« December 2008 | Main | February 2009 »

January 31, 2009

Newseum - an amazing resource

The Newseum is one of the most fascinating news resources that I've come across in a very long time.

My favorite part is the navigable world-wide map of newspaper front page screenshots. Clicking on any listed newspaper brings up a window with a close-up of the day's front page along with a readable PDF of it along with a link to that newspaper's website. Today's map has 648 front pages from 64 countries. The Newseum's FAQ says that every day at least 575 newspapers from around the world submit their front pages to the Newseum.

Here in Oregon there are five newspapers participating. I'm not sure why more newspapers don't participate. Having spent most of my early childhood in and around Medford I immediately noticed the Mail-Tribune's absence. Nevertheless Oregon is reasonably well represented and there are a few newspapers from just beyond Oregon's borders - such as The Columbian and the Tri-City Herald - which are as relevant to the nearby Oregonians as the more distantly located Oregon newspapers.

Another really interesting part is the archived front pages of selected major news stories dating back to the Space Shuttle explosion in February 2003. Want to see what different newspapers published on their front pages when Ronald Reagan died on June 6, 2004? Just click on that entry and up comes 238 front page screenshots, 160 of which are from American newspapers. Search through the listed American papers and you'll find screenshots of The Oregonain and the Statesman Journal for the day Reagan died. Diehard Red Sox fans will enjoy perusing the 339 screenshots commerating the day that they broke the curse.

(hat tip: Tom Carter)

Posted by Kevin at 03:23 PM |

January 30, 2009

Mary Jane

The DEA recently raided a California medical marijuana dispensary, raising the question of what Obama's official policy will be.

"I think the basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors (is) entirely appropriate," Obama told Oregon's Mail Tribune newspaper in March. "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue."

The raid took place two days after Obama took office but before he had his own Justice Department team in place. Nevertheless it took place on his watch and medical pot activists and civil libertarians want him to freeze any future raids, or at least clarify what the current playing field looks like.

"We're sympathetic to the fact the administration is just getting its feet on the ground," Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Dan Bernath said on Thursday, "but this does show he needs to appoint folks who will respects his principles and policies."

Having been trail blazers with legalizing medical marijuana, Oregonians will be watching closely to see how Obama's formal policy on the subject materializes.

Meanwhile halfway around the world a new political party in Israel is creating a buzz well outside her borders. A faction called the Green Leaf Graduates split away from a small party best known for it's advocacy for legalizing Cannabis and is merging with the Halocaust Survivors party to form a new party simply (and appropriately) called Green Leaf to improve visibility for both advocacy groups. You wouldn't think that aging pensioners would have much in common with a younger, more hip generation trying to legalize pot. But in a parlimentary system it makes a certain sense to pool resources for the benefit of both groups. And if their edgy new TV commercial is any indication, the aging pensioners have embraced the merger with gusto!

Posted by Kevin at 12:00 PM |

January 29, 2009

Piss off college president - get forcibly graduated

Heh, turns out I didn't piss of the right people in college. All I got was to be shown the door and told not to come back - more than once and on more than one continent.

Brenda Councillor is clearly smarter than I am.

Brenda Councillor admits she was a rabble-rouser on the campus of Haskell Indian Nations University.

But it still came as a shock when she discovered over the holidays that she had had been graduated — and kicked out of her dorm room — against her will.

The school denies that it had anything to do with Councillor, as a member of the student senate, having dogged the college president or Councillor having circulated a petition last Fall seeking to have president Warner fired. But against the backdrop of having arbitrarily shaved off the entire last semester of coursework for Councillor - including a required class - kicking her out of the dorm and locked her out of her school email account... well, they might as well argue that the Moon is made of Green Cheese. Both would be equally believable.

Councillor is miffed and feels like she's been banished. To each their own. But I've been banished, without getting the diploma. She doesn't know what she's missing...

Posted by Kevin at 09:23 PM |

January 28, 2009

You can't handle the truth... about Sam Adams!

No matter what your position is on the Mayor Adams/Beau Breedlove controversy, do YOURSELF a favor and read Hart Williams' piece, Mr. Peepers Goes To Portland part iii. It is the single most comprehensive, in-depth examination of the actual relevant FACTS that I've seen anywhere by anybody. And that includes most especially Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Nigel Jaquiss who is at the center of all this.

The example of former Portland Mayor Neil Goldschmidt and his alleged (many years later) sexual escapades with an underage girl is particularly salient here.

Mayor Goldschmidt was a hugely, phenominally successful and popular Mayor. His achievements as Mayor are as undeniable as they are copious. The city and citizens of Portland benefitted immeasurably from his tenure as Mayor. Perhaps more importantly, the city and citizens of Portland continue to this very day to benefit hugely from the singular achievements of Mayor Goldschmidt many years ago.

Neil Goldschmidt isn't a political pariah today because his record as Mayor reveals even a hint of untrustworthiness or incompetence.

In short, there simply is no rational connection or association between alleged PRIVATE sexual behavior and performing the duties and responsibilities of the office of Mayor. Whether an individual Mayor had sex with his own spouse or some teenager is as red a herring as has ever existed.

Run, don't walk, and read Hart's excellent, abso-friggin-lutely on-the-money piece.

Update: A comparable piece taking a slightly different tack but which nevertheless gets my wholehearted recommendation: Breaking: Traditional media sensationalizes sex scandal

Posted by Kevin at 10:45 AM |

Why the Politics of Hate will go on Forever

A little over two months ago, in response to an LA Times story about Right wingers like Limbaugh and Hannity working to undermine President Obama’s efforts to re-unify this country, I wrote that it was time to stop the viral pandemic of extremism and hatred that “spreads easily and turns its victims into mind-numbed zombies (a.k.a. "dittoheads").”

The only safety we have is to quarantine the zombies and those who have created them. We must turn them off, tune them out, and disengage from them before they push us one way or the other into hate-filled, reactionary extremism. We must move forward with hope toward healing this divided nation. Those who choose to remain infected must be left behind.

Alas, it seems that the one I said could defeat the pandemic has instead just strengthened it. President Obama on Friday told Republicans on Capitol Hill, “You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Or, as Fox News characterized it, “Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill Friday that they need to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.” I wish Obama had simply ignored Rush, thereby eventually rendering him irrelevant. Instead, his statement reinforced the viral and divisive politics of hate.

One of the things Republicans did very effectively during their 24-year run from '80 to '04 was define who the opposition was, whether it was raising the profile of a Michael Moore or a Jesse Jackson or someone from the most liberal or divisive wing of the Democratic Party (see Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton). Well, it appears Democrats in general, and President Obama specifically, seems to enjoy propping up two of the more divisive figures in the Republican Party, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. The more attention a Palin or a Limbaugh gets right now, the harder it will be for the Republican Party to pitch itself as a Big Tent party again. This is a dangerous period for the GOP, the party is, well, without definition. Is it a less-government, low-tax, fiscally responsible party? It’s hard to make that case after the last decade of governing. Because it's hard to define the GOP on issues right now, it becomes easier for the Democrats to paint the GOP with the brush of a personality like Limbaugh and Palin.

President Obama has been talking like he wants to set aside partisan hate and build a bi-partisan government in which people actually work together, and I have been pleased by his efforts to reach out to Republicans. I don’t know whether this was a mistake or, as the pundit above thinks, some sort of crafty “propping up” of divisive Republicans so as to make the GOP less relevant. All I know is that as soon as President Obama brought up Rush Limbaugh, Rush – predictably – seized on it.

Here is the context of Rush’s statement that he wanted Obama to fail – in a transcript of his radio broadcast:

I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Clearly, Rush sees this as a them-versus-us war (“them” being the lib’ral commies and “us” being the patriotic American conservatives). He does not understand the bridge-building and unifying effort that Obama has articulated and come to represent. He is a major source of the hate virus and massively engaged in creating as many zombies as he possibly can. Zombies that write things like this about Democrats:

Here’s the deal. They don’t want you knowing what they are doing. They don’t want people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and others to express any dissent. The President HIMSELF has stated there IS not dissent. That’s the kind of talk of any Communist government. You might see and hear it, but they’ll tell you its not there. Just ask anyone who has lived under Stalin, Castro or other Communist leaders.

The other thing they do is develop an image of themselves that is god-like and sell themselves to the public as infallible. In Obama’s case, he’s got the best marketers that Hollywood can offer to create that image. Take a look at the new White House website. Its a website devoted to the admiration of Obama. Its not for the people anymore. Its for Obama. The allegiance is to Obama rather than to the country.

In response to Rush’s viral hate speech, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has done just what I warned against: launched a viral online petition for people to express their viral hatred right back to Rush. Both sides have become more angry. The hate virus has grown stronger.

And why did the Democrats decide to launch this stupid petition? I think this blogger has figured it out:

And what exactly will the petition prove? That Democrats don’t like Rush Limbaugh? Well, that’s certainly breaking news. I’m certain Rush will quake in his boots to see the list of Democratic saps who just got their names and e-mail addresses on the DCCC’s fundraising lists.

The DCCC has a pretty transparent motivation here, which is to build those lists for their 2010 election campaigns. Note that the full name, e-mail address, and zip code are required fields. They missed a step by not requiring a cell phone number; the Obama campaign used text messaging for GOTV efforts in November, and apparently had a lot of success with it. Otherwise, they’ve covered all the bases in setting a trap for the foolish and easily led.

In other words, the DCCC doesn’t dislike Rush Limbaugh. They need Rush as a fundraising gimmick.

If the great hope for change, Barack Obama, can’t even stop himself from extending this hateful, viral game while at the same time supposedly symbolizing ending it, then we can count on the fact that, just like the never-ending hatred consuming the Middle East, this game will go on forever – or at least until one side or the other is entirely obliterated.

Posted by Becky at 09:06 AM |

January 26, 2009

The chicks of past military hawks come home to roost

A really interesting and thought-provoking Op-Ed in JTA arguing that Two states the only hope for Gaza normalcy contains a fascinating revelation.

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Last week I dug up an old, yellowing Israeli intelligence report from April 1987 headlined "The Gaza Strip toward the year 2000." It was authored by the "Civil Administration," Israel's military government, only several months before the eruption in Gaza of the first intifada.

The secret document, distributed to Israel's top security leadership, provides both a high-resolution snapshot (more than 200 pages) of Gaza and a careful forecast. Amazingly, it predicted a process of multifaceted integration of the Gaza Strip into Israel.

At the time Ori Nir, author of the Op-Ed, was the Palestinian Affairs correspondent for the Israeli daily Ha'aretz.

Around that time, as a reporter covering Palestinian affairs, I met with the Israeli governor of Gaza, who told me that Israel had "no problem" with the Islamists because they were not engaged in any subversive or violent activity. To the contrary: Israel's military government in Gaza, dividing and ruling as it always did, gently nurtured the Islamists as a counterweight to the Palestinian Liberation Organization during the 1980s. (emphasis added)

Reading that immediately brought to memory our American government's nurturing the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, many of whom later turned into the same Taliban which nurtured and protected Osama bin Laden's terrorists as they planned mass terror and murder and are themselves today waging their own mass terror and murder.

Similarly, Hamas came from the same Islamists that the Israeli military had nurtured.

It's amazing to me how the short-sightedness of previous generations dooms their children to somehow deal with the consequences. It also amazes me how resistant today's military hawks are to aknowledging the central role that previous military hawks played in creating the very situations that today's hawks love to parade before us as justification for yet more short-sightedness.

Posted by Kevin at 09:49 AM |

Deceased Jewish terrorist saluted by Olmert

JTA

Ravitz, the head of the fervently Orthodox Degel Hatorah party, died Sunday night at Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem. He had been hospitalized for the past three weeks due to heart problems. He was 75.

...

He was a member of the Stern Gang, a group of prestate freedom fighters, and later served in the Israel Defense Forces. He worked as a yeshiva head before leading the party that represents the Lithuanian haredi, or fervently Orthodox, in Israel's parliament.

...

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert saluted his longtime friend in a statement.

The "Stern Gang" were terrorists who advocated ethnic cleansing of Arabs.

Posted by Kevin at 09:30 AM |

January 25, 2009

Sources: Sam Adams will stay on

Citing well-placed anonymous sources, BlueOregon's Carla Axtman has the scoop - Sam Adams will stay on as Portland Mayor:

Sources who wish to remain anonymous are telling me with unequivocal certainty that embattled Portland Mayor Sam Adams is staying in his job.

I consider these to be extremely reliable, well-connected sources. I don't think its going out on a limb to say that this is how its going to go down.

This makes perfect sense to me, and I wholly expect this to be the way it happens.

After the massive outpouring of support for Sam, and given all stories point to no illegality and a consenting, private relationship between two adults, I am relieved.

Posted by Ben at 11:51 AM |

The Media Issue

According to Alex Blaze at the Bilerico Project, we have to think about this "scandal" as a media issue.

He cites Just Out's puzzling call for resignation. And he talks of former Senator Gordon Smith:

Gordon Smith, the former Republican Senator from the state of Oregon, lied in a series of campaign ads this past summer saying that his opponent, Jeff Merkley, voted against a bill to increase the statute of limitations for rape. One commercial shows a woman talking about her own rape and pretty much accuses Merkley of being responsible for it, even though it occurred before the bill in question was passed, even though Merkley voted for the increase. The ads were "manipulative lies intended to deceive every citizen of" Oregon, which includes Portland, and it was clearly due to his desire to be re-elected Senator. As a side note, I would say that this lie is much more manipulative, meant to pull on people's heart strings as this woman discusses being raped.

In the same campaign season, Gordon Smith said, "Mr. Merkley is challenging me to go to all of Oregon's counties once a year. Well, I do that." When pressed by the Oregon Democratic Party for proof, a campaign spokesperson claimed it was a mistake, that he doesn't even come close to doing that. That was another lie, and Smith didn't even apologize or acknowledge his lie. And, it was clearly to manipulate voters into thinking that he was a salt-of-the-earth Real American who knows rural Oregon better than his opponent, caused by his "desire to be elected."

In that same campaign season, the NRSC, on behalf of Gordon Smith's campaign, ran an ad that accused Merkley of voting to take away a $1 billion tax refund from the state of Oregon. The claim was false, and the NRSC was forced to pull the ad after the media started discussing its lies. Smith never rebuked the ad, and the NRSC kept it on YouTube. Another lie, intended to manipulate voters (with the real third-rail of politics: increased taxes), in order to try to win an election.

Gordon Smith did lie. A lot. Follow me after the jump for more.

Smith lied about Jeff Merkley's position on supporting rape victims. He lied about his in-state travel, via his claim that he already visited every county, every year. And he did it again and again:

I worked in communications and new media for Jeff Merkley. I sat next to our campaign telelvisions. I saw this ad hundreds and hundreds of times for several weeks. Millions of dollars; harsh, horrible lies.

And yet the Oregonian and many, many other papers chose to endorse Smith, calling him principled and other far-too-kind words while conveniently ignoring his consistent, proven lying.

And now they're using "lies" as cover for wanting Sam Adams to resign, while it was criteria for endorsing Smith.

Posted by Ben at 09:08 AM |

January 24, 2009

Wingnut outrage at Obama skipping ball

The wingnut blogosphere is all a dither with their knickers in a wad about President Obama having allegedly snubbed veterans and Medal of Honor recipients by skipping an inaugural ball. Here's one such example:

Our new CINC attended quite a few gatherings last night, but as This Ain't Hell reports, the Salute To Heroes Inaugural Ball was not one of them. For the first time in 56 years, a newly-inaugurated president has not attended the ball begun by President Eisenhower. 14 presidents later, a snub.

As other blog picked up on the story and enlarged on it, their favorite whipping boy, the mainstream media, was lumped in as culpable for allegedly ignoring this important story.

Out of curiosity I spent some time digging around on veterans sites. Of the blogs I checked, all were lefty or centrist because that's who we link to here - quite a few of whom are veterans. I also checked the gamut of veteran/military websites ranging from the arguably left-leaning (such as Veterans for Peace) to the non-partisan (such as Veterans of Foreign Wars & militaryspot.com).

Not a single one mentioned this alleged snub.

Why do you suppose that is?

I decided to do some more digging.

When I finally ended up reading this post at Newsvine, I'd already independently verified most of what it said via other sources such as Stars & Stripes.

Turns out that The American Legion (who sponsored the ball in question) not only went out of their way to state that they didn't feel snubbed in the slightest, but went on to explain WHY he didn't attend.

President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. The new President’s absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The American Legion, as an organization, does not feel offended or "snubbed."

Scott Isaacs from Newsvine went on to expand on why President Obama likely skipped the event.

I have found out also that the likely reason that Barack Obama attended the auxiliary balls that he did is because six of the balls that he attended were held in the same building. Therefore, attending those balls and the others that he attended were the most efficient with regards to security. It is no secret that President Obama has had questions surrounding his security, that is evident by observing that he was the earliest presidential candidate ever to get a security detail. If the Secret Service felt it prudent to guard him so early in the campaign can the reader imagine what the Secret Service feels is prudent now that he is the President of the United States?

The most likely reason that President Obama did not go to the "Salute to Heroes" inaugural ball is because it was held in the Renaissance Hotel which consists of 16 floors. There was an event called the "Illinois Party - Presidential Event" held at the Renaissance the night before that the then-President-elect did not attend either (I have a call in to the President's press office asking for confirmation of this information which was given to me by one of my sources for this story). Given the amount of time and resources it would have taken to clear a 16 floor hotel as well as protect it while President Obama was inside, I can only guess that he was advised by his Presidential Protection Detail not to attend either inaugural ball because of the building and the inherent problems in securing and then protecting it. The sheer number of people crowding the streets and staying in the hotel surely presented a formidable screening problem as well. But, there's your story... it's not as sexy as "Barack Obama Hates The Military" but it is the truth as best I can tell after talking to the organization responsible for hosting the event and doing some research and educated guesswork about why a security team wouldn't want to protect a principal in the Renaissance with more than 2 million extra people in Washington D.C. (emphasis supplied by me)

President Obama did attend the Commander in Chief ball which was chock full of veterans and active duty military (the point of the ball existing...). In attendance were 300 disabled/injured veterans brought in from a VA hospital as well as apparently a number of Medal of Honor recipients. Presumably those MoH recipients were snubbing themselves by not being at the other ball?

Incidently, it was pretty easy to find a MSM report on this alleged snub. It was also pretty short work finding this MSM report about a veteran who did attend the ball and apparently didn't feel the slightest bit snubbed by his president skipping the event. In fact, he gives every indication of having felt distinctly honored simply to attend.

Now, I don't claim to be a rocket surgeon. But it's pretty clear to me why the mainstream media and a huge swath of veterans groups didn't deem this alleged snub to be either newsworthy or a snub. The overwhelming majority (confirmed by a few minutes on Google) of those complaining the most bitterly about this alleged snub are and always have been among Obama's harshest critics.

Posted by Kevin at 06:34 PM |

January 23, 2009

Israel & Palestine: connecting the dots

The Jewish-American Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman is "concerned" that newly appointed Special Envoy George Mitchell too fair.

"Sen. Mitchell is fair. He's been meticulously even-handed," said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "But the fact is, American policy in the Middle East hasn't been 'even handed' — it has been supportive of Israel when it felt Israel needed critical U.S. support."

"So I'm concerned," Foxman continued. "I'm not sure the situation requires that kind of approach in the Middle East."

In other words, it doesn't matter what the Palestinians do, whether they fire rockets into Israel or not. Foxman doesn't care about anything other than seeing Israeli policy rubberstamped by our government. And you can bet the bank that if the national director of the ADL sees it that way then a hell of a lot of other Jews do too.

Meanwhile, on the heels of Israeli FM Livni having been accused of being a terrorist at the National Press Club last week, is the news that Livni is worried about being charged with War Crimes in Europe.

Israel's concerns about possible international lawsuits following Operation Cast Lead is apparently growing, as even the fate of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's trip to Brussels remained vague until the very last minute, fearing she may face legal action in Belgium for alleged war crimes.

Meanwhile back in Israel the hardline head of the Yisrael Beitenu party demonstrated his lack of racism as well as his dedication to the principles of freedom and democracy by threatening two Arab Knesset members with assasination.

Meanwhile, Palestinian diplomats urging reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas pointedly observe that P.A. President Abbas's concessions (to Israel) to crack down on militants in the West Bank had only reaped more Israeli settlement encroachment on the land of a future Palestinian state, more military roadblocks and an Israeli separation barrier. Which brings us right back to the Anti-Defamation League's opposition to Mitchell's fairness pointed out at the beginning of this post.

Lastly is the report that Israel has announced that it is setting up a network of bloggers to combat websites deemed "problematic" by the Zionist state...

Have you notice that almost all of the pro-Israeli pushback, both official and unofficial, these last several weeks has been aimed squarely at those who like myself have tried to treat both sides fairly? I haven't noticed any bloggers pushing an overtly pro-Hamas message being targeted for pushback. It's all been aimed at anyone attempting to be fair and honest.

The Hamas position isn't deemed "problematic" by Israel, for what seem to me to be self-evident reasons. The "problem" they've identified as a threat to them is any sense of fairness.

(hat tips to Spyder and Ten Bears for respectively linking me to the first and last articles linked here.)

Posted by Kevin at 11:49 AM |

The Willamette Week and Sam Adams

So, the Willamette Week breaks the story about Portland Mayor Sam Adams.

But did you realize that, in 1995, the Willamette Week outed then-Mayoral Chief of Staff Sam Adams without his permission?

According to the Oregonian:

"Adams said he started bringing the man to office functions, introducing him as his partner. He never made a formal announcement that he was gay. He wanted to be treated like anyone else. Willamette Week eventually outed him publicly in 1995 in its Murmurs column.

"Adams said the reporter called him and said the paper had "evidence" that he was gay. Adams confirmed it and was "scared to death" about how his contemporaries at City Hall would react. But nobody said anything."

I don't have the original column, which is in the Multnomah County library.

Now that's a cardinal sin: outing someone without their permission. Especially in 1995. And the way it is reported, it seems like a threat - they had "evidence" against him.

Has the Willamette Week done this to other people? Seems like a bad pattern of digging into the personal, private lives of our public officials.

Posted by Ben at 11:08 AM |

January 22, 2009

Honestly, they're just escorts.

Some of the most interesting things I run across online are the product of semi-aimless surfing. Y'know, it starts off as a search for something specific but then you notice a link to something else and follow it. And that leads to following another interesting sounding link to something else and pretty soon you're way, way removed from whatever the original topic was. That's the story of my life.

It was during just one such surfing session that I found this really interesting article from last May on The Moscow News weekly's website about the business of escort girls. About one particular company, to be specific.

The particular escort agency that is the subject of this piece claims to be strictly legit. I know, I know... preposterous, right? That's what I thought too... at first. But then I read the opening statement by the escort agency owner and it gave me pause.

Vyacheslav: The real escort agencies with a good record are few, because this business is not very profitable. Potential clients just don't understand what is meant by escort. It's not about selling call-girls or hookers. We don't deal with this business, that's another story. The Russian mentality prevents this sector from developing into a prosperous business. Every day we receive hundreds of calls asking, "Can you bring a girl to my hotel room?" This is the reality we're living in.

Not very profitable? Can hardly be engaged in prostitution and not be very profitable.

But I've got news for Vyacheslav, it's not just the Russian mentality. The Russian reality he describes just as accurately describes the reality all over the world with very few exceptions. Sex sells. Everyone knows that.

Posted by Kevin at 08:11 PM |

Death sentences for tainted milk

From the distant east, from CNN:

A Chinese court sentenced three people to death and two others to life in prison for their roles in the country’s tainted milk scandal, which killed at least six infants and sickened nearly 300,000 others.

Three others received prison terms of five to 15 years each. Many of those sentenced were middlemen who sold melamine to milking stations that added the chemical to the milk...

Wow.

The negligence was heinous, and perhaps malicious. Those responsible deserved to be punished. But wow.

I can get wanting to set an example or prove a point, but this is just way too much.

Posted by Ben at 12:29 AM |

January 21, 2009

The Oregonian's reactionary hypocrisy

This one is quick.

The Oregonian wants Sam Adams to resign for lying.

Now, jog my memory. Did they ever call on former President George W. Bush to resign for lying us into a war? Or for any other of his numerous, far more scandalous and damaging lies? Just checking.

The Oregonian Editorial board is reactionary. Although they managed to endorse Barack Obama's wave of hope and change, they also managed to endorse same-old Gordon Smith because they believed his moderate song and dance.

Sam Adams does not need to resign. He needed to apologize and ask our forgiveness, which he has done. And he now needs to work to rebuild the trust we have placed in him.

Remember: Sam did not break any laws. He did not cheat on his significant other. This is his private life and we're suddenly knee-deep in it because our society can't seem to mind its business. But that's immaterial now, I suppose, as we're in it.

To run Sam out of town would be wholly reactionary and a waste. I know Americans and Portlanders are a forgiving, progressive people. Let's prove it here by turning the other cheek and giving Sam the chance to prove himself to us.

Sam is a rare talent who made a mistake. Let's not waste him to something like this.

There's no need to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, Oregonian. We all need to take a deep breath and get a grip before we succumb to hysterics.

Posted by Ben at 09:49 AM |

January 20, 2009

President Obama brings White House into 21st Century

Macon Phillips, the Director of New Media for the White House, kicks off President Obama's shiny new blog.

Welcome to the new WhiteHouse.gov. I'm Macon Phillips, the Director of New Media for the White House and one of the people who will be contributing to the blog.

A short time ago, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States and his new administration officially came to life. One of the first changes is the White House's new website, which will serve as a place for the President and his administration to connect with the rest of the nation and the world.

Millions of Americans have powered President Obama's journey to the White House, many taking advantage of the internet to play a role in shaping our country's future. WhiteHouse.gov is just the beginning of the new administration's efforts to expand and deepen this online engagement.

Just like your new government, WhiteHouse.gov and the rest of the Administration's online programs will put citizens first. Our initial new media efforts will center around three priorities:

Read the rest via the link above or check out the main page here: Official White House Blog.

And of course it's been added to the blogroll on your right.

I've been hoping that Senator Merkley would continue to make use of the New Media, which is why we still have his campaign widget on the left-hand sidebar. So far they've only used it a few times and not at all since early December. I've tried to encourage them to make more use of it via the few tenuous contacts I have with his staff. But so far I've not had much of any reaction or even aknowledgement of the suggestion. C'est la vie.

I know that the New Media is something of an unknown and his senior staffers are probably leary of veering off the beaten path - an assumption reinforced by the lack of new Media activity once he started hiring new staffers. Which is a shame because they could have framed the Senator as savvy and even a bit ahead of the curve. But hopefully they will take courage and at least follow President Obama's lead...

Posted by Kevin at 02:46 PM |

Why we must forgive Sam Adams

On this historic day of transformation and change in our country, Portland Mayor Sam Adams has asked our forgiveness. For what? For not telling the truth about a relationship he had:

I want to publicly acknowledge a mistake I have made and I want to apologize for it.

In the past, I have characterized my relationship with Beau Breedlove
as purely non-sexual. That is not true. Beau Breedlove and I had a
sexual relationship for a few months in the summer of 2005 after he
turned 18 years of age.

I should have been honest at the time about the true nature of my
relationship with Beau Breedlove when questions about my relationship
with him first surfaced publicly in October 2007. In fact, Beau
encouraged me to be honest about the facts of our relationship. I am
deeply sorry that I asked him to lie for me.

Follow me below for some snap thoughts on this, and why we must forgive Sam and give him the chance he has earned.

Sam's relationship with Breedlove is of no concern to me. His personal, private matters are none of my business. And it's not our business to debate a consenting relationship between two adults.

But he did lie. Now people are asking pretty loaded questions: is it okay? Does this ruin his political career? Should he resign?

No. Absolutely not. And a big hell no.

Sam made a mistake. We all make mistakes. The mistake was not in having a relationship with a younger man; it was not being forthcoming about it when asked.

And Kari Chisholm over at BlueOregon puts an interesting spin on it all (from the thread's comments):

Seriously, folks. Adams and Breedlove were both single and consenting adults. Once the media had established that, they should have dropped the story. It is entirely inappropriate to be discussing the sex lives of our political leaders - as long as we're talking about single consenting adults.

Adams probably should have said that in the first place - but the fact that he didn't tells you that he didn't trust the local media to drop the story once they determined that everyone involved was single and consenting.

I can't say I disagree with this, but we must move beyond it, to Sam's ideas and elective promise.

Sam was elected not on the basis of his sexual orientation - he was elected on his campaign promise, his idealistic vision, and on the belief that we all can work to make our Portland better. For education. For job growth. And for sustainability.

He has laid out a bold agenda, one which can do a world of good for our city.

Sam's Mayoral promise is still developing. We must give him a chance to lead this city, as his potential is so bright. And he has earned this chance independent from any private relationship he has had.

I know Sam personally. I count him a mentor and a good friend. Sure he made a mistake, but it would be a gigantic mistake on our part to cast him aside at this hour of hope and change. And it would be just as large a mistake to deny forgiveness to those who have asked for it so plainly.

Now if you'll please excuse me, I'm going to watch coverage of Barack Obama being sworn in as our next President.

Posted by Ben at 09:35 AM |

President Barack Obama!

And his trusty sidekick Vice President Joseph Biden!

Text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address on Tuesday, as prepared for delivery and released by the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

OBAMA: My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Posted by Kevin at 08:57 AM |

January 16, 2009

Let the Kids be Kids for God's Sake!

I was disgusted a few days ago when I read that Saudi Arabia’s most senior cleric had said the efforts to stop the marriages of 10-12 year-old girls was being “unfair" to them. The debate has been ongoing, but was re-ignited last month after an 8-year-old girl’s petition for a divorce from a 50-something-year-old man was dismissed by a Saudi court. Apparently, the girl, while old enough to be married, was not old enough to petition the court and would have to wait until she reached puberty. The cleric’s thought process in supporting the marriage of pre-pubescent girls is interesting:

The mufti said a good upbringing will make a girl capable of carrying out her duties as a wife and that those who say women should not marry before the age of 25 are following a 'bad path'.

'Our mothers and before them, our grandmothers, married when they were barely 12,' said Al Sheikh, according to the Al-Hayat newspaper.

The story continues:

Meanwhile the head of the Catholic Church in Portugal is advising Portuguese women to think twice before marrying a Muslim. Cardinal Jose Policarpo says Christians should learn more about Islam and respect Muslims. But he says marrying a Muslim man can bring 'a whole lot of trouble' because Christian women become subject to Muslim conventions.

Conventions like legalized pedophilia, perhaps?

So the above story had me fuming over this particular Muslim tradition. And then I read a news story yesterday about the hidden, dirty traditions of the Catholic Church, which seem to be endlessly spilling out. Only this particular story is perhaps one of the worst I’ve ever heard. This week, 43 Alaskan Natives have filed a lawsuit against the Jesuits claiming they have been the victims of a widespread conspiracy by the church to dump pedophile priests in isolated Alaskan towns where they could victimize children at will, without consequences. 345 cases of child molestation have been uncovered so far. The results for the victims have been lifetime emotional problems, suicides, drug abuse, and more.

So now I’m just plain fuming over the co-opting of organized religion by pedophiles, who, in my book, are the lowest form of human being – next to those who tolerate pedophilia, that is.

Posted by Becky at 05:05 PM |

Condi Rice takes one last opportunity to lie to America

In one of her last official acts Condi Rice signed a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with Israeli Foreign Minister and fellow liar Tzipi Livni designed to stop the flow of arms to Hamas in Gaza.

"This MOU underscores our support for efforts to reach a durable and sustainable end to the hostilities in Gaza. It is a first step towards an end to rocket attacks and threats directed against Israel from Gaza."

There is absolutely nothing that Israel or the United States can do tomorrow, next week, next month or next year to prevent the flow of arms into Gaza which couldn't have been done yesterday, last week, last month or last year.

Nothing!

This MOU is nothing more than rank propaganda designed to distract world attention from the self-evident fact that both Olmert and Bush wanted to economically squeeze Gaza until Hamas gave them the pretext to bomb the holy crap outta them.

I repeat, there is nothing that Israel or the United States can do to prevent arms from reaching Hamas which they couldn't have done 6 months ago.

Nothing!

And don't fall for the lies of the racists who would have you believe that those darn Arabs are implacable enemies of Jews. If that self-serving assertion were valid then we wouldn't see Arabs openly wondering where all the Arab's rage is hiding. If it were true then we wouldn't see a thriving Jewish community living in abject peace (right now! today!) with Arab Muslims in overwhelmingly Arab Muslim Tunisia's Djerba Island, we wouldn't see the Arab-Berber Muslim Morocco living in peace with Jews, where (Arab) King Mohammed VI has an official advisor who is a Jew and whose sole job is to advise the King on matters affecting Moroccan Jews, and the King who's Arab father famously declared kinship with Morocco's Jews in the face of Nazi/Vichy demands that Jews be handed over, which he flatly refused to do.

We are being played for chumps!

Posted by Kevin at 02:12 PM |

Bye bye Brian

I'm not sure how I missed this last week:

Morning everybody, last Wednesday I notified the Police Bureau that I would be retiring on January 30th. We are posting my job today and Chief Sizer is beginning the process of selecting my replacement. I believe Chief Sizer hopes to select the person and have them in the office during the week of January 19th, so we can begin the transition.

While I will not get to choose my replacement I have told Chief Sizer that the person must by grumpy, willing to laugh at you to your face instead of behind your back, in a twelve step program for something or willing to join one after they have the pager for a few months, and concerned about the carbon footprint of the media. I will bring my replacement around for the official meet and greet as soon as they get here.

Hat tip to my wife, who noticed this on Blogtown and mentioned it to me today.

Public Information Officer Brian Schmautz, media spokesman for the Portland Police, is moving on to bigger and better things. His face is synonymous with the 5 p.m. news and wild crime here in the city - whenever there's news or trouble, Brian's on the scene.

I was always impressed by his forceful-yet-reserved hands, and general public relations tact.

Plus it's always sort of hilarious when a communications spokesman carries a gun.

Good-bye, Brian, and good luck!

Posted by Ben at 12:06 PM |

Sittin' pretty with my cup of joe

STOCKHOLM (AFP) – Middle-aged people who drink moderate amounts of coffee significantly reduce their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, a study by Finnish and Swedish researchers showed Thursday.

"Middle-aged people who drank between three and five cups of coffee a day lowered their risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer's disease by between 60 and 65 percent later in life," said lead researcher on the project, Miia Kivipelto, a professor at the University of Kuopio in Finland and at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

This is great news for me because I drink about 5-6 cups of coffee a day and I am middle-aged. However, my doctor does NOT consider my daily coffee consumption to be "moderate". But hey... I'm an American and I'm going to go with the experts who are saying what I wanna hear!

Posted by Kevin at 12:09 AM |

January 15, 2009

Intellectual honesty, what a concept!

WASHINGTON – Attorney General-nominee Eric Holder Jr. declared Thursday that waterboarding is torture, forcefully breaking from years in which the Justice Department deftly avoided the sensitive question about U.S. interrogation methods.

Now that wasn't so hard was it? No harder than aknowledging that up is up and down is down. Everyone knows that waterboarding is torture. All of the winks and nods of Bush, Cheney, Mukasey, Gonzalez, etc were insufficient to suspend the disbelief of anyone and it's about damn time that our leaders start treating us like adults.

Posted by Kevin at 08:45 AM |

January 14, 2009

Diplomats: Israel causing long-term damage to own image

Friendly, aknowledged friends of Israel among other nation's diplomatic corps are warning their Israeli counterparts that "Israel's image in the world has been destroyed."

"Make no mistake," he said. "I understand why you embarked on the operation in Gaza, and many of my colleagues also understand and even support it, but a few days ago you started to cross red lines."

...

"The international organizations in Gaza are talking about 200 dead children," he said. "I don't know how to explain these things to myself, never mind to my government," added the ambassador. "Your action is brutal and you don't realize how much damage this is causing you in the world. This is not only short term. It's damage for years. Is this the Israel you want to be?"

For their part, Israel's Foreign Ministry appear to understand that some sort of long-term diplomatic hole has been dug by their government. But I see scant evidence that they grasp the enormity of it.

The Western world, however, must be presented with the message that despite the scale of destruction rained on Gaza, Israel is a democratic state with a similar worldview to countries in Europe and the United States.

Still, Foreign Ministry officials are convinced that these public relations efforts will not suffice to restore Israel's image and will need to be backed up by diplomatic progress with the Palestinians.

There you have it. I don't see any way to interprete that except as a freudian admission that diplomatic progress with the Palestinians is, and probably always has been, seen as nothing more than a tactical move that's obviously been held in reserve or it wouldn't be there to be played now.

And that means that the estimated 500 civilians who have died during the Gaza operation were merely pawns which Israel and Hamas alike willingly sacrificed.

Actual sincere diplomatic progress with the Palestinians would arguably have prevented Hamas from every getting big enough to win an election or seize control of Gaza.

To what end?

Consider that most experts agree that within as few as possibly 10 years Arabs will outnumber Jews in the officially "Jewish" state of Israel.

The grand, cold-blooded game is about trying to prevent that from ever happening.

Yitzhak Rabin was the last Israeli leader to sincerely attempt to make permanent peace with the Palestinians. Which is why he was assassinated. But I digress. That's all foundational to what's going on today, but many don't want to know about anything that clashes with their pre-existing beliefs and opinions.

Posted by Kevin at 04:58 PM |

Speaking of virginity pledges...

...Natalie Dylan's auctioning off of her own virginity appears to be going swimmingly for her. Bids have reached $3.8 million. But she hasn't decided when to end the auction or even whether she'll go through with it.

"I don't have a set date — each day I get about a hundred different emails — so basically I've decided to end this when it dies down," she said.

"I've been offered to write a book, a possible movie deal and there's other business opportunities coming my way from just putting this out there, so I'm not going to prematurely end something that can bring me a lot of money and success."

Would it be sexist of me to express skepticism of whether there is any legitimate virginity to be purchased here?

Posted by Kevin at 04:31 PM |

January 13, 2009

Wanna know why your health insurance costs so much?

Surprised? I was too.

Read the rest where I found this fascinating nugget: Institute of Jurassic Technology

Posted by Kevin at 09:20 PM |

Surprise! Bush declines to prosecute his own racist political hack!

CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen has by far the best summation of the breaking Bradley Schlozman news.

It’s hard to know what’s more disheartening. The fact that the Bush Administration allowed a mean-spirited political hack named Bradley Schlozman to linger for as long as he did as acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division despite his foul views and practices. Or the fact that the Bush Administration last week declared that it would not prosecute the man for allegedly making false statements to Congress when he testified there in 2007.

Either way you look at it, the scathing report released today by the Office of Inspector General represents a fitting close to an era at the Justice Department marked not just by bad actors in government but by a cynical management philosophy that torched and then tainted all those touched by it. There was simply too large a gulf between the intelligence and integrity of people like Schlozman, Kyle Sampson, and Monica Goodling and the power they were given by their political bosses and operatives in the White House. These inapt and inept officials were destined to ruin things and they did.

heh - no kidding.

This is no mere case of a politically arrogant President plugging political hacks into positions where they could censor the government's "scientific" findings or make it easier for his timber corporation pals to log federal forests. Not that any of that was inconsequential, but this was the gawd damn JUSTICE department.

Justice, however woefully incomplete, was at the very core of why this nation was founded in the first place. Slowly (oh so slowly...) but surely this nation has corrected many of it's injustices. And then along comes the fucking son of a Shrub who glibly turned back the clock by putting a racist like schlozman in charge of the CIVIL RIGHTS division of the Justice department.

I would like Schlozman to describe to a jury in Washington, for example, why he thought it was appropriate to say that he liked his coffee “Mary Frances Berry style… black and bitter.” Berry, the former Chairwoman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, is a black woman. I would like him to tell his peers in the jury box and the press gallery why he thought it was okay in the 21st Century for a public servant to call his political adversaries “pinkos” and “commies” and “libs.” When do the real victims of the trashing of the Justice Department—you and me and the rule of law—get our day in court against these sorts of partisan saboteurs?

Having had to endure month after month after month of Republicans whining and howling about "the rule of law" during the Clinton presidency, I can't even begin to adequately describe how angry this thumbing of their noses at that same "rule of law" makes me.

I submit that by any reasonable measure the actions and choices of folk like Schlozman and Goodling, having been taken in the name of the "Justice" department, can only be described as anti-American and a complete subversion of the very foundations of what allegedly separates us from tyranical dictatorships and capricious monarchies.

King George indeed...

Posted by Kevin at 06:48 PM |

January 12, 2009

The inmates are in control of the asylum

Synagogues fire-bombed in France underscore the insanity unleashed by Israel's grotesquely disproportionate violence in Gaza. Yet they also underscore an even profounder insanity - responding to racist violence with racist violence.

As Ghandi reportedly once stated, "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind", or something to that effect.

The fact of the matter is that Jews are hardly unified in support of what's happening in Gaza. Likewise, the restraint shown in the Occupied West Bank and the battle between Fatah and Hamas for control of Gaza a while back demonstrate that Palestinians are hardly unified in support of indescriminately firing missles into Israel (a war crime, btw).

But those of us protesting against the insanity are being widely ignored. Israelis and Palestinians alike are gravitating towards the insane, violent extremists. And their partisans are doing the same.

Stridently pro-Palestinian commenters at Blue Oregon (one of my few daily reads) have ratcheted up their stridency in what I personally would describe as a jack-booted fashion.

Their equally jack-booted bretheren stridently backing Israel openly embrace racists in making their arguments.

I increasingly feel like the proverbial voice in the wilderness that everyone is studiously ignoring - whether because they disagree or because they're sick of the whole thing. But ignoring it won't make it go away.

Be that as it may, I take solace in this:

"We as Jews have to say to this country that claims to represent us, 'Stop. Stop. This is a humanitarian disaster.'"

Posted by Kevin at 03:58 PM |

The power of the Pardon - the last vestige of Kingly power

Jo Ann Bowman's post over at Blue Oregon asking Will Gov. Kulongoski Pardon David Black? got me to thinking about this whole business of pardons. More specifically, how pardons are the closest that our representative democracy form of government gets to allowing the kind of kingly whims that we rebelled against in the first place. Although it does merit mentioning that the English Sovereign had long since been very nearly neutured by the time our forefathers and foremothers chose to rebel. Nevertheless, the very notion of a presidential/gubernatorial pardon runs counter to every other principle of justice enshrined in federal and state constitutions.

What is a pardon? It is a formal power granted to Presidents and Governors, by their respective constitutions, to vacate or modify a criminal sentence.

What is the criteria? Whatever the President or Governor decide. The federal constitution lists only one limitation - impeachment is not pardonable. An implied limitation is that the enumerated power of pardon is limited to offenses against the same constitution. In other words, a president may only pardon federal crimes and a governor may only pardon state crimes committed under his/her state's criminal statutes. Other than that a president or governor can pardon whatever they want and for whatever reason they choose... up to and including a wholy capricious whim.

Actually, it was a comment on Jo Ann's post that got me to thinking about pardons. It was asserted by a commenter that a pardon rights a wrongful conviction. It does nothing of the sort. If it did then a pardon would also be grounds for expunging the record of said conviction. A pardon does not allow that, as we see in the federal DOJ Pardon information and instructions page and this court ruling in Illinois, which I provide as an example of how state pardons work.

In fact, a pardon effectively skirts the entirety of state/federal criminal law, including the provisions for righting a wrongful conviction. And the citizenry have absolutely no recourse... other than a constitutional amendment.

Here is an interesting primer on presidential pardons which used the highly controversial Clinton pardon of Marc Rich to expand on the subject, for those who want to understand it better. Several times in relatively recent years Congress has attempted to place limits on the presidential power of pardons but it has been withdrawn each time. As the piece notes at the end, any change or limitations to the power of pardons would require a Constitutional amendment, "and those are hard to come by."

Posted by Kevin at 02:01 PM |

January 11, 2009

The well informed citizen

Two links here for Oregonians who want to be informed and engaged.

First is T.A. Barnhart's Interview with Sen Merkley: Taxes, Iraq & more.

The second is a new link I added yesterday to the "Links" list on the righthand sidebar: Earmark Watch, which is useful for citizens of every other state too.

Posted by Kevin at 12:43 PM |

Israel: no freedom of speech for Arabs

Buried part way through a really excellent report from the Israeli side of the Gaza border called Why Israel's war is driven by fear, which I strongly recommend reading in it's entirety, is this chilling sentence:

Israeli Arabs who protested against the war have been arrested for undermining national morale.

There's no mention of any Israeli Jews having been arrested "for undermining national morale" even though the very next sentence in the article clearly points to the existance of Jewish critics too.

1. Someone please explain to me how arresting Arab dissenters, but not Jewish dissenters, is not racism in action. And don't even try to make up some fantastical tale about the Arabs having been arrested for dissenting violently or anything along those lines. If that were the case then they'd have been arrested for disrupting the peace of something along those lines. That is NOT what this says. It says they were arrested "for undermining national morale."

2. Without freedom of speech do you really have a "democracy"?

A primary theme in the report is how desensitized most Israeli Jews have become to the human suffering among non-combatant civilians on the other side of the Gaza border. A few like Yeela Raanan are refreshingly honest about it, but most appear unwilling to even do that.

"If you do open your heart to the fact that 40 completely innocent people in a United Nations school were killed you have a very hard time. It's difficult to open your heart to that place and also hold on to wanting the soldiers to succeed. It's a very hard split in personality. I think it's necessary but it's a difficult thing to do." Raanan says Israelis have dehumanised Palestinians to such an extent that they are no longer sensitive about who they kill. "It's so difficult for them to put themselves in the place of someone who lives in Gaza. I guess you have to be able to dehumanise to be able to accept this type of war," she said.

"Israelis think of Hamas as a terrorist group and therefore anything we do to Hamas is OK. But the question is, why do we think it's OK also to kill civilians while we're killing or destroying Hamas? We rationalise; they do it to their own people. That's the rhetoric in Israel. It makes it OK to do what we're doing. In Israel we're brought up to be afraid of Arabs. It's a short step to hating them. It's unusual for people not to have hostile feelings toward Arabs, and it's racist feelings because it's a whole group."

A particularly good example is the public justifications that the Israeli government has used to rationalize the deaths of innocent Gazans.

You might not know there was a war on while visiting Jerusalem's restaurants, Tel Aviv's frantic bars or the Azrieli shopping centre. The mall is one of the largest in Israel. Next door is the Kirya military headquarters, which houses Israel's defence ministry and the country's top military officers. The two buildings are linked by a bridge.

Through the Gaza war, Israel has accused Hamas of endangering civilians by establishing military installations in populated areas. It has been a central justification by the army for the killing of Palestinian civilians. The shoppers at the Azrieli mall see no contradiction between that claim and Israel building its defence headquarters next door to a shopping centre. "They might have a point if they attacked it," said Yoni Ahren, a computer engineer sipping coffee. "But they don't. Instead they send suicide bombers to blow us up in the mall. The Palestinians set out to kill any Jew. The Israeli army sets out to kill Hamas and, yes, innocent Palestinians get killed. But that is not why the army is in Gaza."

See how easily swept aside the rationalization is? There is no questioning of it, no wondering what other moral figleafs the government might be disseminating. Tt's all just swept aside when pointed out and a new justification which also utterly evades the question of civilian casualties is dropped in it's place.

And all of it represents a huge distraction from Israel's ongoing theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank.

When Ariel Sharon pulled Jewish settlers out of Gaza in 2005, he called it a painful sacrifice for peace. Another view was that he had run out of political options and the pull-out was a way to stave off international pressure to talk to the Palestinians. What the dismantling of the Gaza settlements did not do was end the expansion of colonies on the West Bank. Shilo has grown by about 25% since 2005. The "outposts" around it, which are illegal even under Israeli law, have been expanding so fast that the "Shilo block", with about 10,000 residents, is now as large as the main settlement that was dismantled in Gaza.

If Israel does not have a genuine peace partner among the Palestinians, the reverse is just as true - the Palestine does not have a genuine peace partner among the Israelis.

Meanwhile innocent civilians ON BOTH SIDES continue to pay a steep price for the moral and ethical bankruptcy of their "leaders".

Posted by Kevin at 02:34 AM |

January 10, 2009

GOP public enemy #1: Al Franken

"Republicans are gritting their teeth and bracing for the arrival of a new senator whose every utterance will sound like nails on a chalkboard to them," says Politico's Alexander Burns. I don't for a second doubt that he's absolutely right about that. But why?

Burns lists several reasons why Republicans so viscerally loath Franken, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of those reasons. I just feel the list is incomplete with respect to one particular reason. And that reason is absolutely central to why I no longer vote for or trust very many Republicans.

By early 2004 I had long since become deeply frustrated with George W. Bush, who I'd never liked or supported. But I still maintained my self-identification as a "centrist" and relied heavily upon a variety of specific and less specific beefs to justify not turning to Democrats with open arms despite my long-standing problems with the GOP. One of the big beefs that I had with Democrats at that point in time was the shamelessly politicized Paul Wellstone funeral a year and a half earlier. Nevertheless, I was fed up with Bush, wanted him out of the White House, and besides, by then I'd become a fan of Howard Dean.

So it was that I found myself frequently reading and commenting on a blog called Value Judgement that I'd found through another blog by and for political Independents (like me) who supported Dean's candidacy.

Along came a post on Value Judgement one day which mentioned Al Franken and I chimed in since I was a fan of his from his Saturday Night Live work. Interestingly enough that post is still there along with the comment thread I'd participated in. Here's the fateful exchange:

Franken is a riot! Very funny guy! I really enjoy listening to his show.

Posted by: Kevin@TIV at April 3, 2004 03:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin - be sure to read Lies and the Lying Liars; it's great. If you don't want to buy it, just go read the Wellstone chapter in the bookstore.

I haven't had the opportunity to listen to any of Air America yet; alas..

Posted by: J at April 3, 2004 06:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------

When I read J's reply I immediately thought to myself, "Aha! Finally a Lefty is going to call a spade a spade and not make politically expedient excuses for what happened at Wellstone's funeral!" Afterall, at the core of my beefs with both major political parties was the issue of trust, or rather the lack thereof. And so I promptly purchased a copy of Franken's book thinking that I'd get the honesty that I so craved. I still have it on my bookshelf.

Turns out that I and the rest of America had been sold a near total fabrication (aka - a lie) by Republicans - thus the very appropriate name of Franken's book. In fact, one of the GOP examples Franken dissects in the book is Christopher Caldwell's The Weekly Standard editorial viciously slamming the Dems for the Wellstone funeral.

The thing is... Caldwell perpetrated several outright lies in the editorial. And he did so having NEVER ATTENDED OR EVEN WATCHED the very funeral he attacked with such vengence - as Franken proves in the book. And Caldwell's was far from the most egregious example!

And on whose behalf did these reich-wing liars perpetrate their 100% politically motivated fraud? You got it! The very same Norm Coleman who had been running against Wellstone and who ended up winning against his last-minute replacement - former Vice President Walter Mondale, and who Franken is in the process of forcibly retiring... once the court appeals have run their course.

I submit that the GOP's visceral hatred of Al Franken is based on his having exposed them as the lying liars that they have proven themselves to be.

Update: It seems Minnesotans are getting tired of Norm Coleman.

Posted by Kevin at 04:52 PM |

Debunking the "equivalency" canard

Many times and in many places these last few days since Israel began bombing Gaza I have seen the charge of "equivalency" made against those who dare to point out that Israel too owns a portion of responsibility for the current relationship between Jews and Arabs in Palestine and Israel.

Undoubtedly it would be thrown down at the feet of the Palestinians cited in this McClatchy piece: In West Bank, there's anger at Hamas as well as at Israel. Or the Palestinian Authority's Foreign Minister cited in this AP piece accusing Israel and Hamas alike of having responded to the UN Security Council's call for an immediate ceasefire with "total disrespect."

Following is part of a comment I made over at Blue Oregon debunking this canard:

Pointing out the dictum that two wrongs don't make a right does not mean that there is any equivalence being posited. The perception of equivalence is the product of your a priori views.

To illustrate: I'm driving down the road exceeding the speed limit. A drunk driver swerves into my lane and I end up plowing into another car. The cops show up and quickly figure out that the other guy was in fact drunk. They also do their analysis and conclude from my skid marks and the accounts of witnesses that I in fact had been speeding. The drunk driver is written up and arrested. I'm written up and allowed to go home.

The involved insurance companies parse everything out and determine that both the drunk driver and myself are at fault, but it's not determined to be a 50/50 split in responsibility.

Pointing out that both myself and the drunk driver are combined 100% at fault for the damage done to the perfectly innocent 3rd driver's car logically implies precisely ZERO equivalence in fault between the drunk driver and myself.

Let's look at what the root word means.

equiv·a·lent
Pronunciation: \-lənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French, from Late Latin aequivalent-, aequivalens, present participle of aequivalēre to have equal power, from Latin aequi- + valēre to be strong — more at wield
Date: 15th century
1: equal in force, amount, or value ; also : equal in area or volume but not superposable [a square equivalent to a triangle]
2 a: like in signification or import b: having logical equivalence [equivalent statements]
3: corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function
4obsolete : equal in might or authority
5: having the same chemical combining capacity [equivalent quantities of two elements]
6 a: having the same solution set [equivalent equations] b: capable of being placed in one-to-one correspondence [equivalent sets] c: related by an equivalence relation

As we can plainly see, equivalence explicitly implies equality in force, amount or value. Pointing out Israel's portion of responsibility for the current mess does NOT imply equality either explicitly or implicitly - unless the person is making that explicit claim.

I've not yet seen a single example of anyone who is blaming both sides claiming that the blame/responsibility is equal in force, amount or value.

Thus, the "equivalency" charge is a canard. Which begs the question of why it is being made in the first place.

Posted by Kevin at 11:49 AM |

January 09, 2009

Best new blog of 2009

Hell yes: finally, a blog to account for bad political and campaign fundraising emails.

This holds a special place in my heart as, well, this stuff was a major part of my job with the Merkley campaign.

And I just got a little more proud of the work we did and what we accomplished.

There are only two entries so far, but this will be explosive if nurtured.

Posted by Ben at 11:01 PM |

Gaza Conflict Clarifies the Lure of Cultural Supremacy

As the events in Gaza have unfolded, I have found myself increasingly deeply conflicted. On the one hand, I believe Israel has a right – and responsibility – to stand up to Hamas. On the other hand, it is difficult to see “right” in the deaths of 700 virtually caged Palestinians, many of whom were children. Time has an excellent article on the conflict that seems to me to be as dispassionate as one can be about the unfolding tragedy on both sides of this ugly hate fest.

As I read the article earlier today, this statement stuck in my head, and as I've thought about it, it has brought some clarity to issues we have been facing right here at home:

...[O]minous for many Israelis is a ticking demographic time bomb: the likelihood that Arabs will vastly outnumber Jews in the land stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean is a catastrophic prospect for a nation that defines itself by its faith.

Is not the fear of a slow take-over via population growth the same sentiment behind the anti-Mexican voices we have been hearing so much in recent years? In fact, it has only been a couple of months since USA Today threw many Americans into a tizzy when it published an article saying that by 2047, members of the Caucasian race will be in the minority in the U.S. The changing demographics not only concern those of the white persuasion; other races who are losing political ground to Hispanics are also concerned.

If any of us could truly see all human beings as equal and all ways of life as equally valid, then this development would be absolutely no big deal. But if we're being honest with ourselves, we will admit that each of us does, in fact, believe our way is the best way and worthy of advancement. Yes, the truth is people generally want to impose their own way on others; ergo, whoever is the strongest can and will make the other conform. To a very real degree you can count on the “my way or the highway” mentality to be present and well-accounted for in virtually any conflict between human beings.

Thus, the concerns here in the U.S. about the so-called “Mexican Invasion” are really not so much a fear of “brown people” as they are a fear of loss of our culture - of our way of life as Americans.

I have also come to believe that it is a fear of the loss of culture that is at the root of the extreme antagonism of conservative Americans toward liberal Americans - who, incidentally, are equally convinced their way is the best and ought to be dominant.

Nothing highlights the motivating power of cultural domination more in my opinion than the recent presidential election. Had Barack Obama been more culturally “black,” he would not have been a palatable choice for dominant white America, who, thankfully, is increasingly able to look past differences in skin color. Thus, we were able to elect someone who shared the traditions and approach to life that feel "American" to the majority of us despite race. On the other hand, even white America could not bring itself to vote for Mitt Romney because his religion made him too culturally different from the majority Christian-influenced mainstream culture.

I believe the pressures in the Middle East will only continue to grow as the demographics change. And it will take a demographic solution to stop the mutual slaughter. One side will, by one means or another, have to finally, totally dominate the other by sheer force of numbers.

We can all be grateful that the cultural differences between our slow "invaders" from south of the border and Americans in general are not so great as those dividing the practitioners of Islam and Judaism in the Middle East today.

Posted by Becky at 02:31 PM |

Israel bombing rock-throwers?

(see update at the end of the post ~ Kev)

The UN's most senior human rights official wants a war crimes investigation of Israel.

OCHA said the incident took place on 4 January, a day after Israel began its ground offensive in Gaza. According to testimonies gathered by the UN, Israeli soldiers evacuated about 110 Palestinians to a single-storey house in Zeitoun. The evacuees were instructed to stay indoors for their safety but 24 hours later the Israeli army shelled the house. About half the Palestinians sheltering in the house were children, OCHA said. The report also complains that the Israeli Defence Force prevented medical teams from entering the area to evacuate the wounded.

Meanwhile it seems that everyone wants a ceasefire... except Israel and Hamas. The NYT piece contains a very curious sentence which seems like it has to be a typo, but perhaps not.

"Israeli warplanes attacked rock-launching sites..."

Given the reasons cited for launching it's attack on Gaza it seems more likely that the reference should have been to rockET-launching sites. But that's far from a foregone conclussion given that Israel has never had a problem with pitting advanced military hardware against kids throwing rocks.




Remind you of anything? Like maybe... Tienanmen Square a few years back?

Suffice to say that the pictures of the resulting dead bodies look remarkably similar as well.

Surprising nobody, Charles Krauthammer suggests that the only reasonable end-game for Gaza will rubberstamp both Israel's grievances and objectives (in Gaza and elsewhere) while utterly ignoring everything else. Of course he doesn't say it in so many words, but that's the substance of it whether he's honest about it or not.

Lastly, almost as if they'd read my post a few days ago about the disconnect between America's political elites and what polling has consistently shown the American people believe, Reuters observes that few in Congress speak out for Palestinians, while frequently expressing unqualified support for the Israelies, and yet somehow think that we can nevertheless be viewed as objective, honest brokers of peace between the two warring sides.

Update: Another in a string of disturbing allegations that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians - 100 Survivors Rescued in Gaza From Ruins Blocked by Israelis

Posted by Kevin at 11:01 AM |

Yum yum, secret lists

Ah, the Oregonian editorial board certainly knows what buttons to press....

The Portland Police Bureau has a secret weapon called The List, containing 373 names. It's potentially dangerous, powerful -- and also extremely effective...

The very idea of a secret list alarms some civil libertarians, of course, and you can see why. This week, in fact, the American Civil Liberties Union has been challenging the constitutionality of the list in Multnomah County Circuit Court. Critics say the list shouldn't be secret, that it should reflect only conviction data (not arrests) and that the district attorney's office shouldn't use the list as it does now to intensify penalties. And the critics may be right....

But it also may be that the civil libertarians are working off an old model, in which a secret list of names inevitably breeds abuses. The reality is that this list epitomizes community policing. It's used to connect frequent offenders to services, and help them turn their lives around...

Way to take a bold stance there, Oregonian.

This is the same, disjointed editorial board that endorsed Barack Obama's promising wave of hope and change... and then turned right around and said we needed to hold the course with Gordon Smith in the U.S. Senate race.

In an era of awful intelligence, is it just me or is our paper bending over backwards to defend this program? Remember, this is the era where abuses weren't just "inevitably bred" - they were engineered quick and dirty, and on a widespread scale.

Posted by Ben at 09:02 AM |

January 08, 2009

Florida - BCS Champs, but not national champs

I agree with Dan Wetzel that the BCS system, flaws and all, is THE system right now and that whomever wins the BCS championship game tonight will legitimately be champions. But I strongly disagree that that makes them "national champions." It only makes them "BCS champions."

Florida has defeated Oklahoma 24-14 tonight and won the BCS championship.

They are not legit national champion. To claim otherwise is to engage in self-delusion. Utah is the ONLY major college football team to take on all comers and come out on top every single time. Florida simply cannot make the same claim.

So, congrats to the Gators for a well-played game. They'll just have to be content with being BCS champs. If they truly want to be able to claim to be "national" champs then they're going to have to arrange to meet the Utes on the field of battle in the near future and prove it. Nothing else will suffice.

Posted by Kevin at 09:13 PM |

Taking on the Righties and the Lefties

Political Party Pooper is bravely engaged in what some may well consider a foolhardy endeaver - attempting to bridge the gap between Left and Right by bringing some perspective to the positions of each.

Granted that perspective is usually a pretty subjective thing. That's just the nature of the beast, IMO, and ought not be used to dismiss the attempt out-of-hand just because one may not agree with the proffered perspective.

All of that said..., the cartoon at the top of this post earlier today is absolutely priceless! It's one of the funniest political cartoons I can remember ever seeing.

Anyway, cruise on over to Political Party Pooper and check out the two posts put up today - one taking on the Right and the other taking on the Left.

Posted by Kevin at 12:24 PM |

Children Ought not be Sacrificed on the Altar of Stupidity

I don’t understand the psychology behind people’s belief that they should not seek medical attention when ill, but should instead rely solely on prayer. It is an issue that will be widely discussed this year, as two cases in which members of an Oregon City church allowed children to die of treatable medical conditions that, in their view, God in his infinite wisdom apparently decided should best be left to run their course. I'm sure they believe he just wanted a couple more beautiful children to be with him in Heaven. Since 1999, this sort of idiocy has been against Oregon law, as well it should be. Children are not property; they have a right to live and that right supersedes the rights of their parents to believe in whatever cockamamie religion they want.

I say “cockamamie” because this belief in faith healing is on its face contrary to the Bible. For instance, consider the example of the Good Samaritan – a man whose actions were praised by Jesus himself. When he came across the injured man, he didn’t pray for God’s healing. He engaged in medical care. "He bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.”

Jesus himself made a statement so plain that it amazes me these people can’t grasp it. It is a statement recorded in three of the four Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He said, “Healthy people don't need a physician, but sick people do.” And let’s not forget that Luke was himself a physician.

Now get this: even in Heaven, the Bible says, God will provide “medicine” for his people. Revelation 22:2 describes the Tree of Life in Heaven: “On either side of the river, midway between it and the main street of the city, was the Tree of Life. It produced twelve kinds of fruit, yielding a fresh crop month by month, and the leaves of the tree served as medicine for the nations.” Ezekiel 47:12 describes the same tree in Heaven: “And by the river, upon its bank, on the one side and on the other, shall grow all trees for food, whose leaf shall not fade, nor their fruit fail: it shall bring forth new fruit every month, for its waters issue out of the sanctuary; and the fruit thereof shall be for food, and the leaf thereof for medicine.”

Christians believe there are certain “gifts” – talents – that God gives to each person. These are to be used to serve others. The ability and desire to heal people is an amazing gift – one that I certainly do not have, but which I deeply appreciate. I believe that God has provided the human race with everything we need to take care of ourselves. These believers in faith healing are choosing to remain as helpless as babies rather than behaving as adults. They want their “daddy” God to miraculously take care of everything they need, and are unwilling to behave as adults and take care of their own needs using the tools he has provided. If they want to sacrifice their own health and lives on the altar of stupidity, I have no problem with it. But placing their children’s lives in jeopardy is criminal. I hope the Court sees it that way, too.

Posted by Becky at 11:13 AM |

Hamas from the Arab perspective

I present here for your perusal a couple of news commentary pieces I found and which I feel are important to understand if one wishes to understand the wider context behind the daily news from Gaza.

First is this commentary which pulls no punches in labeling Hamas as "extremism."

Note the lead graphic above this first commentary - a Palestinian flag dripping blood and with a dead "peace" dove. The symbolism here is important. If the author wished to lay all the blame at the feet of Israel than it would have shown an Israeli flag dripping blood.

Second is this commentary which points out the deep antipathy towards and distrust of Hamas by Arab governments. Along these lines it needs to be pointed out that the severe economic blockade of Gaza has been employed by more than just Israel. Egypt has fully participated in it as well.

In addition I'd like to throw in a couple of "hard news" pieces from the same source.

Rightwing blogs have been stumbling over themselves pointing to alleged psychological warfare (aka propaganda) being waged by Hamas, and I've pointed to some being waged by Israel. This piece points to examples from both sides. And, as always happens, kids pay a heavy price.

Posted by Kevin at 10:56 AM |

You gotta see these

I stumbled across a really cool site the other day: Propaganda Posters Pictures Gallery. Apparently it's part of some sort of themed Photoshop contest. This one I've linked to apparently requires submitted entries to be done in the style commonly used in 1929 and the subject matter has to have something to do with a news story. All of them are really, really good and many are quite funny too.

My favorites are this one slamming Wal-Mart for selling products made with slave labor, and especially this one which you'll need to see to really appreciate. I could copy the entries and post them here but out of respect admiration for the intellectual property rights of these very talented and creative people I've chosen just to link to them instead.

I found the site because down at the bottom of the page it links to various current web pieces using the word "propaganda" and I recently wrote just such a post.

Posted by Kevin at 10:34 AM |

January 07, 2009

Disgusting

A woman protester at a pro-Palestinian rally in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida shouted "Go back to the oven" at participants in a smaller pro-Israeli counter-protest across the street.

"She does not represent the opinions of the vast majority of people who were there," said Emmanuel Lopez, who helped plan the event, one of many sponsored nationwide on Dec. 30 by the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism ) Coalition.

Lopez, a state coordinator for ANSWER, admitted there is a problem with anti-Semitism within his organization's ranks. But then he went on to call the supporters of Israel across the street "barbaric, racist" Zionist terrorists.

Both accusations are, in my considered opinion, true for far too many on both sides. Not for most. But that doesn't excuse the sheep on both sides who turn a blind eye to the racism on their own side.

I understand that this is a very highly emotionally-charged issue for many on both sides. And I'd like to believe that many of them will say things in the heat-of-the-moment that they would probably freely express regret over after the emotions have been spent and cooler heads have prevailed. But that's only believable up to a certain point, IMHO. Suggesting that genocide ought to be committed against members of either ethnic group goes way, way, way beyond that line.

Anyway, I just wanted to aknowledge this incident - having first read about it a few minutes ago - because I've been pretty unremitting in my criticism of the pro-Israeli side and the fact is that there are bad actors on both sides and that absolutely does need to be articulated and aknowledged in a very public way.

Posted by Kevin at 08:42 PM |

Fastest in the West: Portland gets WiMax

ChannelWeb reports:

Portland's up to speed. About four months after Baltimore became the first U.S. city to receive a full-on WiMax rollout, Clearwire on Tuesday announced the debut of "Clear," its 4G WiMax wireless broadband service, to Portland, Ore. At its basic level, the open network provides average download speeds of 2Mbps to 4Mbps.

Reportedly it covers a 700-square-mile area that potentially serves about 1.7 million people.

Posted by Kevin at 02:38 PM |

More Proof that Frankenfoods Can Harm You

The Organic Consumers Association has just put together a sobering article about three 2008 studies that “confirm genetically modified crops damage human health and the environment.”

Although genetically modified (GM) corn is banned in most of the world, it has been approved as "safe" for human consumption in the U.S. for 12 years and is now likely unknowingly consumed, in one form or another, by more than 90% of Americans on a regular basis. But a recent series of peer-reviewed studies were published in 2008 confirming previous studies indicating potentially severe health and environmental problems associated with the biotech crops.

The studies include:

One by the Austrian government finding that consumption of GM corn, for as little as 20 weeks, can damage the reproductive system, lower fertility rates and increase illness and death rates in offspring. Not surprisingly, Monsanto tried to block the research.

Another study was done in Mexico, where it was found that some popular varieties of GM corn impaired the learning response of bees. Scientists are concerned this may be an indicator of the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder, which threatens even human survival.

A third study found a direct connection between consumption of GM corn and a damaged immune system.

You don’t have to eat this stuff. The best way to avoid most GM foods is to use products voluntarily label themselves as GMO or GE-free or buy organic. You can also avoid most of it by staying away from non-organic products that contain corn, fructose, dextrose, glucose, modified food starch, soy-anything, vegetable oil, vegetable protein, canola oil, cottonseed oil, or sugar from sugar beets.

Posted by Becky at 02:36 PM |

But of course...

Having long since become used to being the exception that proves the rule, I wasn't the least bit surprised to hear a segment on the news about a British study which found that men with brothers are more likely to have sons, and those with sisters appear to have more daughters.

Naturally, I have two brothers but no sisters. And I have two daughters but no sons. Neither of my brothers have kids so I'm the sole example from my family.

I have a mild case of Seasonal Affective Disorder (aka Winter Blues) which, naturally, afflicts woman more commonly than men. And a couple years ago I was diagnosed with Graves Disease (aka hyperthyroid), again, much more common in women than men.

The catalyst which finally led to me being referred to an endocrinologist - who subsequently made the Graves Disease diagnosis official - was a periodic episode where I'd wake up and have almost no control over my legs... which was a bit frightening and confusing, as you might imagine. Turns out that was caused by a particular side effect of Graves Disease wherein excessive carbohydrate intake causes a depletion in some component necessary for basic nerve function. For whatever reason, it most commonly manifests itself in the extremities.

Naturally, the endocrinologist told me that I was the very first man he'd ever heard of having this particular side effect.

Gee, isn't it swell to be... special.

Posted by Kevin at 02:05 PM |

Christianity Today tackles Virginity Pledges

Earlier this morning Christianity Today published an article on it's website reviewing in positive terms the recent research showing that Virginity Pledges not only don't work but may actually be dangerous.

I'm not sure how widely read or accepted this magazine is in evangelical/fundamentalist circles but on the whole I'd say that this article is a hopeful development for American teens.

The author - Tobin Grant, an associate professor of political science at Southern Illinois University Carbondale - floats what he freely admits is merely a "hunch" as to why those who do take virginity pledges are more likely to have unprotected sex when they do have sex.

Perhaps (and this is only a hunch) when a teen takes a virginity pledge, parents consider it a fait accompli ("mission accomplished"), and thus don't provide continued sex education to their children.

Perhaps so. But I will float my own alternative hunch. Which is that it (perhaps) has more to do with a type of rationalization not unlike how Bill Clinton sought to rationalize fellatio as somehow not a sex act. Having taken a virginity pledge with (presumably) the best of intentions, the teen rationalizes an association between preventative measures and "sex" and so deludes him/herself into thinking that not using protection means that they aren't really violating the pledge.

This isn't such an outlandish hunch. I remember well my best friend in highschool telling me about taking his girlfiend's virginity. She - an evangelical of exactly the sort who I would expect to take a virginity pledge - expressed reservations about where their heavy petting was headed. But he molified her with the fiction that if he used a plastic sandwich bag (the closest thing to a condom he had available at the time) that there would be no actual physical contact "down there" and thus that she wouldn't be having sex.

Now, I know this girl (now a woman and, last I heard, his wife) and she was not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. But the hormones were already raging in them both and she willingly accepted his rationalization.

Granted, in this example a rather crude form of protection was used, and that makes it a somewhat different situation from what the virginity pledge study found. But the point is how readily both of them rationalized away the whole "virginity" thing.

Posted by Kevin at 01:05 PM |

Love Your Neighbor? Or Wish Him Dead?

If you've never read the Jesus' General blog, you're missing out on a Steven Colbert-style approach to conservatism (especially the Religious Right) that is just priceless. Even being conservative, I enjoy the healthy comedic roast these two dish out. Today's post by Gen. J.C. Christian, however, tackles a sorry case of the sort that make me wonder how the General can retain his sense of humor. One Matthew Stucky from the Faithful World Baptist Church is being anything but a loving Christian in expressing his feelings toward homosexuals.

I would be overjoyed if every single queer in the entire world died today. The Bible makes it clear they are reprobates who are past the point of salvation. The Bible also makes it clear they are rapists & very wicked people. They have no chance to get saved and no saved person could ever become a queer. Therefore, I would be overjoyed if they all died tonight & our government would actually follow what the Bible states. The death penalty should be enacted for the queers.

It's another sad example of distortion of the teachings of Jesus, not to mention the sort of religious-based hatred that keeps the world in turmoil.

Posted by Becky at 09:08 AM |

More Israeli Jews speak out against Israel's mistreatment of Gaza

Yesterday it was Avi Shlaim with How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe. Today it's Victoria Buch with The History and "Morals" of Ethnic Cleansing.

Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army and has never questioned the state's legitimacy. But its merciless assault on Gaza has led him to devastating conclusions:

The only way to make sense of Israel's senseless war in Gaza is through understanding the historical context. Establishing the state of Israel in May 1948 involved a monumental injustice to the Palestinians. British officials bitterly resented American partisanship on behalf of the infant state. On 2 June 1948, Sir John Troutbeck wrote to the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". I used to think that this judgment was too harsh but Israel's vicious assault on the people of Gaza, and the Bush administration's complicity in this assault, have reopened the question.

I write as someone who served loyally in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s and who has never questioned the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. What I utterly reject is the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the June 1967 war had very little to do with security and everything to do with territorial expansionism. The aim was to establish Greater Israel through permanent political, economic and military control over the Palestinian territories. And the result has been one of the most prolonged and brutal military occupations of modern times.

The whole "Greater Israel" goal was part and parcel of the ideology of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was so odiously racist that he was shunned and his political party was banned in the very same Israel which Avi Shlaim is (justly IMHO) criticizing here. Yet who do the rhetorically jack-booted Israeli apologists here in America appeal to in making their arguments? Rabbi Meir Kahane. And as if to test the absurd extremities of glib irony, this one throws in the "anti-semite" charge against all who disagree for good measure.

Victoria Buch is an Israeli academic and anti-Occupation activist.

I arrived in Israel 40 years ago. It took me many years to understand that the very existence of my country, as it is today, is based on an ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The project started many years ago. Its seed can be traced to the basic fallacy of the Zionist movement, which set out to establish a Jewish-national state in a location already inhabited by another nation. Under these conditions, one has, at most, a moral right to strive for a bi-national state; establishing a national state implies, more or less by definition, ethnic cleansing of the previous inhabitants.

Albert Einstein grasped this fallacy a long time ago. A short time after WWI "Einstein complained that the Zionists were not doing enough to reach agreement with the Palestinian Arabs…He favored a binational solution in Palestine and warned Chaim Weizmann against `Prussian style` nationalism"

I recognize that my continuing to harp on this subject is probably an exercise in futility. The harsh reality is that racism is a seamy underbelly of far more of our fellow humans than we'd like to believe. I have repeatedly and consistently repudiated Hamas and it's bloodthirsty ideology and I'm doing so yet again here. Hamas is racist, bloodthirsty and ultimately bears enormous responsibility for the suffering of Gazans. Nothing mitigates that self-evident reality. Neither does anything mitigate the somewhat kinder and gentler, but nonetheless bloodthirsty, racism of Zionists which more and more Israeli Jews like Shlaim and Buch are pointing out.

A pox on all their houses!

If only it were so easily dismissed. But it's not. MY tax dollars are funding the racist ideology of one side and MY national leaders continue to offer rhetorical aid and comfort to one side. That makes it MY ongoing problem whether I like it or not. But as futile as my insignificant pushback here may be, I'm at a loss as to how to more effectively pushback.

Posted by Kevin at 01:50 AM |

January 06, 2009

Panetta, Papa Bush and JFK

I'm intrigued by Obama's pick of Leon Panetta to head the CIA. I've kind of vacillated in my opinion of it as I've read the comments on Carla's post at Blue Oregon. But my initial reaction was to echo the concern expressed by such diverse individuals as Senator Diane Feinstein and Pat Buchanan - what qualifies Panetta for such a job?

But then I read a comment citing a TPM post which quotes an email from a long-time veteran of the CIA expressing approval of the Panetta pick. Which got me to thinking that Papa Bush (aka George H. W. Bush, Bush 41, etc.) was appointed by President Ford to head the CIA without any obvious intel experience and he seemed to do an at least adequate job of it. So that sent me to Google because I couldn't remember exactly when he'd been appointed - whether it was Nixon or Ford who appointed him. And since I was considering writing a post about it I wanted to do some fact checking first.

Surprise, surprise, surprise! I found something that I was wholly unprepared for.

The conventional history for Papa Bush says that from 1954 through 1964 he was president of an oil company... and nothing more. But apparently some believe that he was secretly working for the CIA during that period. Which would obviously cast his later appointment in a much different light. But that's not the crazy part.

The crazy part (or is it?) is the allegation that Papa Bush was directly involved in the assasination of JFK in 1963. Well... not directly involved in the actual assasination. Rather than he was a member of the CIA cover-up squad who immediately sprang into action to blame it on Oswald.

They even have a photo of what appears to be a memo from FBI Director Hoover dated exactly one week after JFK's assasination naming "George Bush" by name as the member of the CIA who delivered some intel to Hoover concerning expatriot Cubans living in Miami and their feelings about JFK having been assasinated.

Now, if you accept that Papa Bush really was a CIA agent in 1963 then it's just a short hop, skip and a jump to believing that he was earlier involved in the Bay of Pigs fiasco and later involved in Watergate - which is exactly what this site alleges.

All of this still leaves the question of Panetta's qualifications an open question. But... holy crap, batman! Papa Bush involved with JFK's assasination!?!?

If I were still a drinking man I think I'd be pouring myself a stiff one right about now.

Posted by Kevin at 04:02 PM |

The Early Days of a Better Nation

First off: hello there! I'm Ben, and I'm the newest contributor here at Preemptive Karma.

When Kevin asked me to join this blog, I was flattered. I've always considered the writers and discussions here some of the most robust and exciting in the Oregon blogosphere.

You can read my bio to get a sense of who I am, but I'll sum it up briefly: I'm a young gun Democratic political operative, former blogger at the now-defunct Witigonen.com, and came to Portland because of the lush green spaces and sustainability (and for the progressive politics).

I'll get this all started, though, by giving you a few thoughts about new Portland Mayor Sam Adams, who was sworn in yesterday and delivered a speech which gives us a lot to chew over.

One line Sam has been using since the inception of his campaign comes from the Scottish writer Alasdair Gray: work like you live in the early days of a better nation.

For Sam, this means working as hard as he can to bring shape and progress to Portland, to have passion for that change, and to never stop trying to improve something we all love dearly.

In his inaugural speech, Sam riffed on this theme in three areas: jobs, education, and sustainability. These are his stated priorities, and he gave us a sense of his vision for each.

For jobs, he wants to build off of the success at bringing Vestas to Portland by putting forward an "economic stimulus package" for the city. I have no idea what form this will take. And it had better be more than throwing money at the problem (like our national government did in the $700 billion stimulus package - which I opposed). But I know Sam: he has the smartest people working on this, and I'm confident he'll surprise with his creativity.

As for education, this one is very, very tricky. The dropout rate amongst Portland 8th graders is something close to 50%. This is an abomination and just so discouraging. But Sam's identified it, and wants to do something about it. An idea he threw out yesterday is to introduce up-and-coming students to the workforce via a jobs/schools/mentors partnership. Sounds good to me - any idea that can inspire a kid to stick it out and give them an eye to the future is fine by me. But this one will be hard, really hard.

And his third priority is sustainability. Portland is already top-notch in this area, but Sam wants us to be the best in the world. With that in-mind, he announced a partnership with Governor Ted Kulongoski and the Oregon university system to begin work on an Oregon Sustainability Center based out of Portland State. The budget money, if I'm not mistaken, would come as a line-item in the Governor's proposed budget.

So there you have it. I'm encouraged by where Sam wants to take our city, but he did stress one thing that really impressed me: he needs our help. He's going to be forming a citizen's mayoral cabinet, he wants us to volunteer our time, and to give back to our city as we can. Indeed, he closed his speech by borrowing from Harvey Milk and saying he was "here to recruit us."

And isn't that the most important part of government, anyway? Without citizen involvement and public participation, government just doesn't work. And I honestly believe Sam (with the help of Amanda Fritz) is going to make it an A-1 priority for our city.

If you want a different take on the events, take a hop over to Blogtown and see what Matt Davis has to say.

Posted by Ben at 12:20 PM |

The Israeli Propaganda War

Today's news that a second UN school in Gaza has been bombed by Israel (30-40 dead, 50-60 wounded) underscores the fig-leaf Israel has offered.

Israel has help up it's phone calls to individual Palestinians warning of an impending nearby bombing as evidence that they, unlike Hamas, are being careful to avoid harming civilian non-combatants.

But where are those Palestinians supposed to flee to?

There have been numerous reports of Palestinians so warned who fled, only to have to flee again and again because wherever they fled to was no safer.

Israel could allow them to flee into Israel, but hasn't and most assuredly won't. Instead, Palestinians are forced to flee from place to place like caged rats. Egypt has similarly declined to allow Palestinians to flee into Egypt. But while that failure has been held up by Israel's apologists as evidence that Arabs truly don't care about the plight of the Palestinians, not a word has been said about Israel's virtually identical refusal. And there is a crucial legal difference between the two. As the occupying power the onus is on Israel, not Egypt, to safeguard civilian non-combatants.

And let's be honest here. Even Israel estimates that Hamas forces only total about 20,000. There are 1.5 MILLION Gazans caged like rats.

Similarly, Israel has denied that there is a huge and growing humanitarian crisis brewing among civilian non-combatants in Gaza. Their evidence? That they are allowing "vital supplies" to cross border checkpoints. But how are Gazan civilians supposed to benefit from any of it if there is no functioning distribution system to distribute said supplies?

If civilians fleeing for their lives are unable to reliably find safety then how can anyone assume that these supplies are somehow magically immune to the very same conditions?

And then there is Israel's siege of Gaza which predates by many months the Hamas decision to not renew it's cease-fire a few weeks ago.

Israel says it won't stop the assault until its southern towns are freed of the threat of Palestinian rocket fire and it receives international guarantees that Hamas, a militant group backed by Iran and Syria, will not restock its weapons stockpile. - AP

Early in Israel's bombing campaign they destroyed dozens of tunnels connecting Gaza and Egypt. The reason? To prevent Hamas from re-arming.

Why were those tunnels dug in the first place? Multiple first-hand accounts and lots of hard evidence (photographs, video footage, etc.) exists showing that anything from concrete to chickens to cows to construction steel (rebar) to a vast array of consumer electronics were being smuggled through those tunnels. One was apparently dedicated to piping in petroleum products for generators because Israel was attempting to economically strangle the entire Gaza strip.

Why was Israel attempting to economically strangle the entire Gaza strip? It predates Hamas having seized control of Gaza from Fatah. The impetus for it was as punishment for Palestinians having held democratic elections - just as Israel and the Bush administration demanded they do - and democratically electing someone other than who Olmert and Bush wanted. So Olmert and Bush decided to punish all of them for having practiced the very democracy which it is widely alleged that only Israel practices in the region. Which is more propaganda. But I digress...

Now, if Israel had truly wanted to minimize weapons and weapons-related materials from entering Gaza rather than punishing the entire population then wouldn't it have made a great deal more sense to allow the import of consumer goods through border crossings and simply check more stringently for contraband?

And then there is the ceasefire itself.

Israel and her allies (Bush) have consistently pointed at Hamas as the responsible party for the ceasefire having not been maintained and for missles having been lobbed into Israel prior to the ceasefire expiring. But the truth is that Israel violated the ceasefire in early November. That violation predictably sparked a wave of missles to be launched into Israel by Hamas as punishment for Israel having violated the ceasefire. But Israel smuggly presumed that they could get away with it,

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, had personally approved the Gaza raid, the Associated Press said. The Israeli military concluded that Hamas was likely to want to continue the ceasefire despite the raid, it said. The ceasefire was due to run for six months and it is still unclear whether it will stretch beyond that limit. (emphasis supplied)

You won't hear about any of this from Israel or her apologists. They uniformly point to Hamas as the ONLY party bearing responsibility.

And that is nothing more than progaganda.

Posted by Kevin at 11:26 AM |

January 05, 2009

Ballot Title Shopping

The Oregonian yesterday ran an opinion piece by Rick Attig regarding the ending of the practice of ballot title shopping. This is a topic I've addressed before, more than once (in fact, I've written about it more than twice!). So I was very gratified to read Bill Campbell's comments on the causes of ballot title shopping, posted in response to Attig's editorial.

I would hate to see Campbell's comments lost to the Oregonian's archives along with Attig's editorial, so I'm reproducing here what he wrote:

This past cycle I was part of the Open Primary initiative. We filed it in June of 2007, more than a year ahead of the filing deadline for signature submittal. But we only wound up with about 5 months to gather signatures.

The delay, the broken part of this process, is the ballot title process. If we fixed it, there would be far less need for Sizemore to flood the system with slightly alternate versions hoping for a decent title.

The process now is badly designed. The AG writes a title, and only those who respond are allowed to appeal. So you respond, just in case; in our case, it was fine, and we basically said so in our response.

But your opponents also respond; in our case their responses were filled with things with which we powerfully disagreed. However, we had no opportunity to counter them before the AG revised the original, decent title -- not because we didn't want to, but because the process doesn't allow for it.

The title the AG then came up with was from our perspective terrible -- but there's no recourse except to file with the Oregon Supreme Court. You can imagine how much THEY like getting these appeals.

At the Supreme Court, the AG was not a neutral party -- they were defending their ballot title (the one we didn't like). That's because in that part of the process, they see themselves then as lawyers defending the state, instead of public officials trying to get it right. And the court is programmed to defer to the AG.

In our case a key issue was the use of the term "open primary" in the ballot title. Those of you who voted this last election know it didn't appear. Well, it DID appear in the original AG ballot title draft, right on the first line. The AG decided to take it out because the opposition presented arguments which we had no opportunity to counter -- till we got to the Supreme Court, where the deck is stacked in favor of the then-AG-final version.

The other problem with the ballot title process is it takes way, way too long. The rules in the Supreme Court would require the briefing schedule to be completed quite quickly -- but the court pretty much ignored the schedule whenever someone asked it to. In one case it granted a 28 day extension to a brief that was supposed to be filed in five days -- an extension granted in response to a request filed on the fifth day! Even after briefing, the court is supposed to decide these titles promptly. But in our case it took three months after briefing was complete, and then another month for motions to reconsider and whatnot.

To be fair to the court -- they were only doing what they always do. They give litigants extensions routinely, because almost always, the time doesn't really matter very much; it's very very rare for anything important to depend on when they make their decision. This is why Courts are a terrible actor to ask to fix election matters -- the time matters a LOT, and the court is not institutionally set up to deal with it.

What's important here is that each month it takes to get a valid ballot title is a month that you cannot use to gather signatures (you can't gather signatures till you have a valid ballot title.) And it's another month delay in the time when you can get people to write you checks that take advantage of the Oregon tax deduction for political contributions -- because till you're on the ballot, you can't qualify for that deduction. So the seven months it took to get us a valid ballot title reduced our signature gathering window to basically five months -- not very much time to find the more than 100,000 people you need to get the 80k+ valid signatures to get things on the ballot.

The result of this lengthy, highly litigious, very expenseive process isn't a good ballot title, just a "legally valid" one. In our case, most people who read our title found it very confusing -- and it was. And it turns out that most people who vote on ballot measures only read the first line of the ballot title anyway. If they'd read ours, they would never have known it related to the open primary.

So I understand why Sizemore does what he does. The existing ballot title process is horrible, and there's too much riding on it. Anyone who engages in it thinking we have a nice procss that will get him a fair title, is nuts.

We have to decide in this state if we're going to preserve to ourselves an initiative process that works, in which case we should review the whole thing from top to bottom. There are serious problems with it in all kinds of places.

But frankly the easiest to fix is the ballot title process.

Have the AG first draft a title, then allow written comments opposing, then written comments on the opposition arguments, then a second AG draft, and then a repeat to a final.

Require that every comment include its own draft ballot title, and be less than ten pages, or it would not be considered. (Remember the entire ballot title is less than 250 words long!)

Doing this would mean that each of the AG's drafts: initial, interim, final -- was informed with a balanced view of the opinions of those who cared, and also the AG would be a "neutral" party each time. That doesn't happen now.

Court review of that final should be limited to a 45 day schedule, with briefs filed by each of the "yea" and "nay" sides on the same day kicking off the process. Answering briefs ten days later, no extensions, and reply briefs five days later, no extensions. The court then given thirty days to rule. The ruling would not be a rewriting of the title; it would just be a "court finds title good" or "not good" result; not good sends back to the AG, for another round.

Silence by the court would be the same as validation of the AG's final title.

Nobody has listened to reason on this issue, and it's a shame because it may now be too late to ever really fix the initiative process. Apparently, playing politics has been far easier and maybe even more important to our legislators than doing the right thing.

Posted by Becky at 04:26 PM |

Breasts: Baby Bottles or Boobies?

Kevin has brought to my attention a fascinating debate that is raging right now over Facebook’s decision to remove photographs of mothers breast feeding their children if any portion of the nipple or areola is showing. As one can easily imagine, breast-feeding mothers and advocates are outraged and are engaging in a variety of protest activities. Time has a piece on the debate that highlights the absurdities involved in society’s view of breasts, and particularly of nipples, and the appropriateness of their public exposure. I find the whole controversy both humorous and revealing (no pun intended).

[P]lunging necklines or string bikinis are fine — just no nips.

I’m a tad on the conservative side here. I breast-fed both of my children, one until about 14 months and the other until 11 months when, to my dismay, he decided he was finished with it. I fed them in public all the time, but I always draped a light blanket over myself so as to avoid making others uncomfortable and only rarely did anyone around me realize what was occurring. It wasn’t that I felt I was morally superior in any way, but rather that I didn’t want others’ titillation coloring that precious mothering experience with my babies. Most Americans are perfectly comfortable with the motherly sweetness of an infant nursing, but the second that baby lets go, the breast magically transforms from bottle to booby. God willing, all the protesting and “education” won't ever change that, because having something that is both utilitarian and that much fun is a rare gift indeed.

Women have undergone an interesting transition in their views toward breasts and breast-feeding over the past several generations. My great grandmother nursed her own children and would have had no problem working as a wet nurse for another woman’s infant if that woman could not nurse her own baby. But she would never have done so in front of men; in fact, she was the most modest person I've ever known. My grandmother probably would not have nursed another’s infant, as the bottle had become a viable option, but she nursed her own children and was less obsessed with modesty. My mother’s generation (but thankfully not my mother) often opted for the bottle over the breast, and many viewed breasts as purely sexual objects, while breastfeeding was seen as somehow undignified at best, and downright disgusting and indecent at worst.

Happily, breastfeeding has made a comeback. Unhappily, many women today have swung the pendulum to the opposite extreme of where my mother’s generation stood on the matter, viewing breasts as purely utilitarian organs and denying the sexual effect they have on many men when displayed in public. As a result, society today is terribly mixed up on this whole matter. (Now, I don’t doubt that some men today are perfectly capable of seeing a woman breast-feeding in public without being aroused by the display of the breast and, especially, the nipple. But I don’t know any such men and tend to think a fair bit of denial would have to be involved.)

As Time points out:

When a tabloid website catches a star like Britney Spears, Keira Knightley or Tara Reid in a red-carpet "nip slip," traffic goes through the roof, as Web surfers click to catch a glimpse of the forbidden bit of skin.

It is perhaps understandable that we'd be so enflamed by the sight of women's nipples because we see them so rarely. Barbie dolls don't have nipples. Magazines routinely airbrush out nipples on fully clothed (but presumably chilly) models.

… Meanwhile, men's nipples aren't a problem. Recent photos of President-elect Barack Obama walking shirtless on a beach were greeted with puns about how he is "fit to be President," "buff-bodied" and "chiseled."

And perhaps the surest sign that "pregnant man" Thomas Beatie has been accepted as a man — even though he still has female sex organs and the ability to deliver a baby — is the fact that his nipples, the same ones he had when he was a woman, are suddenly O.K. to look at. They are acceptable features for the cover of a book, the pages of a magazine —and the profile photos for the Facebook groups supporting him.

Personally, I’m not bothered by breast-feeding in public, even when a nipple is plainly visible, but then I’m about as heterosexual as a woman can be. My husband, on the other hand, gets downright ecstatic over such events. And that’s fine – I’m happy to see him enjoying himself and find it rather funny, actually. The only problem I really have with it is when the women who are doing the public breast-feeding want to deny the reality that their breasts will be viewed by some as boobies, and not as baby bottles. I think if you’re going to hang it out there, then you’re going to have to be prepared to have it gawked at, and you shouldn’t get indignant about it. If it bothers you that men can't get past the sexual aspect of the breast, then do what I did when it bothered me to have sexuality intruding on my "baby" time – cover up.

Posted by Becky at 01:14 PM |

Israel using human shields?

Apparently Israel Defense Forces have decided to adopt Hamas' alleged tactics and are effectively using Palestinian hostages as a human shield from which to fire on Hamas agents and whomever else they decide to fire on.

Israeli troops seized three six-story buildings on the outskirts of Gaza City, taking up rooftop positions after locking residents in rooms and taking away their cell phones, a neighbor said, quoting a relative in one of the buildings who called before his phone was taken away.

"The army is there, firing in all directions," said Mohammed Salmai, a 29-year-old truck driver. "All we can do is take clothes to each other to keep ourselves warm and pray to God that if we die, someone will find our bodies under the rubble." - AP

Obviously, if Hamas were to adopt IDF tactics and just bomb the buildings into piles of rubble - something they appear capable of - then any civilians locked in rooms inside would very likely die too - effectively making them human shields.

In the glibest of irony,

Maj. Avital Leibovich, an Israeli military spokeswoman, said Hamas was to blame for civilian casualties because it operates in densely populated areas.

"If Hamas chose cynically to use those civilians as human shields, then Hamas should be accountable," she said. "Civilians will probably continue to get killed, unfortunately, because Hamas put them in the first lines of fire."

Sickening...

Posted by Kevin at 11:44 AM |

January 04, 2009

The acid-test for the idealistic liberal

A guy who won a $10.5 million lottery in Belgium is giving up to half of it to the poor. He hasn't given it all just yet. But he has already given enough to purchase 264 gallons of fuel to 100 poor families. I'd guess the price of gasoline to be approximately $5 per gallon. So that's about $130k that he's given away so far.

Would you do the same if you won? Are you sure?

Here in Oregon we remember the much ballyhooed state tax kicker checks which so many didn't get. I was one of those who didn't get a kicker check because I'd marked the box on my tax forms stating that any kicker could be given to the schools.

That was an easy enough choice to make a year ago when nobody had received a kicker check for a number of years... it was all an abstract exercise. I honestly didn't expect there to be a kicker check and so it was pretty easy to give away money that I didn't expect to materialize. But I gotta tell you that I was less... um... enthusiastic when I received notification that the roughly $650 worth of kicker that I would otherwise have been entitled to had been donated to schools... per my choice.

Now, I'd like to think that I'd be a lot more willing to part with cash in hand if it were only a portion of such an enormous amount and I'd be guaranteed to be fabulously wealthy even with the generosity. But after the kicker experience I'm less sure. I like to think of myself as a very giving kind of guy. But I'm pretty sure that I could spend $10.5 million all on my own.

Posted by Kevin at 06:02 PM |

A transcendental irony

Irony of ironies: Israel's first aknowledged military death in the invasion of Gaza was a resident of the Giv'at Ze'ev settlement in the Occupied West Bank, and which is one of the land grab areas Israel hopes to exclude from any negotiations via The Apartheid Wall (more at Firedoglake).

Deepening the irony is the fact that on March 9, 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert approved the construction of 750 new homes in Giv'at Ze'ev under the Agan Ha'ayalot project, a direct violation of the "road map" peace plan Israel agreed to. However, President Bush reportedly gave secret permission to then-PM Ariel Sharon to expand West Bank settlements. Thus, Olmert maintains that the expansion of Giv'at Ze'ev does not contravene his "road map" obligations because they are allowed via a pre-existing agreement.

Meanwhile, there are reasons to question the much-vaunted Israeli attempts to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza. Via WaPo:

Near sundown, Israel dropped leaflets on northern Gaza warning residents to evacuate their homes, as witnesses reported heavy movement of troops and tanks massed on the border. The leaflets read: "Area resident, as a result of the acts undertaken by terror activists in your area against Israel, the IDF is forced to respond immediately and operate in this area. For your own safety, you are asked to leave the area immediately."

It was unclear where the residents were supposed to go; Gaza is tiny, and no part of the strip, home to 1.5 million people, has been spared from attack. Border crossings have been sealed for everyone except 220 foreigners and a small number of Palestinians in need of immediate medical help. (emphasis supplied)

Israel claims that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza and offers as proof the fact that they are allowing supplies into the territory. But allowing supplies through a border checkpoint does not automatically mean that those supplies can be distributed during an ongoing military campaign in one of the most heavily populated areas on the planet. Those supplies do no good to civilians who can't reach them.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree with French President Nicolas Sarkozy that Hamas "bears a heavy responsibility in the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza". They clearly do... as does Israel.

Demonstrating the supreme folly of Olmert, Hamas is busily eliminating Fatah members even as they continue to take on Israel. The sigificance of which is quite simply the profoundly ironic repetition of history - Israel militarily takes on a Palestinian entity which then comes out of the conflict stronger than they were before.

If Israel truly wanted to weaken Hamas then they would befriend them. Just look at how Fatah has been weakened as Israel treated them as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people!

Posted by Kevin at 12:48 PM |

January 03, 2009

Must-read article of the year

Avrum Burg is the scion of one of Israel's founding families — his father was the deputy speaker of the first Knesset, and Burg himself later became speaker of the legislature, and a member of Israel's cabinet. His position at the heart of the Israeli establishment makes all the more remarkable his critique of the Jewish State, which he claims has lost its sense of moral purpose. In his new book The Holocaust Is Over: We Must Rise from Its Ashes (Palgrave/MacMillan), he argues that an obsession with an exaggerated sense of threats to Jewish survival cultivated by Israel and its most fervent backers actually impedes the realization of Judaism's higher goals. He discussed his ideas with TIME.com's Tony Karon. - Can the Jewish People Survive Without an Enemy?

Interesting, no? That's just the preface. Go read the interview.

Posted by Kevin at 11:06 PM |

What is Israel's real objective?

The New York Times asks the question: Is the Real Target Hamas Rule?. It's a good question.

...while it may sound decisive to speak of taking Hamas out of power, almost no one familiar with Gaza and Palestinian politics considers it realistic. Hamas legislators won a democratic majority in elections four years ago, and the group has 15,000 to 20,000 men under arms...

And while there are plenty of Gazans who would prefer Fatah, they seem hardly organized or strong enough to become the new rulers, even with the help of former colleagues in exile in Ramallah who say, anyway, that they would never be willing to ride into Gaza on the back of an Israeli tank. In fact, the longer Israel pounds Gaza, the weaker Fatah is likely to become because it will be seen as collaborating.

Indeed, Fatah leader and Palestinian President Abbas, who has NOT been lobbing missles and mortars into Israel, is condemning this invasion of Gaza.

Not only are there practical reasons why the rhetoric coming out of Israel right now makes little sense... politically, it makes little sense historically either.

Military crackdowns on the Palestinians hasn't ever accomplished the proffered goals. Not once. Ever. Each and every time whatever Palestinian entity was in Israel's crosshairs has come out of it stronger than before. The Pakistan Observer takes a crack at explaining why while tying what's going on in Gaza with the slow-motion failure of our military adventure in Afghanistan.

Both America and Israel will have to learn the hard way that this is wrong because in both cases we are facing not just a fight with some terrorists as many would like us to believe, but what is going on is a full-fledged popular uprising of people who fight for their soil, their survival and their future. And because of that they will not give in. The story of Gaza is the same as that of Algeria fighting the French colonist some years ago: you can’t have it both ways. If you want democracy and swear on elections you have to be ready to accept the outcome whatever it may be. The US who thinks that this is true only for some and not for others and they should be the ones to decide for how to oust the democratically elected Islamist government of Algeria with the result of many years of brutal civil war.

Now, I'd be the first to agree that whomever wrote this piece is putting a bit of spin on it which reflects that person's perspective. But the germ of truth is in there too. Not the least of which is the fact that Hamas was democratically elected, whether Israel likes that fact or not.

Think about this for a minute. Israel indeed has very successfully used her military to accomplish somewhat similar objectives... but ONLY with respect to her Arab neighbors who were not fighting for their own land, homes and futures.

Huge numbers of Palestinian noncombatants fled the fighting or were evicted during Israel's war of independence and their homes and lands were either seized or allowed to be seized by the nascent Israeli government. Few of those civilians have ever been allowed back into Israel. And the same dynamic took place during later wars - Palestinian noncombatants fled the fighting, their homes and lands were seized and the owners were barred from coming back.

Consider this: Hamas didn't exist back then, although plenty of outright terrorism was practiced by Jews and Arabs alike. Hamas was formed in the refugee camps populated by Palestinians who were being denied the right to return to their own homes and lands. Thus, the attempts to parse what's going on right now as a simple matter of firing missles into Israel for no other reason than to kill Jews is intellectually bankrupt and morally repugnant.

Back to the NYT piece.

The likelier result of a destruction of the Hamas infrastructure, then, would be chaos, anathema not only to the people of Gaza but also to those hoping for peace in southern Israel.

Yet in its campaign so far, which has killed scores of children and other bystanders, Israel has not spared the trappings of Hamas sovereignty or limited itself to military targets. It says that the mosques it has destroyed were weapons storehouses and that the Islamic University, which it has hit repeatedly, housed explosives factories. But it has also reduced many government buildings to rubble without any claim that they were military in nature. (emphasis is mine)

Hamas and Israel are led by the insane. Not only the moral and ethical problems inherent in their approach (and eye for an eye leaves everyone blind...), but it's simply not practical either. By far the most successful resistance campaigns by indigenous people in history have been the product of PEACEFUL resistance, not ARMED resistance.

But too few care... about any of this. They're sitting in the comfort of their own homes, utterly detached from the suffering on both sides, rooting on one side or the other as if this were nothing more substantial than a game between sports teams.

The blood continues to flow.

The seeds of future fighting are being sown as I type this post.

The insane are in control.

Posted by Kevin at 01:45 PM |

Off the beaten path - USC needs more than Obama's help

The Trojans may have exposed the weakness of the Big Ten by whipping Penn State in the Rose Bowl. But they'd need more than Obama's known advocacy of a college football play-off system and trash-talking Florida and Oklahoma - BCS's flawed "title game" combatants - to get the respect they clearly feel entitled to. They'd have to beat the only unbeaten major college football team this year: the Utah Utes who annihilated Alabama yesterday in the Sugar Bowl.

Say what you want about Alabama having come into the game on a two-game losing streak. The fact of the matter is that Oregon State proved that USC could be beaten. Nobody has come close to proving that about the Utes.

If anyone has a legit claim to be national champs regardless of who wins "BCS Championship" it's the Utes who have taken on all comers and won.

Posted by Kevin at 08:37 AM |

January 02, 2009

Jamaican editorial gets the Israeli/Gazan conflict just right

The Jamaica Gleaner:

We unequivocally reject Hamas' philosophy that Israel is an illegitimate entity that ought not to exist. We also repudiate its tactics of firing home-made missiles into Israel - such as resumed last month - in pursuance of its grievances against the Jewish state.

Indeed, Israel has the right to exist and to defend itself within secure borders. But those borders must be in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 242 of November 1967 calling for a return to boundaries before the six-day war. The Palestinian people, too, are entitled to a genuinely sovereign and viable state, with contiguous boundaries rather than "Bantustans".

What are "Bantustans"? I'm glad you asked. Here are a couple of pop-up maps which illustrate exactly what the editorial meant. Just click on each to bring up the full map in a separate window.

Meanwhile, Egyptian President Mubarak is reportedly attempting to broker a new truce. But he finds himself in a conundrum.

Posted by Kevin at 09:51 PM |

They Should Have Been Allowed to Fly

A little over two years ago now, we had quite the extended discussion over whether or not an airline was justified in barring several Muslim clerics from flying. Based on the police and witness reports, I felt the airline made the right call, but many here disagreed with me and saw it as pure racism. Today's news about a Muslim family being barred from flying by AirTran is an entirely different matter, and is clearly an incident of racial profiling.

Officials ordered nine Muslim passengers, including three young children, off an AirTran flight headed to Orlando from Reagan National Airport yesterday afternoon after two other passengers overheard what they thought was a suspicious remark.

Members of the party, all but one of them U.S.-born citizens who were headed to a religious retreat in Florida, were subsequently cleared for travel by FBI agents who characterized the incident as a misunderstanding, an airport official said. But the passengers said AirTran refused to rebook them, and they had to pay for seats on another carrier secured with help from the FBI.

Kashif Irfan, one of the removed passengers, said the incident began about 1 p.m. after his brother, Atif, and his brother's wife wondered aloud about the safest place to sit on an airplane.

Compare the supposedly "suspicious" comments made by Atif's family members to the clearly suspicious actions by the Muslim clerics:

The specific behavior that led to the removal of the Imams included:

- Loud praying in the concourse and repeatedly shouting "Allah"
- Switching from their assigned seats to a pattern of seating associated with the 9/11 attacks (two in the front row of the first class section, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisles, and two in the rear of the cabin), giving them control of all exits
- Asking for, but not using seat belt extenders even though they were not needed
- Criticizing President Bush and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden
- Sitting in first class even though their tickets had not been upgraded for first class
- Despite choosing to sit separately, getting up repeatedly to go talk to other members of their group
- Some traveling on one-way tickets

There is no doubt that racism was involved in both of these incidents. In the earlier one, however, it was also reasonable and rational to react with caution and remove the clerics from the plane based on their behavior, which I happen to believe was deliberately provocative. In any case, if we allow ourselves to be so obsessed with avoiding the appearance of being racist that we cannot engage common sense in dealing with a racially charged incident, then we are not safe now and never will be.

Posted by Becky at 08:43 AM |

January 01, 2009

Glib Jewish racism

While perusing a blog post at the Israeli Jewish blog Shiloh Musings claiming that NYT photographs of suffering Palestinians, such as this one showing a father grieving next to the corpses of three very young Palestinian boys, are "posed or artificial," I found this banner statement near the top of the blog:

Quote from Israeli UN Ambassador, Yehuda Z. Blum, June 11, 1979
"Anyone who asserts that it is illegal for a Jew to live in Judea and Samaria JUST BECAUSE HE IS A JEW, is in fact advocating a concept that is disturbingly reminiscent of the 'JUDENREIN' POLICIES of Nazi Germany banning Jews from certain spheres of life for no other reason than that they were Jews. The Jewish villages in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district are there as of right and are there to stay."

As you can see via the link above, this quote is accompanied by an unflattering picture of Israeli PM Ehud Olmert with the text "TOPPLE OLMERT" across the top of his pic - a clear reference to Olmert's policy of "unilateral disengagement" which forcibly removed Jewish settlers from the land they'd stolen and occupied in Gaza when the Israeli's withdrew from Gaza and a mere four out of the hundreds of similar settlements in the West Bank in 2005

What does Israel's official and historical opposition to the Palestinian right of return boil down to if not the assertion that it's illegal for a Palestinian Arab to live in his/her own home in "Judea" and "Samaria" just because he/she is an Arab?

As a person of Jewish heritage I am very proud to be able to point out that not all Israeli Jews are blind to Jewish racism. Indeed, some are working very hard to EDUCATE Jews and Palestinian Arabs alike about their common history and the imperative need for them to face it together.

After the jump is a very long (1.45 hours) video of Eitan Bronstein of the Jewish Israeli group, Zochrot, and Muhammad Jaradat of the Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugees' Rights, presenting "Acknowledging the Past; Imagining the Future: Israelis and Palestinians on 1948 and the Right of Return" right here in Portland this past April, courtesy of PDXjustice.org.

I shouldn't have to point this out but past experience has proven that it, sadly, is necessary...

Note: none of the above should be construed as justification for murdering, maiming or terrorizing anyone.

Posted by Kevin at 12:53 PM |