Presidential gay-bashing

CNN's Jack Cafferty said the following:

Guess what Monday is? Monday is the day President Bush will speak about an issue near and dear to his heart and the hearts of many conservatives. It's also the day before the Senate votes on the very same thing. Is it the war? Deficits? Health insurance? Immigration? Iran? North Korea?

Not even close. No, the president is going to talk about amending the Constitution in order to ban gay marriage. This is something that absolutely, positively has no chance of happening, nada, zippo, none. But that doesn't matter. Mr. Bush will take time to make a speech. The Senate will take time to talk and vote on it, because it's something that matters to the Republican base.

This is pure politics. If has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in gay marriage. It's blatant posturing by Republicans, who are increasingly desperate as the midterm elections approach. There's not a lot else to get people interested in voting on them, based on their record of the last five years.

But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might in down the street.

Pure bigotry. How can people live with themselves carrying around such hate?

I found this on AMERICAblog, by the way and John (of AMERICAblog) found it on Eschaton so it's making it's way around the blogosphere.

Fear of sex

Okay, I don't know if I've blogged about this before or not. But I hope it has come to your attention that there now exists a vaccine that could erradicate cervical cancer in women if administered to all girls before they become sexually active. But the so-called conservatives think that having sex should be punishable by death. So they're against the vaccine. Here's an excerpt from an article entitled, "Conservatives Favor ‘Purity’ over Cancer Vaccine":

Late last month a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel unanimously recommended approval of a vaccine for the human papilloma virus (HPV). The vaccine appears to be 100 percent effective at protecting against the most prevalent viruses that cause cervical cancer. While public health professionals view the vaccine as miraculous, many conservative organizations opposed it on the grounds that it might encourage promiscuity among adolescent girls. Now that it appears certain that the FDA will approve the vaccine, conservatives are attempting to discourage its use.

The pharmaceutical giant Merck produced the vaccine known as Gardasil. It will be nothing short of a lifesaver for many women. Cervical cancer is the second most prevalent cancer killer among women in America, striking nearly 14,000 women each year. Of those, nearly 4,000 die annually. Poor women and women of color will benefit the most from the vaccine, as Latino and black women have the highest rates of cervical cancer. Lower-income women typically lack the funds and health insurance necessary to have regular screenings for HPV.

Despite the benefits of the vaccine, conservative organizations began to rally against it last year. One of the most vocal opponents was the Family Research Council. The council “promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.” Last October the council’s president, Tony Perkins, spoke decidedly against the vaccine. Mr. Perkins proclaimed, “Our concern is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence. It sends the wrong message.” He even stated that he would not vaccinate his 13-year-old daughter.

Another organization that promotes abstinence is the Physicians Consortium. The head of the consortium, Dr. Hal Wallis, was also critical. In his opinion, “If you don’t want to suffer these diseases, you need to abstain, and when you find a partner, stick with that partner.” The founder of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse also opposed the vaccine. This organization was formed “to promote the appreciation for and practice of sexual abstinence (purity) until marriage.” Leslee Unruh, the organization’s founder, stated firmly, “I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior.”

Now that FDA approval is all but certain, conservative organizations are strategizing to blunt acceptance of the vaccine. Much of this effort is directed toward the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee is a part of the Centers for Disease Control, and is responsible for establishing the classification of vaccines that the government recommends. This recommendation prompts states to require a particular vaccination, typically guarantees that insurance companies will cover it, and determines the level of public funding.

What about the young woman who maintains her virginity until marriage but her husband was sexually active before marriage and therefore passes on the virus to her? Should she die too? What about forgiveness? What about a foolish young woman who's promiscuous and then has a conversion experience in her mid-twenties, say, and becomes sexually abstinent after that? Are they saying she should die too because of the foolishness of her youth?

The real question is, why are these people so afraid of sex? And why are they so obsessed with policing other people's sexual behavior?

Friday cat blogging!

This beautiful kitty, sadly now deceased, belonged to Cynthia's friend, Sandy.
Photo by Cynthia Burgess

Please don't shop at Wal-mart's - Part 11

I got an email from WalmartWatch today that makes me seriously wonder what's happening to the First Amendment. We have lost freedom of speech in this country when corporate interests can trump another organization's paid advertizing. Read this. It's really outrageous:

Last week, with the help of tens of thousands of supporters across the country, Wal-Mart Watch extended a hand to Wal-Mart's management and the Walton family. In a seven-point statement of shared principles, we offered to partner with Wal-Mart to help make America's largest company a true model for responsible business in the 21st century.

www.walmartwatch.com/handshake

To reinforce our offer, we contracted with Whistler Outdoor Advertising to post a billboard near Wal-Mart's headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas. The billboard went up yesterday morning, just in time to greet visitors to Wal-Mart's Annual Shareholders Meeting being held today.

The billboard's message? -- a thoughtful, forward-looking quote from company founder Sam Walton:

"Maybe the most important way in which we at Wal-Mart believe in giving something back is through our commitment to using the power of this enormous enterprise as a force for change."

Yesterday afternoon, just hours after completing the billboard's installation at 1111 Sam Walton Boulevard, Whistler tore down our message. Company management has since told reporters that it was "duped" by Wal-Mart Watch. In reality, Whistler received our signed contract, payment, and artwork on May 25, 2006 and proceeded with the installation on schedule.

Whistler's management most certainly spent the day resisting withering pressure from Wal-Mart before finally giving in. While we hope that they will reconsider their action, we will accept our full refund and contribute that amount to the Bentonville Public Library.

So, while the first amendment doesn't seem to apply in the company town of Bentonville, our proposal to Wal-Mart still stands. Billboard or not, our hand is still extended. Is yours?

Please urge your friends to sign-on to our "Handshake with Sam" today.

Thanks for all you do,
Andrew GrossmanExecutive Director

Please take action via the above link and whatever you do, DON'T shop at Wal-mart!

You are NOT going to believe this

I just read this on ABC news:

New York has no national monuments or icons, according to the Department of Homeland Security form obtained by ABC News. (Click here for the actual document.) That was a key factor used to determine that New York City should have its anti-terror funds slashed by 40 percent--from $207.5 million in 2005 to $124.4 million in 2006.

The formula did not consider as landmarks or icons: The Empire State Building, The United Nations, The Statue of Liberty and others found on several terror target hit lists. It also left off notable landmarks, such as the New York Public Library, Times Square, City Hall and at least three of the nation's most renowned museums: The Guggenheim, The Metropolitan and The Museum of Natural History.

The form ignored that New York City is the capital of the world financial markets and merely stated the city had four significant bank assets.

New York City is home to Chase, JP Morgan, Citi Group, The New York Stock Exchange, The Commodities Exchange, American Express, George Soros funds, Michael Gabelli's funds, Lazard Frere and Salomon Brothers, to name just a few of the more prominent banking interests located there.

Un-freakin'-believable.

Letterman rules!

Good snark:

June 1st is the start of the hurricane season. President Bush is already stockpiling excuses.

--David Letterman

Why people hate

This is probably true:

I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.

--- James Arthur Baldwin

A prediction

One of my favorite commenters on Smirking Chimp posts as JamesPB. Here's something he had to say today:

This is gonna be great. Aside from the arctic polar ice cap melting; gas is going to cost $15 a gallon; no employers will be offering pensions or health care insurance of any kinds; the average health care policy for a 40 year old and family will be $25,000 a year; employers will routinely fire people just because they don't want employees for more than five years; a college education will cost more than $250,000 and will mean little or nothing upon graduation; even doctors, lawyers and engineers will have trouble finding work at a professional salary. Also, Bush will have destroyed our public education system.

Maybe we can try, convict and sentence him at some time after he leaves office.

I wish I thought he was being unnecessarily alarmist. But I don't. I think what he is predicting is actually very likely.

More on the "unitary executive"

It's clear this president believes he is above the law. This has thrown us into a constitutional crisis according to Sidney Blumenthal as he explains in his article entitled, "A state of emergency":

Within the Bush administration something that senior officials call the "war paradigm" is the central organising principle. They do not use the phrase publicly, but they bend policy to serve it. After September 11 the war paradigm was instantly adopted. George Bush, who proclaimed "I'm a war president", assumed the paradigm as his natural state and right. According to its imperatives, the president in his wartime capacity as commander in chief makes and enforces laws as he sees fit, overriding the constitutional system of checks and balances. Some of the paradigm's expressions include Bush's fiats on the treatment of detainees, domestic surveillance and international law, and his more than 750 "signing statements" - interpretations of laws that he claims he can implement as he chooses.
...
In the beginning, the elements of the war paradigm appeared to be expediencies, conceived as emergency measures in the struggle against al-Qaida. But their precepts were developed before September 11 by John Yoo, promoted to deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel at the department of justice, where he was tasked to write secret memos on torture, surveillance and executive power.

Once Bush approved them, the clerisy of neoconservative lawyers put them into effect. They believe fervently that the constitution is fatally flawed and must be circumscribed. The Bush administration's holy grail is to remove suspects' rights to due process, speedy trial and exculpatory evidence. The war paradigm is to be strengthened to conduct permanent war against terror that can never be finally defeated. There is no exit strategy from emergency.

Go on and read the rest of the article to see how this philosophy plays out. You already know a lot of it. But Blumenthal articulates what is happening very skillfully.

It just makes me sick. Yes, it does.

What is a progressive? Part 2

Campaign for America's Future is having a contest for a person to answer the question "What is a progressive?" in 30 seconds or less. They've narrowed it down to 10 finalists. Here's my favorite:

A progressive is someone who understands that personal wellbeing cannot be separated from the wellbeing of society, and that we are all better and stronger when we work together for the common good. From the air and water that we all depend on, to the education of our neighbors' children, a progressive understands that none is immune from the effects of community underachievement. Today's progressive understands that the individual is most effective when all in society function highly.

Basically the question is whether you adhere to the slogan, "You're on your own" or "We're in it together." The progressive believes that we're all in it together.

Still ANOTHER tax cut

They're insane. Or evil. Or both. Lately, I'm starting to think both. Read this excerpt from a Washington Post article entitled, "Estate Tax Lunacy":

Spring has given way to summer's full-furnace heat in Washington, apparently taking with it any scintilla of sense that Congress may yet possess.

In the House, Republicans who could not even raise an eyebrow at reports that the National Security Agency has been conducting warrantless wiretaps of Americans became instant civil libertarians when the FBI conducted a search of a congressman's office.

The Senate, meanwhile, is scheduled next week to take up legislation by Arizona Republican Jon Kyl that would permanently repeal the estate tax on the wealthiest Americans. If enacted, Kyl's bill would plunge the government another trillion dollars into the red during the first decade (2011-2021) that it would be in effect.

The Republicans hate the social safety net so much that they're willing to destroy the country over it. We simply cannot sustain our debt. The dollar is going downhill, next interest rates are going to go sky high and we'll all be in a serious pickle. But the wealthiest 1% have theirs so screw the rest of us, right?

Whistle blowers lose protection

Don't know if you've been following the Supreme Court lately but there's a new ruling that really undermines the First Amendment. I'm bringing you an article called, "Critics say court ruling leaves whistleblowers in fear". Here's how it gets started:

Critics today railed against a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court today that effectively bars public employees from reporting misconduct to their supervisors or within the chain of command, RAW STORY has learned.

In today's ruling, the high court determined that First Amendment protections do not apply to public employees who report government misconduct to their supervisors. The ruling does not, however, prevent them from reporting such incidents to the media.

"Open speech by a private citizen on a matter of public importance," Justice David Souter wrote in his dissent, "lies at the heart of expression subject to protection by the First Amendment."

The case, Garcetti v. Ceballos was argued before the court twice--once before and once after Justice Sandra Day O'Donnor's left the bench. On the second round, Justice Samuel Alito cast the tie-breaking vote.

"Public employees should be encouraged to report misconduct," said Peter Eliasberg, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which submitted a friend-of-the-court filing in the case. "This opinion does the opposite and can only cause government employees who are weighing whether or not to expose wrongdoing to decide to remain silent for fear of losing their jobs."

This is very worrying. How will society expose wrongdoing if conscientious people are afraid to report it? And why, I want to know, do "conservatives" want to protect wrongdoing anyway? How is it they justify this?

Progressive values

I got an email from MoveOn.org today that listed ten positive goals for our country. They're having a contest to determine which are the "big three" to emphasize. Here are the choices:

* A living wage for all
* Global leadership through diplomacy
* Verifiable, accurate elections
* High quality education for all
* Balanced federal budget
* Health care for all
* Publicly funded elections
* Preserve our natural resources
* Energy independence: clean, renewable sources
* Restored constitutional rights

Which three would you most like to offer the country? You can vote right here.

Top scientist gives up on creationists

I came across an exasperated article today in the Guardian entitled, "Top scientist gives up on creationists". Here's part of what it says:

A leading British scientist said yesterday that he had given up trying to persuade creationists that Darwin's theory is correct after repeatedly being misrepresented and, he said, branded a liar.

Speaking at the Guardian Hay festival at Hay-on-Wye, the evolutionary biologist Steve Jones spoke of his frustrations when trying to debate with religious opponents.

"I don't engage with creationists directly," he said, saying that, when he had, they had frequently quoted him out of context or accused him of lying. "If somebody has decided to believe something - whatever the evidence - then there is nothing you can do about it."

The University College London professor spoke to the provocative title, Why Creationism is Wrong and Evolution is Right. He pointed out that acceptance of Darwin's theory on a global scale was a "minority belief". According to polls, 100 million Americans believe in creationism.

It's all very depressing, isn't it?

Just who served and who didn't?

Military Service Records, prominent Democrats:

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68;Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

Republicans (and these are the guys sending our kids to war):
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* John Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Pundits & Preachers, etc.
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve.

Source: Pam's House Blend

There is no "war on terror"

Here's a blog post from Fire Dog Lake called, "Memorial Day Truth: There is no 'War on Terror'". Take a look at how it gets started:

There is no "War on Terror."

There is, however, a "war" on the U. S. Constitution.

After September 11, 2001, we've learned that we can take a punch and move on. We've faced far worse threats to our national survival in our history - the Civil War, the War of 1812, World War II to name a few - but we never abandoned our Constitution. Until now.

Terror is an emotion. Emotions are part of human nature and cannot be eradicated. A "War on Terror" is therefore a war on humanity. The Bush administration has exploited the fear and shock of a nation in the wake of a surprising and dramatic act of violence to whip national fear and paranoia into a constant boil. Why?

The evidence suggests the whole point has been to seize power and steal money. We are witnessing a creeping coup in the United States, the overthrow of the idea, promulgated by our founders and by writers like Tom Paine, that the "Law is King."

But Bush believes that the "king" is law. And he's the king.

Yes, we are experiencing a "creeping coup" and yet we go right on having our Memorial Day barbecues and our Memorial Day mattress sales. Forgive me for being cynical but I wonder if, as a nation, we even deserve to be free.

Fake news

Well, it's not surprising that I found the following story in a British newspaper. If it's being reported in the U.S. it's well hidden. The story is certainly not on the CNN website. I refer to a report entitled, "Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'". Here's how it gets started:

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.

Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.

The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.

"We know we only had partial access to these VNRs and yet we found 77 stations using them," said Diana Farsetta, one of the group's researchers. "I would say it's pretty extraordinary. The picture we found was much worse than we expected going into the investigation in terms of just how widely these get played and how frequently these pre-packaged segments are put on the air."

Ms Farsetta said the public relations companies commissioned to produce these segments by corporations had become increasingly sophisticated in their techniques in order to get the VNRs broadcast. "They have got very good at mimicking what a real, independently produced television report would look like," she said.

The FCC has declined to comment on the investigation but investigators from the commission's enforcement unit recently approached Ms Farsetta for a copy of her group's report.

The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.

The dishonesty is simply staggering. One more reason why I'm glad I get my news from the internet.

Support our troops

I stumbled on a blog post that I really want to recommend. It's called Lions Led by Donkeys, the title being an allusion to World War I. It's an analysis of the current term "chickenhawk" to refer to those who are happy to send others to fight but refuse to go themselves. The posting also goes into what our responsibility is to those we send to war. Here's what we need to say to the young men and women we put in harm's way:

We will make sure you have the equipment you need.

We will make sure have a clearly defined mission.

We will make sure that such missions are as well-planned as possible.

We will take care of your families while you are gone.

We will take care of you when you come home.

That's what "support our troops" really means. As it is, our government is not supporting our troops. And that's shameful.

Remembering

This sums it up:

As we remember the dead, we should consider the living, and stop sending people by the thousands to pointless, unnecessary deaths.

-- Bob Herbert