« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »

April 30, 2008

Max Cleland, Barbara Roberts & Jeff Merkley - what a trio!

I attended the fundraiser after Cleland and Merkley's Town Hall at PSU. Apparently Jim Rassman - the vet who John Kerry saved in Vietnam - participated in the Town Hall too.

All three of them were at the fundraiser along with former Governor Barbara Roberts and all of them addressed the packed crowd.

Jeff mentioned a very sobering statistic in his address. Did you know that we lose more soldiers and veterans each day from suicide right here in America than are killed in Iraq? It is absolutely unconscionable the way that Bush and the GOP have mistreated veteransI All of the "rah, rah, hooray for the troops" rhetoric dissipates into nothing once those soldiers have been used up and/or badly injured.

Jeff called for ending combat missions and getting soldiers off of patrols immediately and then withdrawing all American forces in a 6 to 12 month timeframe. No bases to be kept and staffed. He wants us out... completely out except for the ambassadorial staff. He also called for getting every single American contractor out of there ASAP and hiring Iraqi's to do those jobs instead.

I'm going to quote Sarah Lane's excellent DKos diary here because she was there too, had the wisdom to take notes and phrased it better than I could anyway:

Merkley went on to talk about the importance of taking care of our Veterans when they come home from service. Merkley said, "We need to fight for them when they come home just as they have fought for us." Merkley said that Veterans should be able to collect retirement and disability at the same time. He spoke a lot about the need to address the mental health issues soldiers are faced with. He said that the high rate of suicides among our soldiers and reservists were, "Reflective of not helping them enough." Merkley called for fully funding the VA, and said, "Reservists should have full access to Veterans rights." Merkley also pledged to fight for a 21st Century G.I. bill. These comments got quite a round of applause from the audience, many of whom were Veterans.

A bunch of us Oregon bloggers who support Jeff Merkley got together and decided that we wanted to do our bit to help get Jeff elected. We recognize that if nothing changes, nothing changes. The stakes are just too high to not go the extra mile. So I may not be able to afford to buy the latest gadget as soon as I'd wanted or go out to restaurants as often as I'd like for a while. I say, "big deal!" There are much more important things that I can do for my self, my children, my state and my country than spend money on things that just aren't important in the grand scheme of things, ya know?

Help me send "the real deal," as Max Cleland called him, to the United States Senate where he WILL do right by our service men and women, both active and out-of-uniform.

$5k for Merkley

Posted by Kevin at 07:07 PM |

April 29, 2008

Town Hall with Max Cleland in one hour!

If you live in the Portland Metro region, here are the Details.

If, like me, you have to work instead, there will be a less formal gathering at the Bridgeport BrewPub - 1313 NW Marshall in Portland from 7 to 9 PM. It's a fundraiser so bring your checkbook.

Posted by Kevin at 08:00 AM |

April 28, 2008

A Black and White Conspiracy

It's just as plain as the nose on your face -- the news is all about race right now:

- Wesley Snipes gets the maximum sentence for not paying his taxes.
- Three New York cops are found not guilty for killing a black man in a 50-bullet shooting the day of his wedding
- Obama continues to be plagued by Rev. Wright's comments
- Bill Clinton has 'incensed' black Americans, per the highest ranking black Congressman
- Planned Parenthood accused of 'black genocide'

It really does not matter where you stand on any of these issues. Snipes, for example, may deserve it because he was cheating our country out of money we need to support the things we do together. Of course, you may think he's only going to jail because he is a black man. Maybe you think the black groom sadly asked for what happened to him because he was in the wrong kind of place and didn't react as he should have. Or it could be you think the cops would never have gone on a mindless shooting rampage if he had been white. Maybe you think black Americans' fury at Clinton is misplaced. Or maybe it's about time they realized he was manipulating them. And the very idea that a liberal group like Planned Parenthood would be all about killing black babies, a la Bill Bennett, may be utterly ridiculous to you. But then maybe it is completely believable because it's run by whites (or worse, white "librals"). The thing is, your opinion on each of these issues does not matter now any more than it mattered whether you believed O.J. really did it or was set up by racist cops, or Rodney King really deserved it or would never have been beat up if he'd been a white man.

What matters is this: America is right now, whether by fate or intent, being pushed to the brink in the matter of racial conflict. All of our buttons, inflamed for decades, are being pushed -- hard. What are we going to do about that? What kind of America do we want? Can we find a way through this craziness and misunderstanding upon misunderstanding before it all explodes?

Posted by Becky at 04:41 PM |

OR Sen. televised debate - why Merkley won (handily)

I wrote up my initial thoughts and analysis over at Blue Oregon. Upon more reflection I would sum up my impressions like this:

Merkley won by speaking to issues near and dear to rank and file Democrats - college affordability, taking care of veterans and the economy - with passion and conviction.

From The O:

One of the leading candidates, Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley, jumped out with a proposal to grant free college tuition for families of anyone in uniform who dies in the line of duty. The Oregon Legislature passed a similar bill, Merkley said, and he would push Congress to do the same.

"As a U.S. senator, I would continue to champion veterans," he said. "We need to adopt a new GI Bill for the 21st Century."

Here we have a perfect example of the confluence of veterans affairs, access to education and improving the economy.

The original G.I. Bill was a key component of the economic prosperity this nation enjoyed after WWII and was largely responsible for the massive surge in the American middleclass in succeeding decades. In the 21st Century with working class wage jobs being out-sourced every year - an estimated 70,000 here in Oregon - expanding Oregon's model to the entire nation is critically needed to help stop or at least slow down the decimation of the middleclass.

Posted by Kevin at 12:04 PM |

April 26, 2008

Saxton's endorsing alma mater endorses Novick

Rumor is it'll be in Sunday's "The Oregonian" newspaper.

Yes, this would be the same newspaper that endorsed GOPer Ron Saxton over Governor Ted Kulongoski in 2006.

As I recall, the Eugene Register Guard countered The O's Saxton endorsement with an endorsement of Kulongoski. They recently endorsed Jeff Merkley over Steve Novick for the Dem. Primary.

Apparently the Medford Mail Tribune which just endorsed Novick, also endorsed Ron Saxton for Governor in 2006.

So if we charted it out these endorsements by the state's three biggest newspapers would look something like this:

Posted by Kevin at 06:24 PM |

April 25, 2008

Novick stumbles in debate, forced to criticize Wyden and DeFazio

Poor Steve Novick has had a tough week.

First there was his new TV ad which hasn't generated anything close to the kind of buzz that his first TV ad did several months ago.

Then his claim to having been "lead counsel" on the Love Canal case has been disputed.

And then yesterday he stepped in a big pile of you know what in a debate with Merkley, where he found himself boxed into a corner by his own past statements - which has become something of a recurring theme with Novick.

Unfortunately for Steve, next week is probably going to be a lot worse for him than this week was. That's because Vietnam War hero (triple amputee) and former Senator from Georgia, Max Cleland, will be in Oregon to fundraise and campaign with Jeff Merkley.

Tuesday April 29th Cleland and Merkley will hold a Town Hall meeting in Portland (9:00 AM @ Portland State University) to discuss the Iraq War and veterans issues. Then later in the day they will hold another Town Hall on the same subjects at the University of Oregon in Eugene.

Posted by Kevin at 10:58 AM |

April 23, 2008

126 Veteran Suicides Each Week

It's nearly incomprehensible. 300,000 veterans of the Iraq/Afghanistan war are suffering from severe depression or post traumatic stress disorder and 126 of them give up on life altogether every week. Another 320,000 of our young men and women are suffering from brain injuries they have received in the line of duty. We're not even talking about the millions of dead and displaced Iraqi civilians. This human toll puts the financial toll of the war to shame.

For the sake of perspective, can you imagine any patriotic goal being pursued so readily, so unquestionably, if it entailed the reality that every single resident of Portland, Oregon would receive as a direct result either a brain injury, severe depression, or post traumatic stress disorder, and if 126 Portland residents each week would be traumatized to such a degree that they committed suicide? Can you even wrap your mind around such numbers? Would it not be the moral and patriotic duty of our citizens to give such an action tremendous pause and debate before undertaking it?

Why, then, are those who have questioned the wisdom of this war viewed as unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, or even traitorous? Is it not precisely the opposite?

Posted by Becky at 12:06 PM |

Pondering Climate Change

As the snow and rain and hail drag on and on here in Oregon, the oft-repeated comment, "So much for global warming!" becomes increasingly annoying. It's more science than I am capable of explaining to show how global warming could lead to long, hard winters. And I wonder if that's why the language used to describe the phenomenon is changing - why we are now referring to "climate change" instead of "global warming."

If you read a variety of news media as I do, the contradictions in scientific claims about climate change are easy to find, and occasionally they even show up within the same article. For instance, Fox News this morning is reporting on the opinion of a physicist who is also a NASA Astronaut, who claims the lack of sunspot activity on the sun is actually setting the stage for an ice age (after the kids' movie "Ice Age" and the film "The Day After Tomorrow," we should all have a sense of what that could mean). But even Fox News has to cover its ass if it's going to retain any level of credibility, so the article also notes that other scientists are accusing him of "cherry-picking" his data. They claim we are still seeing rapid warming, with March this year being the warmest March on record. Which is hard to believe when we're still seeing snow and hail on a regular basis at sea level in mid-April.

But I think maybe there might be another explanation for what we're experiencing, though I haven't heard anyone talk about it. This article looks at scientists' efforts to control the weather, specifically to stop it from raining during the Olympics in Beijing. But it also says that weather manipulation in the U.S. been going on since before the 1980s and continues today.

Scientists are monitoring more than 150 weather-modification projects in 40 countries, including at least 60 in the Western United States. The projects include wringing additional snow out of clouds for California hydropower and easing droughts in sub-Saharan Africa.

I remember quite distinctly the first time in my community the talk began about strange weather. It was 1976 and I was in Southern California when we had an exceptionally wet year with a lot of flooding. From that time forward, every year people have talked about how strange the weather has been. Could it be that human efforts to control the weather are disrupting natural weather patterns, intentionally or not, in ways we do not understand? Could it be that our weather manipulation is the cause of climate change, or at least an exacerbating factor in it? I'm only a layperson, not a scientist, but it seems more than coincidental to me that human efforts to manipulate the weather have so perfectly coincided with the climate change phenomenon.

Posted by Becky at 08:49 AM |

April 22, 2008

Pennsylvania's Vote Today Will Speak Volumes

I was quite interested yesterday to read the ever-fascinating Andrew Sullivan’s latest editorial, “Judgment Day looms for Hillary Clinton the wrecker.” As always, his perspective and choice of words are engaging and insightful.

Even after all the hype, this Tuesday’s vote in Pennsylvania will be a watershed primary election. This isn’t because it could determine whether Hillary Clinton’s campaign continues on its brutal, nihilistic path towards the destruction of the most promising figure in the Democratic party since Kennedy.

… [T]he Clintons have turned Pennsylvania into a microcosm of what they think the general election will be in November. And the Clintons are running as the Rove Republicans. If they fail to destroy Barack Obama as effectively as Karl Rove – Bush’s master of the dark arts – destroyed Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004, with tactics just as brutal but even more personal, then they will have driven American politics to a critical point. They will have shown that the paradigm that has reigned in US politics for at least two decades has been shattered.

That’s what is being tested this coming week. It may be the most important vote in America until the final one in November.

Sullivan looks at how Clinton has essentially argued for months now that Obama is a secret Muslim, that he wants Americans not to have health insurance, that he was once a drug dealer, that he is a radical, that he is elitist, that he is un-American, and that he associates with terrorists and anti-Semites, taking “the campaign warfare to a whole new level of earth-scorching.”

And what is remarkable about all this is that most of it was not done by surrogates, but by a former president of the United States against a senator in his own party, and directly by Clinton herself. Every time you think: “Nah, they won’t go there, will they?” – they do.

Sullivan feels Obama has wilted under the pressure. Perhaps so, and it would be entirely understandable, particularly seeing as how he is a real human being and not a movie actor, a la Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis, playing a heroic role and resting in comfort between scenes. But based on what I’ve heard from him the more likely explanation is that on top of being exhausted from his schedule and the constant, gleeful attacks by the Clinton machine, he is becoming as depressed and nearly hopeless about the state of American politics and the future of this country as I am.

I love Sullivan’s description of the Clinton approach:

In one debate, all the tactics deployed by Republicans since Lee Atwater ran George Bush Sr’s guns-and-flags-and-taxes campaign in 1988 were unloaded on the rookie. Clinton grinned. The next day, her husband said she “did great”. There was almost a liberated sense in the Clinton camp that, finally, they had been able to do to a Democrat what Republicans had done to them for the past two decades: insinuate treason, lack of patriotism, elitist snobbery, countercultural deviance, and every other red-blue hot-button meme that could stroke some electoral erogenous zone somewhere.

I believe Sullivan is absolutely right when he concludes that today’s election in Pennsylvania will register the level to which Americans are ready to “debate something more than lapel pins” and enter “a new era.” And so that is why I will be quite interested to see the results tonight.

It will be easier to understand if you read an editorial that Sullivan wrote back in December, “Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters.” The introduction is below, but please go read the entire article. It is excellent and poignant, particularly as we see the war within America sink to new lows almost daily.

The logic behind the candidacy of Barack Obama is not, in the end, about Barack Obama. It has little to do with his policy proposals, which are very close to his Democratic rivals’ and which, with a few exceptions, exist firmly within the conventions of our politics. It has little to do with Obama’s considerable skills as a conciliator, legislator, or even thinker. It has even less to do with his ideological pedigree or legal background or rhetorical skills. Yes, as the many profiles prove, he has considerable intelligence and not a little guile. But so do others, not least his formidably polished and practiced opponent Senator Hillary Clinton.

Obama, moreover, is no saint. He has flaws and tics: Often tired, sometimes crabby, intermittently solipsistic, he’s a surprisingly uneven campaigner.

A soaring rhetorical flourish one day is undercut by a lackluster debate performance the next. He is certainly not without self-regard. He has more experience in public life than his opponents want to acknowledge, but he has not spent much time in Washington and has never run a business. His lean physique, close-cropped hair, and stick-out ears can give the impression of a slightly pushy undergraduate. You can see why many of his friends and admirers have urged him to wait his turn. He could be president in five or nine years’ time—why the rush?

But he knows, and privately acknowledges, that the fundamental point of his candidacy is that it is happening now. In politics, timing matters. And the most persuasive case for Obama has less to do with him than with the moment he is meeting. The moment has been a long time coming, and it is the result of a confluence of events, from one traumatizing war in Southeast Asia to another in the most fractious country in the Middle East. The legacy is a cultural climate that stultifies our politics and corrupts our discourse.

Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us. So much has happened in America in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future. But it is only when you take several large steps back into the long past that the full logic of an Obama presidency stares directly—and uncomfortably—at you.

At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo¬mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.

I know many people wonder why I have become so enthusiastic about Barack Obama’s candidacy, considering I am conservative and oppose several of his key platforms. This article explains what I have come to believe very deeply, and why I believe at this time we must address the thing that only Obama can address, or our entire future as a nation is in peril.

So if I could say one thing to Barack Obama, it would be this: Don't wilt. You are not standing alone. Millions of Americans are standing with you and willing you forward. Please do not let this destructiveness take you down, because we need you to help us end this war. In essence, Senator Obama, you are us.

Posted by Becky at 12:51 PM |

April 21, 2008

In search of the "truth". Will Novick step up?

The video that Willamette Week put out of their endorsement interview with the Democrats running for U.S. Senate has yielded some pretty interesting stuff, especially from Steve Novick.

The latest snippet/nugget I noticed when reviewing the tape starts out as a question about reviewing the 2007 legislative session:

To paraphrase and condense, an interviewer asks Jeff Merkley what grade he would give the 2007 legislative session. Jeff says, "Oh, it's an A". When Steve Novick is asked, he says "A-, B+" and goes on to say that there was no review of the costs of Measure 11 (Oregon's mandatory minimum law).

Jeff goes on to correct Novick, noting that Rep. Chip Shields held a number of hearings and led the way on the issue with Jeff's strong encouragement.

Novick goes on to say that its possible that more happened on this issue than he was aware of, because he wasn't down in Salem the whole time during the legislative session. Novick continues by saying, "If you personally went to a hearing and testified for Measure 11 reforms, then I was being inappropriate."

Given Novick's habit of inflammatory rhetoric, it appeared worth it to look into whether or not Jeff Merkley gave testimony on Measure 11.

It would seem that once again, Novick will have to back off the "truth" and give Merkley and the 2007 legislative session an "A".

Why?

Merkley testified.

Rep. Chip Sheilds is a key legislative leader on criminal justice reforms, and Jeff mentions him in the video. He also sent Jeff's testimony, which you can read after the jump.

In the 2005, I took the lead in introducing HB 3297, which would have created the Smart on Crime Task Force. The reason for the bill is that it has been my experience that neither the current system of Judiciary Committees or the Public Safety Subcommittee had the time needed to really wrestle with the question of how to best increase public safety and save tax payer dollars. The confines of the legislative session or the confines of the interim sessions when committee work is pulled in a variety of directions simply didn’t lend themselves to the thoughtful analysis required to make sure we were getting the biggest bang for our public safety dollar.

Today, I am grateful that I come before you at a time when the Oregon Department of Corrections is not requesting a new prison. This lack of prison request gives us a chance to take a deep breath, and see if we can assign some of our most knowledgeable members, from both parties, as well as representatives from the Governors Office, Attorney General’s Office and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to help us analyze the current prevention, treatment and prison allocations and make sure we are getting the best bang for our public safety buck.

Similar Smart on Crime efforts have taken place in Washington and Kansas to promising effect.

The 2005 Washington Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to project whether there are “evidence-based” options that can: a) reduce the future need for prison beds, b) save money for state and local taxpayers, and c) contribute to lower crime rates. They are reviewing evidence-based adult corrections, juvenile corrections, and prevention options and analyzing the effects of alternative portfolios of these investments.

Kansas established a bipartisan task force, the Criminal Justice Recodification, Rehabilitation, and Restoration Project, “to address growing problems within the Kansas criminal justice system regarding offenders.”

I think our criminal justice system needs some analysis by those who can make the laws and shape the legislative budgets.
We have increased prison funding at about 25% each biennium for the last 10 years, but we have cut the number of state troopers dramatically. These fine men and women are on the front lines of preventing crime, and we have cut their numbers from 444 sworn troops in 1995-97 to 322 sworn troops in 2005-07.

The group Fight Crime-Invest in Kids, a bipartisan group of 137 Police Chiefs, Sheriffs and District Attorneys, whose mission is to take a hard-nosed look at the research on what works and what does not work to get kids started on the right track in life in order to prevent them from ever going into a life of crime, says we are underfunding Oregon Head Start Pre-Kindergarten and Oregon Healthy Start.

And our District Attorney offices have had flat funding for years. The top prosecutor in most Oregon counties is paid a paltry $77,000 annually.

Madame Chair, members of the committee, it’s time for a fresh, close look at our criminal-justice costs and our criminal-justice benefits. And it’s time for ratcheting up our fiscal responsibility.

And the best vehicle for improvement in public safety, in my view, is one that is legislatively-based, rather than one that is based in the executive branch or in the Criminal Justice Commission, because at the end of the day, it is the legislature that will have to pass the recommendations. That’s why this Smart on Crime Task Force has four members appointed from both parties in the legislature.

Now I understand that some might testify today that we should tinker with this before sending it on to the House, but I suggest that time is of the essence and if the Co-Chairs in Ways & Means agree, I hope to get the Task Force working before the end of session so that some recommendations could be made and implemented before the February 2008 session. That’s way I humbly request that you pass this bill today and move it on to the House where we can make changes if needed.
I thank you for your consideration, and ask you to move SB 856 to the floor today with a do-pass recommendation.

Posted by Kevin at 10:21 AM |

April 17, 2008

Church & State. Where does one end and the other begin?

Carl and Raylene Worthington of Oregon City have been charged with 2nd degree Manslaughter and 2nd degree Criminal Mistreatment following the faith-healing death of their young daughter in March.

15 month old Ava Worthington died March 2 from bacterial pneumonia and a blood infection. Her parents chose to try to heal her with prayer and faith rather than accept medical help in the form of common antibiotics.

The Worthingtons have, with the help of their attorneys, set up a website to defend themselves with. The premises of their legal defense appear to rest on the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
and three sections of the Oregon constitution:
Section 1 — Natural rights inherent in people We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Section 2 — Freedom of worship
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Section 3 — Freedom of religious opinion
No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

At first glance this case seems pretty simple. Parents like myself likely consider the raw facts and conclude that the parents were highly irresponsible and that the poor little girl died needlessly and pointlessly. Those who aren't religious or are anti-religious probably react even more strongly. But is it really as simple as it seems to be at first blush?

If we side with the government and conclude that this couple crossed a line which requires a legal consequence, are we safe as long as we don't reject modern medical science in favor of a deistic belief system?

Might the legal precedent laid by the state's case here represent a slippery slope which could conceivably ensnare you or me some day in some currently unintended way?

If this couple is acquitted then doesn't that lay a foundation for child abuse as long as it's done in the name of a belief system? If convicted then couldn't that precedent eventually reach into your life or mine?

Is the only safe position one of simply not adhering to any religious belief system?

I honestly don't know what the correct answers to those questions are. My gut feeling right now is that there are potential slippery slopes in all directions regardless of how this particular case is resolved.

(hat tip: oregonlive.com)

Posted by Kevin at 02:48 PM |

Takin' Wyden's plan viral

Jeff Mapes has a great write-up which I won't attempt to replicate. I think the video will answer most of your questions and tickle your funny bone along the way.

BTW, Jeff Merkley has endorsed the Wyden Health Care Plan

Posted by Kevin at 12:00 PM |

April 16, 2008

How Smart is Hillary Really?

Not very, if this is any indication. Hat tip to Nancy.

Posted by Becky at 02:59 PM |

Calling Good Evil and Evil Good

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isa. 5:20

I cannot help but be reminded of that text over and over again as I watch events unfolding in the run-up to the Presidential election. The insane, obsessive, hateful attacks on Barack Obama, whose message of hope and unity is apparently too much for people like Bill Kristol to bear, try to paint a good man as evil, a man of the people as an elitist.

Meanwhile, the Pope - leader of an organization that has wreaked havoc on the world for centuries, including wanton abuse of children placed in the care of its leaders - comes walzing into America and is treated as if he were the son of God himself. With a statement that he is "ashamed" of the abuse, all is forgiven.

With that in mind, I could not help but be struck by two contrasting images we have been given over the last few weeks: one, of Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a black man in a black suit saying, "God damn America!"; and two, of the Pope, a white man with white hair in a white cassock, arms outstretched, saying, "God bless America!" The deceptiveness of these two contrasting images is alarming.

On the one hand, we have a man who is calling our attention to decades of abuse of a segment of our population and expressing the legitimate frustrations of those people at the rest of us for refusing to acknowledge and make right that horrific wrong. He is painted as a radical hater - as is Obama for trying to help us understand the message. On the other hand, we have a man who wishes to sweep under the carpet decades of abuse of children, not to mention many other horrors, doing nothing more than feeding our already bloated egos and the images coming out of his welcoming event show our President in a near-bowing posture before him. It is apalling.

Don't get me wrong - I love America, our culture, and our people. I would die for this country. I do believe we have the best way in the world. But I don't believe we will remain a good country if we let the haters and users of the world keep tickling our ears while destroying our ability to develop into a stronger, more unified, more nurturing society.

The schemers among us are a crafty bunch. They will always try to manipulate the masses so they can continue to feed on our wealth and take from the weak among us. I am on the edge of my seat waiting for November to see whether America has finally had enough of it, or whether we will succomb to the manipulators yet again.

Posted by Becky at 09:50 AM |

April 14, 2008

WorldNet Daily Goes Rabid Again

Yesterday, I ran across an interesting rumor. Apparently, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are working on a plan to get Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race before the Democratic National Convention and let Barack Obama win “for the good of the Democrats.”

A number of options are being considered by the higher echelons of the Democrats, but they fall roughly into two categories. One is for Carter and Gore to go to Clinton privately and ask her to step down. The other is for both men to appear in public and endorse Obama – a move which would see a majority of superdelegates go with them.

The campaign to force Clinton to make an early exit is being masterminded in Congress, home to the most influential of the superdelegates. Senate Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have called on superdelegates to hold an unofficial congress in early June to anoint a winner, rather than waiting for the convention in Denver.

So it should come as no surprise that the Christian-oriented Republican-operative “news” source, WorldNet Daily (which I've already found to be rabidly anti-Obama) is today featuring the following rabidly anti-Carter headlines, all no doubt aimed and undermining Carter’s efforts to help Obama's candidacy before they become widely known:

Hamas terrorists join Jimmy Carter fan club, U.S., Israel have no moral authority to oppose Carter, and Israel's secret service snubs Carter. A little further down the headline page today are these headlines, underscoring the overall purpose: “Obama worked with terrorist: Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence,” “Obama reveals real threat – grandma?” and “Find out what you're NOT being told about Barack Obama.”

It’s all so ironic, in my opinion. These men actually behave decently, love and are loyal to their wives and children, acknowledge a belief in God and do not bring shame on that belief, and focus on helping those who are less fortunate – all traits which are supposedly important to Christians and which all-too-rare in today’s political climate. The gut-level aversion of the organized Christian community to these men, in favor of people whose lives and behavior often run opposite of supposed Christian values, speaks volumes about their priority - which is not to spread love, but rather to spread Republicanism.

I see no way to justify rabid attacks on decent people, even if they hold political views that are contrary to those of conservative Christians. Their positions would be much better served through rational discussion. And considering the Republican track record on taxes, spending, abortion, freedom, etc. under President Bush - bearing in mind they've had many years now in which they should have been able to do almost anything they really wanted to do, but have only made things worse in these key areas - and considering that little, if anything, would change in this regard if John McCain became President, I don't understand Christians' pro-active support of the GOP in the slightest. Why set aside common decency to fight for a secular candidate who certainly will not advance the supposedly Christian cause of goodwill and love in the world and against a candidate who has spent his adult life fully focused on community service and civil rights and who shares their religion? It makes no sense unless their motives are partisan and not spiritual.

Posted by Becky at 12:54 PM |

April 11, 2008

John Edwards raising funds for DSCC

I got a piece of mail today from John Edwards. Inside was a letter explaining that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) needs donations to help Dems take back some of the 49 Senate seats currently held by Republicans.

Now, the mail doesn't explicitly state anything about primary races between Democrats. But on the donation form there is a line stating that I should provide my email address on the following line if I would like "updates on our early campaign efforts and candidate recruitment." And it was targeted at an Oregonian whom it presumed is a Democrat. It also pushes an April 30 deadline in order for the donation to qualify for matching funds to be donated by a group of Democratic Senators pledged to matching two dollars for every dollar raised by the DSCC by April 30.

What's really interesting about all of this to me is that there are several outspoken former Edwards supporters here in Oregon who have been harshly critical of the DSCC. Most notably, Steve Novick and several of his core supporters.

Yet here is John Edwards asking for donations to the DSCC well before Oregon's primary election and offering updates on "early campaign efforts and candidate recruitment."

Personally, I find the Edwards mail perfectly reasonable.

Posted by Kevin at 08:30 AM |

April 10, 2008

American Idol in the Twilight Zone

I swear, I am stunned thinking back over tonight's American Idol show. What was up with having the contestants group-sing "Shout to the Lord" both of the last two nights? And why last night did they sing it "My Shepherd" instead of "My Jesus," and then tonight change it back and sing it the right way? I was really flabbergasted.

I mean, that's a song that Christians sing from their heart. I know because I've sung that in church and it's one of those songs that gets the hands waving in the air and the tears flowing. First, it's just not right, in my opinion, for the show to expect the contestants to sing something like that when maybe they don't believe in it. It is almost mocking the song - and with it, the belief, in my opinion. Can you imagine the uproar and controversy if one of them had dared to object to joining in?

And second, to change the words the first night, leaving "Jesus" out, and then succomb to the outrage of Christians by re-doing it tonight with "Jesus" put back in just seems like a major bit of bungling that only made the original error worse.

Third, and most curious, why did they do such a spiritual song and then immediately follow it with a Beatles song, lip-synced by a whole bunch of stars, including Kobe Bryant (wtf?) and women dancing provocatively and even squeezing their own breasts? Not that a good deal of viewers didn't enjoy that, but did they think if they sang to Jesus they'd be forgiven for showing such behavior to America's kids?

And then Michael Johns was voted off.

Honestly, I think maybe I need to go to bed and watch it again tomorrow to see if it really happened the way I saw it.

Posted by Becky at 11:20 PM |

Portland Mercury nails it

The Portland Mercury's Amy Ruiz nails it in a piece about Senate candidates Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley.

If you take the candidates at face value, the question for voters, then, is which quality they want in the candidate that will take on Smith. Would they rather send in someone who will trumpet all of the pent-up lefty frustration that's been accumulating over Bush's administration (an administration Smith frequently votes in line with)? Or would they rather march behind someone who, if elected, makes the stronger case that they'd be an effective progressive legislator?

If we have learned NOTHING else over the last several election cycles we have at least learned that all the weeping and gnashing of teeth (2004 election) won't change a damn thing, but that electing effective progressive legislators (2006) can bring change.

Posted by Kevin at 02:29 PM |

April 09, 2008

Bathtub Admirals

Commander Jeff Huber U.S. Navy (retired) writes the Pen and Sword blog and is an old blogosphere friend of PK and vice versa. Although we don't comment on each other's blogs as much as we used to back in the day.

So anyway, when I recieved an email from Jeff (he assures me it's at the prompting of his publisher) about his book, I was tickled pink to help publicize the long-anticipated release of his novel - Bathtub Admirals.

Below the fold is some promotional material he sent along with the email. But before we get to that let me just throw out some props to Jeff for consistently writing high quality biting political commentary on his blog. If you love seeing military experts tear into BushCo on the facts then you'll love Pen and Sword because that's what it's all about.

The promo stuff:

From the reviewers:

"Populated by outrageous characters and fueled with pompous outrage, Huber’s irreverent broadside will pummel the funny bone of anyone who’s served." — Publishers Weekly

"A remarkably accomplished book, striking just the right balance between ridicule and insight." — Booklist


From the publisher (Kunati Books):

"In the wicked satirical tradition of Joseph Heller and Kurt Vonnegut, the adventures of two naval men follow America’s rise to global dominance as its military burns off excess testosterone, connives to justify its bloated budget, and prepares for the ultimate challenge—the War on Evil.


From the foreword:

During my time in the aircraft carrier Navy, "Fo'c's'le Follies" were a series of comedy sketches the air wing squadrons put on in the cavernous anchor room at the bow of the ship at the end of an at-sea period to make fun of each other and blow off steam. Bathtub Admirals is intended to be the Fo'c's'le Folly version of the U.S. Navy during the 1980s and '90s and is, to a certain extent, a chronicle of America's rise to the status of sole superpower. Most of the major events described actually happened, but not the way I describe them. Names, places and identifying scars were changed to protect the author.


About the author:

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) was commanding officer of Airborne Early Warning Squadron 124 and operations officer of Air Wing Nine and the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt. Jeff's satires and analyses of foreign policy and military affairs have appeared in Proceedings, The Navy, Jane's Fighting Ships and other periodicals. Read his commentaries on the present security situation at Military.com and Aviation Week. Jeff is available for signings, readings, interviews and other author events.

Posted by Kevin at 06:27 PM |

April 08, 2008

PK passes the 500,000 hits milestone

At 3:56 AM this morning we had our 500,000th unique visit to this blog. And as so many others have been, this one was interesting in it's own right.

Visitor #500,000 is, or was as of early this morning, in Egypt, surfed in via the Google search string "born ass" and ended up at one of Becky's posts from late last 2007 called: Born-Again Militarists “Kicking Ass” in Iraq.

Posted by Kevin at 08:45 AM |

April 07, 2008

My one second of fame... in a Merkley ad



Ever so briefly at the very beginning there's a shot of me talking to Jeff.

Posted by Kevin at 08:09 AM |

April 06, 2008

Bono or Gordon Smith for Senate?


Posted by Kevin at 07:14 PM |

April 05, 2008

Answering the complaints with FACTS

I keep hearing certain complaints resurfacing over and over.
Complaints about how the process works.
Complaints which are, in my opinion, based on fallacy not fact.


Complaint:
The Democratic Party and Democratic National Committee is a corrupt "good old boy's club"/"gentlemen's club" that does not trust the will of Democratic Primary voters.

Fact:
While anyone who is registered to vote as a Democrat is a member of the Party, there are 440 members of the Democratic National Committee.
The National Committee has 9 elected officers: The Chair, five Vice Chairs, Treasurer, Secretary, and National Finance Chair. (currently 5 women and 4 men)
Membership on the National Committee is composed of individuals elected by the Democratic Party organizations in each state (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), the U.S. Territories (American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands), and Democrats living outside the United States and those Territories
listed above (Democrats Abroad).

Each jurisdiction is represented by its Chair and the next highest ranking officer of the opposite sex. An additional 200 votes are distributed to the states and territories based on population, with each receiving a minimum of two additional seats. Each delegation must be equally divided between men and women.

Also seated on the DNC are representatives of various Democratic constituencies and elected officials. These include two U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives, two members of the College Democrats, and three representatives each from the Democratic Governors, Mayors, State Legislators, County Officials. Municipal
Officials, Young Democrats, and the National Federation of Democratic Women.
Fifty members are appointed by the DNC Chairmen, and approved by the DNC, and are considered "Members-at-Large" (25 men, 25 women).

At the State Party level the ruling body is the State Central Committee made up of delegates elected from each county in the state weighted by the number of registered Democrats in that county (with a minimum of 2 delegates per county).
These delegations are also required to be equally divided between men and women (except where there is an uneven number of delegates).

At the County Party level the ruling body is the County Central Committee made up of the Precinct Committeemen and Precinct Committeewomen elected in the Primary by the registered Democrats in each Precinct. There are an equal number of Precinct Committee Person slots for men and women in each precinct. Only men can be elected or appointed to a Committeeman slot. Only women can be elected or appointed to a Committeewoman slot.

By rule, the ruling bodies of the Democratic Party at County, State, and National levels are equally divided between men and women.


Complaint:
Can't tell you how many times there have been uncontested committeeman elections at the precinct level because more often than not the person is preselected and just goes through the election process to make it official. As an independent I just scroll right by them.

Fact:
As an "independent" choosing the DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINEE is not your concern. Choosing a nominee is an internal PARTY decision. For the record, we elect both Committeemen AND Committeewomen.


Complaint:
The "SuperDelegates" are NOT all elected politicians, many of them are "party insiders" who do not have a current constituency which they represent as a result of winning the most recent popular vote of the citizenry at large.

Fact:
There are three types of "SuperDelegates":
1- Elected officials; current Democratic members of Congress (House and Senate), Democratic Governors
2- Former Democratic elected officials; President, Vice-President, leaders of the Senate, Speakers of the House and Minority Leaders and former Chairs of the DNC
3- Current Members of the DNC
All "SuperDelegates" (except the 50 DNC appointees) were elected and serve a constituency. Those in category 1 were elected by the citizenry at large in the most recent election for their seat. Those in category 2 were elected in the past by the citizenry at large. Those in category 3 were elected by their State Central Committees, who were elected by their County Central Committees, who were elected by registered Democrats in the previous Primary Election.
Since the purpose of the Democratic National Convention is to choose the DEMOCRATIC PARTY Nominee for President it is ONLY the legitimate concern of registered members of the Democratic Party.
Some State Democratic Parties may choose to extend the courtesy of allowing non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic Primary. They are not required to do so. Choosing a nominee is Party business.
ALL registered Democrats are "party insiders". All others are "party outsiders" and selecting the nominee is not their concern.


Complaint:
Most troubling is that party insiders, members of Congress, union leaders, party officials and an assortment of activists known as super delegates, now hold the key to the nomination for Obama or Clinton. Each of the super delegate's votes is now equivalent to about 10,000 Democratic voters. ..."

Fact:
Selecting a Democratic Nominee is the business of "party insiders" (all registered Democrats). The "SuperDelegates" were elected by Democratic "party insiders" or their duly elected representatives. Although some "SuperDelegates" may coincidently be "union leaders", there are no "SuperDelegate" positions allocated to "union leaders". The reason why the "key" to the nomination rests with the "SuperDelegates" is because Democratic Primary Voters have failed to show a clear preference and have instead split more or less evenly between the two leading candidates.
SOMEBODY has to make the decision. Since the general public has failed to do so, the "SuperDelegates" will have to.


Complaint:
The SuperDs, as I understand it, are susceptible to pressure by Party leadership. ALSO, and this is the part that I have a problem with, they are NOT reflective of the vote of the People (like elected delegates).

Fact:
"SuperDelegates" ARE the Democratic Party leadership. They were elected to their current positions by the votes of registered Democrats or the duly elected representatives of Democratic voters. ALL delegates are elected at some point (by "party insiders").
Most delegates are "pledged" to a particular candidate.
"SuperDelegates" are not "pledged", they are free to exercise their own independent judgement.


Complaint:
Each elected (pledged) delegate represents the will of hundreds of thousands of voters. SuperDs represent ONE voter each (themselves), yet have EQUAL WEIGHT as an elected delegate!

Fact:
ALL Delegates are elected, not all delegates are "pledged".
Each pledged delegate does NOT represent "hundreds of thousands", not even a single hundred thousand. The New Hampshire Primary awarded 22 pledged delegates. I seriously doubt 2.2 MILLION Democrats voted in that Primary. Or that 4.5 MILLION Democrats voted in the South Carolina Primary. It is highly unlikely that 5.2 MILLION Democrats will vote in the Oregon Primary since the TOTAL population is considerably less than that number.
Each "SuperDelegate" represents considerably more than "one voter".
By RULE, the pledged delegates are NOT required to vote for the candidate they are pledged to, so they could BETRAY the voters they supposedly represent if they chose to do so. Every one of the 4048 Democratic National Convention Delegates really only represent themselves if they choose to.


Complaint:
It is an UNdemocratic process -- an ELITIST process -- crammed in the middle of a democratic process, the primary elections. It was put in place EXACTLY BECAUSE the powers that be in the Party wanted a mechanism to UNDERMINE the will of the People when they saw fit.

Fact:
WHO exactly are "the powers that be"? And how are you able to read their minds?


Complaint:
Since the democratic party does not fully trust the will of the democratic primary voters they should not whine and moan nor be surprised when liberal/progressive voters vote 3rd party; why stick with a party in the general election that did not trust what we the people had to say in the primary election.

Fact:
Why should the Party listen to the will of disloyal voters who will bail out if they don't get the nominee they want? If "liberal/progressive" voters vote 3rd Party, they will be cutting off their noses to spite their face and making it easier for John McCain to win a "Third Bush Term".


Complaint:
Well, let's just abolish the process altogether and have those with the most political experience choose how things are done.

Fact:
That IS how it was done prior to 1900. If you would like to return to that method be advised that women did not have the right to vote back then. And although African-Americans had the legal right to vote, they were denied that right in much of the country (untill the Voting Rights Act in the '60s).

Posted by Mac at 01:56 PM |

John McCain Agrees with Rev. Wright

I've enjoyed a lot of Hart Williams' pieces, but I think his latest is my favorite. If you want to understand why people believe the media is always biased against their candidate, why it makes perfect sense that Bertrand Russell was the Pope, why it is logical that Mike Huckabee believes Hillary Clinton would put Christians in prison, and how John McCain agrees with the Rev. Wright -- if you're ready to start thinking like a grown up -- then make sure you go read it.

Posted by Becky at 12:03 AM |

April 04, 2008

You know the war mongers are toast when...