I have been calling for the State to get out of the marriage business since well before a single candidate declared for that race. My advocacy for this predates even that linked comment. But since we changed comment scripts here, my earlier advocacy for this are no longer linkable, so that link will have to do.
Further evidence that this issue is independent of that primary race, T.A. Barnhart, who supports a different candidate for Senate than I do, has an excellent post advocating the same thing I am.
Posted by Kevin at 12:28 PM |
January 04, 2008
Civil Unions for Everyone!!
This is real simple. Church/State separation equals a level playing field.
The State has no more business dictating civil rights to the Church than the Church does dictating religious rites to the State.
On the civil end of the equation we need to get the State out of the business of sanctioning marriage rites. Use a grandfather clause to insure continuation of all existing legal marriages, switch over to civil unions from that point on (for everyone, gay, straight or whatever) and leave the sanctioning of marriage rites up to each individual religious entity where it belongs.
On the religious end of the equation... let each religion or Church decide for themselves what they deem spiritually appropriate or not. God knows there are multiple religions on both sides of the gay rights issue. That's religion's realm... let them have it!
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." -- Thomas Paine
Words to live by!
Posted by Kevin at 06:24 PM |
January 03, 2008
What to do about Iowa?
We've all heard various and sundry pundits weight in on our primary electorial system as we watched state's unprecedented jockying for advantage this year. I've thought many times about weighing in with my own opinions but never did...until now.
Ronald Cass writing at Real Clear Politics has a superb post on the subject. It's a great read and really lays out the problem from a historical perspective very nicely. He invokes James Madison and "his fellow Founders" in a truly fascinating post. But he ends by basically endorsing the insanity that took place this year. He makes some valid observations, but those points don't mitigate what seems to me to have been an orgy of myopic self-interest by states.
Certainly, voters should hope that this is how things work this year, since the eventual nominee of either party will be the result of a strenuous decision-making process. That means a decision based on more scrutiny from more different angles from people who have diverse preferences. It means a decision that doesn't give extra weight to the opinions of voters in early primary or caucus states and less weight to the opinions of voters in other states. In other words, it means a system like Madison favored - one that reduces the power of any specially positioned group, rather than magnifying it.
Well okay... but is this REALLY the best we can do? I don't think so!
Ben writing at Witigonen has a suggestion:
So, let me float an idea. Are you ready? How about a regional primary? Divide the nation into five or six regions based on geography, and let them each vote one apart. Also, you could easily rotate these regions' order each time around to create balance. That way, starting in mid-March through mid-May, we could have a month and a half of real primaries, culminating in the nomination. If someone "wins" after the first region, fine, then at least more than one state will have a say. Besides, if you keep the primaries close enough, then you can blunt the advantage that hyper-early states (gee, like Iowa) have created for themselves in constantly moving up their primaries.
Now this is more like it! I've been thinking more along the lines of different states spread around the nation holding their primaries according to a rotating schedule where each state eventually gets a chance to be the first in the nation. But Ben's idea is very similar except that he's thrown in a very novel twist - rotating region blocks. Either way would seem to require a new constitutional amendment. But recovering the "representative" part of our Republic is well worth it to me.
What do you think?
Posted by Kevin at 07:36 PM |
Is the World Safe for Moderates?
Simon Gikandi has a heart-wrenching editorial in today's Business Daily in Nairobi, Kenya regarding the shocking, sudden chaos that has come to Kenya following what many perceive to be a stolen election. Gikandi compares Kenya's current situation to the circumstances leading up to the horrific Rwandan genocide in the 1990s and in the process, intentionally or otherwise, demonstrates what a dangerous world it has become for moderates. It makes me weep.
Hatred is growing around the world, and it seems that even here in our own country, people are increasingly bent on hatred and deepening divisions. We might like to believe that what is happening in Kenya could never happen here, but then nobody thought this level of violence could come to Kenya, either.
Lest you think tribalism is a phenomenon confined to the African continent, I would remind you that not only do we have strong undercurrents of hatred over race and sexual orientation in this country that occasionally surface, but the divide between liberal and conservative is becoming extremely dangerous, with more and more people whispering about the need for urgent, deadly action against the other side to "save the country." We must do all we can to build bridges of understanding between people or this world will never see peace.
Posted by Becky at 03:15 PM |
January 02, 2008
If Steve Ran
Call me crazy but with Portland City Commish Eric Sten quitting, causing something of a Pandora's Box problem in terms of Voter-Owned Elections funding, I'm thinking that Steve Novick would be the ideal candidate.
Sten and fellow Commish Randy Leonard have endorsed Novick in his bid for the Dem slot to challenge Smith. But I don't see him getting it. And if he were to buck the odds and get it, I really can't see him defeating Gordon Smith. Oh, I think he could put up reasonably respectable numbers. I just don't think he can beat Smith. And that in large part because I don't think he can raise enough money to compete with Smith. Plus I think his resume is weak compared to Speaker Jeff Merkley's.
Portland famously launched it's own version of Voter Owned Elections in 2005 and it seems to be a big hit. I, for one, see VOE as arguably the single most promising way to impliment meaningful campaign finance reform which is so badly needed in this entire nation.
Novick could easily raise enough to be highly competitive in a City Council race. If he won (seems like a foregone conclussion to me...) he would be in a GREAT position to agitate for expanding VOE statewide and eventually nationwide. Which would be a HUGE service to Oregonians, IMHO.
Oh, and it would also polish his resume in all the right places should he later decide to seriously pursue higher office. Not the least of which would be that an expanded VOE would allow him to much better compete with $pecial intere$t$.
Just a thought...
Posted by Kevin at 05:31 PM |
Religion that Defies Rationality
If you haven't heard yet about "the man with no face," you can read his story and see his photo here. Since the age of 11, the man's face has gradually been overtaken by a horrific tumor so that it is no longer recognizable as a face. It has even distorted his mouth, tongue and gums to the point his teeth have broken off. Every once in awhile you'll read about someone in a poor country who didn't have access to health care and their treatable condition was able to get out of control. That is not the case here. In this case, the man and his mother were Jehovah's Witnesses, so the mother chose not to seek medical attention for her son, instead allowing him to become so grossly disfigured that he had absolutely no opportunity for a normal, happy life. How they could rationally believe a loving God would want this for someone is beyond me, as is how a mother could allow this to happen to her son.
I have seen many less dramatic examples of religious people blindly relying on their interpretation of the Bible and ignoring all common sense. This is ingrained in Christians from childhood. See this excerpt from a children's book emphasizing Proverbs 3:5 (Lean not on your own understanding) and I Cor. 3:19 (The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God). Unfortunately, this approach teaches children not to think for themselves, but rather to ignore their common sense and do what they are told.
Our Creator (yes, I believe in God) gave us the desire to heal others and the intelligence and natural tools to do so. The rational human being can easily see that humans have this ability and this desire and knows they are good. But religious indoctrination often places blinders over the human soul, preventing people from caring about others or acting with compassion. Interesting, isn't it, that religion itself can be so utterly ungodly.
Posted by Becky at 08:49 AM |