Julien's List

SOTU & Petraeus Synchronicity -- Can a One-sided Will To Win Prove Enough?

2007-01-24T12:39:00.000-05:00

Two big but seemingly unrelated things happened on the Hill yesterday -- the State of the Union speech and the appearance of Lt. Gen. David Howell Petraeus at a hearing to confirm him as the new U.S. ground commander in Iraq.

You can watch the SOTU at ThinkProgress -- something I suggest doing even if you've seen it already as they've synthesized it in a searchable video form annotated with a relatively comprehensive fact checking. I encourage writing letters to the editor refuting Shrub's speech using these countering facts as a basis. You'll have to comment on the things that were absent -- any mention of Katrina and the failture of the Gulf Coast recovery effort that has Barney Frank referring to it as a form of "ethnic cleansing" and that there were no bones thrown to the religious political extremists and what that means, for instance -- on your own -- well, that and Michele's Manic Prez Grab. Post copies of them in the comments section here for all to see. (I plan to hit the dangerous horsepucky that is Shrub's big healthcare plan hard myself, so critical is that regarding our disproportionately under- and self-employed thus disproportionately dependent on individually underwritten health insurance LGBT population.)

What else a fact-checking analysis of the SOTU misses, beyond Shrub's making yet another threat of creating a new front against Iran, in looking just at the section on Iraq, is the folly of relying on our will to win in a war that will depend instead on the will of the Iraqis. We have not been short of will to win -- the sacrifices of life and/or limb of well over fifty-thousand American fighting women and men to date are proof enough of that, not to mention the willingness of hundreds of thousands more to serve and millions more to do without loved ones in service abroad plus the people's engagement in war debt that will haunt our grandchildren and beyond.

No, we are not short of will to win.

This 'will to win' mantra figured prominently in Gen. Petraeus' remarks at his hearing, too.
Before anyone thinks to write me off as some military-hating uber-liberal, let me say that I deeply admire Gen. Petraeus, whose career I first took notice of in the early days of this war when he commanded the fabled 101st Airborne at Mosul and my cousin, Lucian Truscott, was permitted to be an embedded journalist with his troops there for a time. I learned through long, almost daily correspondence with Luc how deeply Gen. Petraeus cares for the troops under his command. (Especially instructive was a description of the general's immediate and blistering phone call to the KBR supplier who was delivering to troops at a forward station moldy fruit and cold-instead-of-hot food from filthy kitchens for premium prices when my cousin brought this to his attention. Even more instructive was the general's attentive follow-through -- the effect of which was extended even beyond his area of command.)

I favorably compared his treatment of prisoners to that at Abu G'raib then came to a similarly positive comparison of his method of flushing out insurgents in residential neighborhoods (called "cordon and knock") compared to the more terror-inducing methods being employed elsewhere that were reinforcing the growing insurgency, and how he coupled that with the only reconstruction program in Iraq that really worked. "The real goal is to create as many Iraqis as possible who feel they have a stake in the new Iraq," he said about his program that combines a comparatively low-violence soft hand militarily with lots of direct local diplomacy and dependable follow-through such as ensuring that local contractors are given as much preference as possible and that they are treated fairly and paid on time.

I started doing more research into his background and discovered what a strong intellect and fine education he has (West Point, Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs (MPA, PhD in International Affairs with a dissertation on how Vietnam has affected U.S. military strategic thought), a post-doc fellowship at Georgetown, and deep study of how the British and others have done both good jobs and bad in dealing with insurgency-based conflicts, among many other accomplishments. And I've kept tabs on his progress since then, including his short stint trying to train the Iraqi security forces and what he learned from that before he was reassigned to command Fort Leavenworth and the Army Combined Arms Center (home of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, from which he'd been the honor graduate of his class and where he wrote and oversaw adoption of the Army's new manual on handling insurgencies) before he could really get that going. His has been, to say the least, a stellar career of a man with a reputation for not accepting failure and the energy and vision thusfar not to have had to.

And therein may lie the problem. Gen. Petraeus has never seemed to have had the sobering, annealing experience of major failure. He believes he can out-think, out-strategize, out-plan, and out-will the enemy he faces in Iraq -- and he believes it with a surety that only the perpetually successful would claim. But take a look at what happened in Mosul after the 101st was rotated back home in the Spring of 2004 -- it literally fell apart like an unmaintained house of cards on a windy plain.

When my cousin was there, he was already picking up grumblings from caring officers on Petraeus' staff about the problems a lack of continuity were causing. It's not that they distrusted or disagreed with their general's basic thinking on counter-insurgency work in Iraq -- exactly the opposite. But they were aware that it would take a great deal longer than the time they had been allotted which is many times longer than the five months that Gen. Clark and the White House flaks have been alluding to as our begin-to-get-out date. His is, as I mentioned above, a program that depends on reliability, relationship-building, and follow-through -- and that, as well as training a security force to make the economic and infrastructure repairs and changes happen then take meaningful hold takes time -- lots of time -- and probably many more troops than he's being given to work with.

Further, Petraeus' methods have been primarily worked out on guerrilla forces predominantly focused against an invader in a way that temporarily superceded old ethnic, religious, or political conflicts and civil wars. Iraq, in contrast, is more and more a case of full-blown civil war with our troops getting killed by getting in its way as well as by a small outside force of true terrorists allied loosely with one faction in the civil war -- but only very loosely. Maliki has yet to disavow the use of U.S. trained Iraqi security forces on behalf of one of those factions -- the Shia. And Maliki and the Kurds are growing increasingly friendly with the Shia extremist-Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah quadrangle that threatens more each day, with the U.S. backing of the Sunni Saudi regime, to blow the region sky high.

Gen. Petraeus is a very smart man who adjusts his thinking fluidly when new input requires and I have no doubt that he'll do as much of that as he's allowed to do this time, too. But there're two more things not in his favor -- the way both this administration and, in response, Congress on both sides of the aisle have and likely will treat this war as political fodder more than a military and diplomatic problem and the disgusting ignorance of too many of them of even the basic knowledge of the region, its history, and its culture necessary to competently formulate policy that has a chance of success. It is will without honor or discipline and any soldier knows what a dangerous combination that is.

The Poodle Genuflects To The Rat

2007-01-24T07:30:00.000-05:00

The world's most powerful hate group, the Roman Catholic Church, is at it again. According to AmericaBlog, RatCo's latest attempt to undermine fairness and equality under the law in favor of irrational antigay hatred comes in the U.K. via rumored to be Catholic wannabe Tony Blair.

The RCC's opposition to the implementation of a basic civil rights law there, the Equality Act, is taking the same sorry turn we've seen so often from them -- threatened shut down of social services agencies (this time adoption placement) unless they get a religious exemption that gives them a free pass to discriminate not just with church money which nobody argues is their right to do, however despicable of them to do it, but with public money.

Just like the Boy Scouts, they want to have their cake and eat it, too, which their spin machine has masked as concern for children -- a concern which their own priests' actions have time and again proven to be a lie. In this case, their rhetoric is indisputably Orwellian as denying children happy, healthy homes with gay adoptive parents does nothing but keep children in the system longer which has real, measureable negative effects both on the children themselves and the public purse as well as increases the risk to other children at risk by reducing the percentage of the social services resource pool that can be directed towards keeping them safe and sound.

In the the U.S., we've given them a religious exemption in ENDA -- one they don't need to ensure their religious freedom and one of the things that makes ENDA not worth the trouble of passing -- and in some state LGB (and sometimes T)-inclusive civil rights laws. The Brits, Welsh, and Scots should note that such exemptions have not stopped church leaders from opposing our basic civil rights -- only exposing their bigotry has brought occasional relief from their onslaught of hate.

IMPEACH THE ##!!!! ASAP

2006-11-10T17:55:00.000-05:00

Now that the ballots are in and it's apparently clear that the dems will take both the House and the Senate, the talk on the town is the big "I" word. Will we or will we not see impeachment hearings?I heard from a very liberal friend yesterday that she felt that impeachment should not be the first order of business. Now bear in mind, this person has a hatred for Bush hotter then the heat of a thousand suns. However, she believed that we need to address the business of the people first. Deal with the war, social security, economy, ect... Concluding that in reality probably less the half of the people in the country had the stomach for impeachment, she felt that we need to be the party of reason and stay above the fray. This morning on talk radio on the way to work I heard echoes of the same sentiment.

I plainly and simply do not agree. In the last six years we have learned at immeasurable costs how fragile our democracy is. Six years ago when some of us said, voters fraud, most people thought we were crazy conspiracy theorists. Now, it's a commonly held belief that elections have been tampered with and the office of the President was stolen, not once, but twice. Most of the rest of the world can see clearly that our democracy is broken, if not failed entirely.The issues like the war, the economy, and social security are incredibly important. However, I believe that at this point, our paramount issue, our paramount responsibility, not only to our citizens, but to the world, is preserving our democracy.

I do not want impeachment hearings for the arbitrary purpose of sticking it to Bush, I believe he will burn in hell for his crimes against humanity. Impeachment hearing are necessary in our country right now for the purpose of disclosure to the American people of how one administration can destroy a democracy. We need to know what happened and how it happened so we can learn from our mistake.The American people need to learn a hard lesson of responsibility and accountability. Only with a hard look at what happened in the last six years that led us to this catastrophic place can we learn how to prevent a tragedy of the magnitude that the Bush administration has reigned on the world.

I have heard people suggest that yes, we need to call for impeachment, but just not as a first order of business. I strongly disagree. Now that the democrats are basking in the afterglow of a republican ass kicking, it's fun to day dream about having control of not just Congress, but also the Presidency for decades to come. That kind of arrogance is familiar and dangerous. The reality is we may only have two years. God, I hope it's forever, but it may be two precious years for a window of opportunity. We don't have time to waste trying to appear as a party of civility.

This Congress has a moral obligation not only to the citizens of the United States but to the rest of the world to open the books on this administration for full disclosure through impeachment. For more then 200 years the United States was a beacon of democracy, demonstrating that the fragile experiment was something to strive for. Many world governments modeled themselves after our ideal. Now that ideal is in shambles. The first order of business for putting it all back together is facing the devastation and showing the world we are not afraid to say what's wrong for everyone else in the world is wrong for us too. Criminal behavior is just that, criminal and we will address it.

Please join me in contacting your representatives and soon to be representatives to demand immediate impeachment proceedings as a first order of business after the swearing in.The world is waiting for us.Please leave you comments and let us know how you feel about IMPEACHING the PRESIDENT NOW!!

My posting over at Pam's

2006-10-22T11:06:00.000-04:00

Julien! Thanks for leaving my access to the blog!

Here's what I posted for Pam in her absence - I hope readers here find it worth pondering . . . .

Groggy Good-Morning from Rochester in Blue New York

'Bean, formerly a regular contributor to Julien's List, is a Cranky-and-Irritable member of the Democratic arm of the Democratic Party. As a GLBT healthcare-professional-in-training, he is passionately devoted to liberal politics and to his evolving career in the operating room. He also possesses a deep-seated passion for dark chocolate and snazzy cars. 'Bean and his life-partner Eric (a Physics professor at a SUNY university) live in Rochester, New York.

Good morning blenders.

I'm already behind schedule as I woke at 0100 and 0400 because poor Hubby's congested sinuses rumble when he lies on his back. I needed a bathtubfull of Java in my brain before trying to type - mostly to ensure I pay at least some attention to things like "grammar" and "spelling" and "a little coherence."

It's VERY nice to be back at the blend, as briefly as I will be here: I love my work in the operating room as I am finishing this particular phase of my education (and, hence, rarely visit any blogs because I have no life, at all, of any kind) . . . but I confess I miss the intensity, stimulation, and some of the personalities here.

That said, I wanted to start my part of the Guest Blend Experience with a gripe.

Yep - a gripe: I'm genetically cranky as the long-time regulars know. I just ain't one of those liberals who wants to hug a single damn thing and I don't ooze "caring" and "warmth" from my pores. I never have been "cuddly" and, in truth, I doubt I will ever be.

Anyhow . . . .

Yesterday, while watching the local 11-o'clock news in Blue New York State, I noted the following:

(1) Republican Tom Reynolds, Pedophile Supporter and Enabler (henceforth, PS&E in place of "Pedophile Supporter and Enabler"), airing attack ads stating, "Millionaire Jack Davis will cut Medicare, Medicaid, and job growth programs. Millionaire Jack Davis will raise taxes. Millionaire Jack Davis is just another tax-and-spend liberal New Yorkers don't need." Republican Reynolds, PS&E, and his attack dogs include taped, out-of-context statements right from Davis's mouth to "support" Reynold's claims.

I'll be blunt - these ads by Republican Tom Reynolds, PS&E? These ads are good. They're very good.

These ads are, not surprisingly, also profoundly dishonest and misleading - but what can one expect from a Republican more vested in protecting his own job, his party, and the most high-profile child molester of this Shining New Century to-date?

(2) Democrat Jack Davis is airing the most pathetic "It's time for a change" rebuttal to Republican Reynolds, PS&E, I have ever seen: Davis would have a better rebuttal if he hired a bunch of high school drama students and gave those students a cam-corder and 20 bucks.

Worse, Davis and his ads ignore that Republican Reynolds, PS&E, has dutifully followed Dear Leader's policies (Medicare cuts, Medicaid cuts, other social-service and retiree program cuts), all the while filling his fat pockets (and astoundingly-large belly) along the way.

(3) An ad supporting sHillary Clinton, Republican-Lite, with an interesting mix of words and imagery. I don't remember specifics, but phrases resembling "Hillary Clinton voted to prevent further terror attacks on New York and supports legislation protecting the symbols or our great nation," juxtaposed with images of sHillary, surrounded by a forest of American flags; "Hillary Clinton supports legislation protecting mothers and their children," juxtaposed with images of sHillary and an African-American mother holding a newborn baby.

(4) A news report following these commercials stating that Republican Reynolds, PS&E, is now ahead in the polls - and this in a DEMOCRATIC state.

I think what I am seeing here, in my own small part of the nation, reflects the problems of the Left in the nation as-a-whole.

Specifically, these problems:

(1) Republicans are better at playing a clean-faced game of very dirty pool than Democrats. As proven by going back to Nixon, playing dirty pool with the guise of a gentleman (or gentlewoman) just plain works.

Voters like tough politicians.

(2) Democrats taking the "moral high road" because "we are better and above that sort of thing" does not work.

Proof?

The fact that a man, Republican Tom Reynolds, PS&E, who knowingly aided, abetted, and protected a known child molester for years, is LEADING in polls . . . and worse yet, he's leading in polls in a DEMOCRATIC state.

There is the mirror-side to this issue, too: whenever Democrats jump on Republicans for the Republican's misbehavior, the Republicans shriek "Unfair! Unfair! Partisan politics! Partisan politics!"

Ironically, those same Republicans, such as Tom Reynolds, PS&E, are the first to attack - even when the Democrat has done nothing.

Democrats need to take a lesson from this particular tactic.

Voters like tough politicians.

(3) No matter how far right ANY Democrat steps (ESPECIALLY sHillary Clinton), NOBODY Right-of-Center will vote for that Democrat: the Right-of-Center will always vote for a Republican.

Proof?

By pandering to (1) The Base, (2) the business community, and (3) the Protestant Christian community, Republican Tom Reynolds, PS&E, is a few points ahead of the Democrat . . . and this lead is in a BLUE state.

Voters just plain like tough politicians.

Which leads me to a second, related gripe.

On this particular issue of Democrats pandering right . . . sHillary's ad is an utter joke. Mind, that ad is polished, professional, slick-as-hell, and stylish. sHill's Madison Avenue friends (i.e. Rupert Murdoch - who helped her raise funds earlier this campaign season, as you may remember) served her well.

The irony is that, with the imagery in the ad, sHill's makes overt allusions any political junkie will recognise. And those allusions are actually why I don't remember the ad as vividly as I would like: these allusions were so well-done, so right-pandering, and so unexpected I went into cognitive shock. I really could not believe this was an ad for a Democratic candidate. That moment, I instantly realized the ad was NOT targeting New York Democrats. SHill's ad is targeting center-right political junkies, who will catch and understand the imagery.

The images in sHill's ad (1) point towards her vote for the Iraq war; (2) her cheerleading for Bush Administration policies in Iraq; (3) her co-sponsoring of anti-flag-burning legislation; (4) her willingness to "compromise" on abortion; (5) her continued support of both DOMA and a Federal Marriage Amendment; (6) her pro-Reganomics stances (stances she shares with her husband Bill) supporting both tax cuts and pro-business, not pro-worker and pro-New-York-Citizen, policy.

In light of all I have shared this morning, I just have one question I want answered (ouside of, "When is sHill getting the hell out of New York to return, permanently, to Arkansas?").

Where are the strong Democrats?

Feingold, who regrew his testicles after losing them during the 2000 Ashcroft debacle (Feingold cast the deciding vote in favor of Ashcroft, an "Olive Branch" to the Bush administration: it seems Feingold has since seen the error of his ways), does anyone outside the (1) net-roots, (2) minorities, and (3) GLBT folks have a spine out here in Democrat Land?

Are there any strong Democrats around who can fight - especially given we don't need to spin-and-lie like Republicans to win at hardball given both the facts and issues (and, one would hope, our ethics, too)?

I will vote this November.

I will, for the most part, vote Democratic this November.

I surely will not vote for sHill this November: I will vote for her Green Party or Socialist Party of Communist Party opponent.

But I have to confess, in more cases than I would like, when I cast my vote this November? I will also worry that my vote is being wasted on the lesser of two evils.

So, anyone know? Democrat with a spine? Seen one lately? Or are we, The People, The Party Backbone, and The Party Checking Account screwed yet again?

Will we, once again, not win by fighting for anything - but rather win because people have grown disgusted with Republicans?

Comments?

Rep. Gerry Studds, 1937-2006

2006-10-14T13:49:00.000-04:00

Rep. Gerry Studds, age 69, died today due to pulmonary embolism. With the Foley issue hot in the press, Gerry's affair with a page that rightfully earned him censure is the MSM's obituary meme but they're neglecting the critical dissimilarities.

Gerry, unlike Foley, had the courage to face his problem with dignity and accept his censure with grace. He used it as a wakeup call to grow into both personal acceptance of himself as a gay man and a strong advocate for our equality under the law.

I will never forget the image of him summoning the Congressional liaison team of the office of the Commandant of the Coast Guard into his office after it was made known that the Commandant was joining in with the Navy Secretary's illegal use of official military means to encourage and enable military personnel to lobby Congress during the gays-in-the-military battle of 1992-3 and that the Coast Guard commandant had personally invited Gary Bauer to deliver an inflammatory prayer breakfast speech on the subject in the wake of bigoted servicemembers' attacks on both civilian and military people perceived to be gay in that time of heightened emotion -- and that the commandant had worded the invitation to the prayer breakfast to his subordinates in the D.C. area in a "must attend" manner that was impermissable given its religious nature.

The two handsome liaison officers in their impeccably tailored dress whites squirmed uncomfortably in their chairs in Gerry's office where they were unceremoniously commanded to sit as Rep. Studds read the salient portions of the Constitution to them, lecturing with particular emphasis on treason involving the military overstepping its bounds by trying to usurp civilian control of the military.

Gerry's was no idle instructional reading. As chairperson of the subcommittee overseeing the Coast Guard, he held their purse strings. The message was not lost on the commandant.

I remember, too, Gerry's gentle power when he visited the Holocaust Museum on the pre-opening day set aside for Congressional preview. At the time, visitors were randomly assigned the name, picture, and brief biography of a person who actually experienced life in the Holocaust as they were just before the Nazis came to power.

As luck would have it, the machine issued Gerry the information of a young gay man whose birthday he shared but who was just barely a generation older than Gerry.

Gerry took the elevator to the exhibit's fourth floor beginning, lingering over the dense information about how the Nazis seized power and remarking about similarities to the present day. He spent extra time at the portion exhibiting pink triangle artifacts.

At stations along the museum's tour one put the information pass of the person one was assigned to follow into machines that updated the information as the Holocaust years progressed. Gerry put the ticket into the machine every time with great hope, seeming to hold his breath as he read the fate of "his" shadow fellow each time.

One by one, the machines informed everyone else in Gerry's tour group that the person they were assigned had perished but, in a seeming miracle, the young man Gerry was assigned survived.

Then, in the bleakest part of the museum came the last machine telling of any remaining peoples' fates in the last days of the Holocaust. Gerry put his card in the machine and it printed out a short statement telling of his young man's capture, internment, and demise in a death camp just days before its liberation. Gerry began to cry, quietly saying over and over, "It could've been me. It could've been me."

He kept the young man's information pass and, I've been told, referred to it throughout his life after that, using it as an inspiration to make positive change.

Rep. Gerry Studds had the courage to be real, to feel, to grow, and used his life's experiences in the service of others. The angels will welcome him and, I imagine the spirit of the young Holocaust victim he held in his heart will be among them.

On Gay Men, Police, and the Parks

2006-09-21T05:10:00.000-04:00

This is an open letter to a man who was recently detained at a public park because he was talking with his significant other after having walked past a playground with mothers and children present. Apparently one of the mothers complained to the police. It happened in Indianapolis but it could've happened almost anywhere in the United States.

Dear Scott,

Regarding your recent police detention for having the temerity to talk with another man in Broad Ripple Park:

What exactly was the complaint? If you'd wanted to sit in plain view of the others in that park and kiss and touch each other except for genitalia fondling, it was your right, you know.

Status is not probable cause.

Get the police report. Put it online here. Seek the help of an aggressive attorney who gets that this was outrageous.

This is hardly a rare and isolated incident.
* People in Indiana have been arrested for legal touching in a manner that could not have been seen by anyone -- constituting private behavior even though it occurred on public property. There have been court decisions in our favor on this.
* One fellow was arrested on an officer's lie for reading the Sunday paper at a picnic table, eating his McDonald's take-out breakfast, and not denying that he was gay.
* Another case involved a man exposing his penis standing facing a urinal -- the charge was public indecency. I couldn't help but wonder if the Indianapolis Police Department and Marion County Prosecutor expected him to use the urinal by peeing his pants.
* One esteemed lobbyist on police issues in Indiana's statehouse was well known as a cop for masturbating while watching men have sex in the park, priding himself on his ability to time his ejaculation so that he got off in time to arrest those he was getting off watching before they had a chance to.
* Not that long ago, some Indianapolis City-County Councillors actively pushed to ban all gay people from city parks. The officer/lobbyist above beat one arrestee so badly the day of one public meeting on the subject that the fellow's jaw was broken in several places and his skull was fractured.

If the complainant was an obvious idiot, as has been suggested, she should've been treated as such, with simple, discrete observation of you on the part of the officers establishing that there was nothing amiss if they couldn't figure out that she was an obvious idiot by speaking with her enough to leave you alone altogether. There was no cause to accost you demanding identification, much less hold you until you "checked out".

Even if you'd had a previous conviction for public indecency in a park, unless you were under probation condition or court order keeping you from such facilities, you had as much right as anyone to be where you were undisturbed.

Too many of us have internalized too much guilt about ourselves as sexual beings. It invariably surfaces in discussions about parks and such.

Remember, if you were hets, your public gropings would be considered cute, the places you did it would be iconographically nostalgic, with names like "Lover's Lane", and they'd celebrate it with cherry blossom petals falling gently to the ground to the tune of Etta James, calling it "Pleasantville" or, at the very least, the backseat of a '54 Chevy in "American Graffiti".

If they wanted to stop it, they would not hire (expensive) hunky plainclothes detectives to invade your private-in-erstwhile-public spaces nor persuade you to have sex in illegal ways when you might well have picked up someone and found some measure of legal privacy. They would not create special extra-punitive legislation that is unequally applied to you. They would not hold pre-election arrest sprees targeting you. They would not harass the private sexual venues that serve as alternatives to public behavior they claim they're trying to stop despite that they've barely done any of the things that have been demonstrated to reduce its incidence.

Not only would they stop belittling you and your people and disrupting your attempts to create lawfully married relationships, creating more of why this is an issue to begin with, they would cut back the brush, put warning signage and (cheaper to hire) uniformed officers in places where there was activity of concern to keep it from happening instead of verbally and physically communicating that they were people who would not be offended by your entreaties then busting you when you took them up on their offers.

You are not having more public sex than they are. You're just being punished for it many times more than they are. And the press colludes. And it will end when you make it end.

Wedge This!

2006-08-11T05:02:00.000-04:00

Sen. Ken Gordon, proud new grandfather and Majority Leader of the Colorado Senate, just reminded me why I think he's the bee's knees. He's a Democrat who has, in a long career of political leadership, avoided partisan warfare, preferring to fight his battles on the merits of the issues with humor and integrity. He's running an uphill battle for that state's Secretary of State job * so that he can ensure that voting there is fair for all. If you can help his campaign, please do.

The Special Session:

In 2004, a number of states put the issue of gay marriage on the ballot. Some say this helped turn out conservative voters and was a factor in Bush's reelection.

I'm not sure this is true, but it is part of the mythology of 2004, and it has caused both parties to look for ballot measures to help turn out their voters. In Colorado, the Republican ballot measure that was supposed to turn out conservative voters in 2006 was Initiative 55, the ban on services to illegal immigrants.

This is why some Republican leaders insisted we have a special session after the Supreme Court's decision to prevent 55 from going on the ballot. It had more to do with winning candidate elections than actually dealing with the issue of immigration.

During this special session, Republicans did not advocate for passing a law to prevent immigrants from receiving services. Instead, the Republicans pushed to put a measure on the ballot so that "the people can have their right to vote."

When Ed Jones (R- El Paso), went to the microphone and spoke of the "people's right to vote," I asked him if the people had a similar right to vote on domestic partnerships. I handed him a petition to help put domestic partnerships on the ballot. He wouldn't sign it. I tried to place a pen in his hand.

"Get your hand off of me," he said.

I said, "What about increasing the minimum wage? Do the people have a right to vote on that?"

Apparently the people only have a right to vote on services for illegal immigrants.

Let me be clear: I agree that immigration is a real issue that needs action. My objection is to those who would use it for political purposes in ways that cause collateral damage to people who are American citzens.

Joan Fitzgerald had a bill that allowed services only to those legally here, and would have done it as of August 1st, rather than after a November election. The Governor blasted it during a rare committee appearance.

But then something happened. Business went to the Governor and pointed out that nearly 200,000 people who would not be able to provide documentation are working in Colorado. There was a bill pending that would have caused all of these people to lose their jobs. I wasn't in the meeting, but when I heard that statistic, I thought we need to understand the impact of what we are doing a little better before we risk the economy of Colorado.

Maybe the Governor decided the same thing. In any case, he worked out a compromise with Democratic leadership, and we passed legislation that does require proof of citizenship before people can receive services, but doesn't put it on the ballot.

Some Republicans were outraged. Senator Mitchell (R-Broomfield) said in the Rocky Mountain News, "Bill Owens is the Bill Clinton of Colorado politics. He took over eight years ago, when the Republicans were in the majority in the legislature, and he's lost that. Now he continues to triangulate and make clever deals and treasure his personal approval rating."

This is an amazing statement from a Republican legislator about our Republican Governor. What has happened is that the Governor, as he did on Referendum C, has decided not to be a knee-jerk supporter of far right positions. He has this troublesome ability to pay attention to the welfare of the state and work across the political spectrum.

In the end, Colorado benefits from the compromise and a divisive issue does not end up on the ballot. We passed 11 pieces of legislation that deal with immigration now. This is frustrating to those who were looking for something to excite controversy and prejudice. Unfortunately these ploys often work.

People are upset. Many people work at low paying jobs. They don't have decent health care. They are frustrated with America's foreign policy, or the lack of one.

The current administration in Washington has done nothing to provide access to affordable health care for people. It has done nothing to help people who are not wealthy or in the pharmaceutical or oil industry. It can either face the justified wrath of the people in the next election or it can divert the attention of the people to some "other," for instance illegal immigrants, which they tell you are the source of your problems.

Don't let them trick you either here or in Washington.

Smite them with your votes.

Please forward this along.

Sincerely,
Ken Gordon

* Watch his exclusive-to-the-net candidacy announcement ever here. It could well be the funniest such announcement of all time.

Lesbian By the Grace of the Goddess, Queer By Choice

2006-07-27T23:58:00.000-04:00

I've never been comfortable basing our rights on a 'we can't help it' rationale. It suggests that we're somehow pitiful things -- that non-exclusively heterosexual sexual orientation is a defect, not the 'every other point on the infinite-points line segment that is normal human sexual orientation' that they are.
It also begs the denial of rights to those who do exercise any level of control over their attractions (the stuff of sexual orientation at the combined sexual, affectional, and emotional levels) if such a thing is possible or to make conditional of those rights the exercising of abstinence or other-directional control of behavior related to those attractions a la the pre-Dos-Equis Exodus zombies.
Rights are rights. They are not meant to be conditional on accidents of birth or behavior one wouldn't expect of others. They are meant to just be -- as we are meant to just be.
I'm always suspicious when someone even wants to know why we're other than exclusively heterosexual without wanting to equally understand why people are exclusively heterosexual. I mean, when was the last time you heard such a balanced inquiry outside of a university sexology department anyway?
Worse, this be-nice-to-the-queers-'cause-they-can't-help-it strategy sends a message of brokenness to our people when we should be instilling pride and strength in who we are.
The Kinsey researchers, as if they were precursors to The Matrix's Morpheus, used to ask a question of their gay-identified subjects, "If you could take a pill that would make you heterosexual, would you?" Most in those dark days near the dawn of our fight answered that they would.
How often today do we hear the question, "Who in their right mind would choose to be gay?" Can you imagine anyone asking who in their right mind would choose to be black or Jewish or any number of other non-majority members of protected classes just because they're oppressed?
'Neo'-queer that I am, I would not take that pill. I prefer to live an authentic life, unplugged from the matrix of het convention, demanding in body, soul, word, and deed to be exactly the queer I am blessed to be. If truth be known, I'm a gay supremacist, firm in the knowledge that we're better than hets in many ways that matter to me (and were proven superior by researchers acting on behalf of the U.S. Army, no less, trying to figure out if they could more easily tell who the queers were so they could more efficiently keep us out of the service). Even if I wasn't a queer supremacist and despite having suffered loss of family, jobs, and other opportunities, as well as having been subjected to antigay violence, including rape, due to my sexual orientation -- enough of the standard reasons given for why people in their right minds wouldn't choose to be queer to count and then some, I'd still choose to be a lesbian -- and it doesn't define me as crazy.
How else, after all, would I have the spousal love of my wife that grows fuller and deeper with every day of our lives? Where would I find such a delightful subculture so rich with beauty and humor and the sort of strength forged in adversity that so fits my soul?
I love how big our hearts are that we care not only for each other as if we're all each other's family -- which we are having defined family beyond mere blood to encompass all those who act like it -- but also care for those who've been our oppressors and their unwanted offspring when their own have discarded them as if the Sisters of Perpetual Annoyance were the inspiration of Mother Teresa (which, in an odd way in HIV-driven urban need, they were.) The highest per capita queer occupations are not hairdressers or actors, they're allied health professionals.
I love our freedom to define ourselves as we see fit and the creative diversity with which we've done so. And hets are now benefitting from the heightened ability we've achieved to cry that the Emperor has no clothes evidenced in drug access programs for those who cannot afford pricey prescriptions and in the end of certain cruel and time-wasting drug testing and approval practices, for example, as well as in deflation of the doctor-as-unquestionable-god nonsense in favor of healthier doctor-patient communication. (Not to mention that they're alive and free because queers did things like whip the Revolutionary troops into shape for Washington and saved their little behinds with that Enigma machine thing in World War II.)
I love that we bring color and delight to the world, that we reproduce more deliberately and at levels not leading to overpopulation, that we do brunch, that we have roots as sexual outlaws that give us vitality and chutzpah as a people and that the disconnect between sex and reproduction we're blessed with left us emotionally and in practical ways free to explore sex for its own sake in all its happy variety of possibilities.
I love our ethic that jealousy is not a thing to be cherished or valued (hat-tip and a hug to George Michael) but that the people we have loved before are (absent abuse, of course) -- that we are an army less of lovers than of ex-lovers made cherished friends anew. I love that our relationship ethics are founded not on ownership but on honesty and the deeper love it takes to really want for the object(s) of our affection what they want for themselves.
I love our camp and our comraderie, our arts and talents, our ability to survive. I love that we are finally as a people learning to throw off the shackles of het-imposed shame.
If I were exclusively heterosexual, I'd be denied the depth of intimacy that comes from sharing love with someone whose body and mind responds so like mine and I would be relegated to the state of never really fully grasping what the object of my affection really felt -- that always-reaching-never-quite-there-no-matter-how-hard-they-try existence that hets suffer. They may say vive l'difference. Although I'll admit to feeling compassion for their loss, I say horsepucky-- vive l'homogeneite!!
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't support any sort of anti-het oppression. After all, some or all of them might not be able to help it.

Truth, Justice, and the American Queer

2006-06-23T04:38:00.000-04:00

When a group of otherwise law-abiding citizens is made felons because they will not lie to their government, as the lawfully civilly married same-sex couples in the United States are who refuse to buckle to government coercion to deny our marriages with the federal and all but a handful of state and municipal governments will not lie, something is deeply wrong so far beyond economic injustice as to make a lie of the very notion of a free and just nation.

I am, by definition not my own, a scofflaw. The rule of law, thus, by all rights, has no more hold over me. I am left to my own devices with regards to justice. Strange that by my government's attempts to rob me of freedom and justice, I am freer than I have ever been, including free to define justice and good citizenship as I see fit.

Of course, this is just another exercise of honesty in fulfillment of personal integrity -- the culmination of a lifetime's worth of choices. And I am, after all, just one in a long line of increasingly free people who have chosen personal truth over the pressure to lie. In the last hundred years alone we've lived authentically despite Comstock, Pink Triangles, McCarthy, Livingston and the Postal Indecency laws and witchhunts, professional licensure bans, touching while dancing bans, college student witchhunts, liquor sales bans, Stonewall Riots, Don't Tell the Truth to the Military Lest the Generals Get the Vapors, sodomy laws, and the ever-pervasive coming out -- so many ways to try to silence a people, to shame a people, to try to erase our very existence.

Telling the truth is so human, so perilous, so simple, so revolutionary.

Mission Accomplished!

2006-06-22T03:42:00.000-04:00

The memo from Ambassador Khalilzad to Condi says, if not all, plenty enough.

Point 1 (of 23):

Iraqi staff in the Public Affairs sector have complained that Islamist and Militia groups have been negatively affecting daily routine. Harassment over proper dress and habits is increasingly persuasive. They also report power cuts and fuel prices have diminished their quality of life.

These are the privileged ones with access to the power. Goddess only knows what life is like for Iraqis who aren't so well-connected!

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein but, under his rule, women had freedom of choice about dress, religious observance, full access to the professions, and didn't suffer the sort of restrictions to things like automobile driving and use of modern communications that women in much of the Middle East do. American occupation has let things devolve to the point that women are now being threatened into conservative, Persian-style religious dress, including demands by some government ministries that their employees wear the hijab at work. Taxi drivers fearing retaliation by religious death squads are demanding their female passengers not only comply with conservative dress requirements but refrain from using cell phones in the taxis. Women report being pressured not to drive. No single sect is responsible. Factional fighting among employees over religious dress codes has surfaced in the embassy.

Men and children are also under dress scrutiny -- shorts and jeans are out.

Early signs of the ethnic cleansing faced by Kurds elsewhere in Iraq are now surfacing in Baghdad -- and militias are often involved.

Electricity is avaliable intermittently only 4-8 hours per day -- in 115-degree heat -- and none after 2 a.m. -- and that's with generator supplementation, for which they pay more per month than most Iraqi families' incomes. In a country with so much oil that it flows freely from the ground like Jed Clampett was making like Johnny Buckshotseed, people wait twelve hours in line for gas.

The middle class is leaving in droves -- particularly on the heel of kidnapping threats and kidnappings themselves. Being identified as a government employee -- particularly a U.S. government employee -- is a potential death sentence. Things are so bad that even Green Zone gate guards are acting more loyal to partisan militia forces, adding to the danger. Green Zone employees hide this from their families, thus they can't come in to work on weekends or holidays.

The most telling bit was this report from one female Iraqi embassy employee:

She told us ... that most of her family believes the US -- which is widely perceived as fully controlling the country and tolerating the malaise -- is punishing the population as Saddam did (but with Sunnis and very poor Shia now at the bottom of the list.) Otherwise, she says, the allocation of power and security would not be so arbitrary.

A male employee describes a "burden of responsibility, new stress coming from social circles who increasingly disapprove of the coalition presence, and everyday threats weigh very heavily." The Iraqi Christian district is now under mukhtar control.

The embassy has now begun shredding documents with employees' names on them and they haven't been able to use locals as on-camera translators for over half a year.

Factionalism requires stealth and good acting skills to travel within the city, adopting the dress and habits of the area one is in at any given moment -- if one can get past the neighborhood barricades that I started noticing in pictures in the last year. Spies called alasas are common. The only security that embassy employees can now trust is the mercenary goon squads run by American contractors sans Iraqis.

This is a land that has had enough KBR gravel dumped on it to practically pave it wholesale. There are enough U.S. government trailers lined up in easy-to-bomb rows to put even FEMA's Arkansan trailer ghost town to shame. The Washington ostriches still have dollar signs in their eyes and jingoism in place of brains. They're still lying to an American people either still hungry for mendacious leadership or too exhausted by it to care. But there's a voice in Iraq trying to squeak out a warning. Would that the posturing traitors in Congress were listening.

Free mp3 Folk Music Downloads

2006-05-24T12:23:00.000-04:00

... and blues, bluegrass, celtic, children's, gospel, traditional music ...

I realize this is off topic for this blog, but I'd like to take a moment to invite you to visit eFolkMusic. It's an amazing nonprofit organization and website dedicated to supporting and promoting folk music and folk musicians.

eFolkMusic offers some free mp3 downloads to nonmembers. It offers 1,000 free downloads to new members, plus you get a 100-song cd sampler when you sign up. You also get a 10% discount on merchandise purchased through the site. Membership only costs $30, so you get about $1,000 of value from your $30 membership fee. I think that's pretty cool.

If you're wealthy and benevolent, eFolkMusic also has ways you can support their work (with higher-level memberships). If you'd like to help by promoting artists locally, I think they'll let you do that,too. It's a great site and a great organization.

I joined eFolkMusic with an artist membership last week. My profile is now active. I'll be posting another song every week or so. If you like the music, please visit often.

The Web We Love is Endangered

2006-05-16T07:35:00.000-04:00

The Web We Love is Endangered
By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet
Posted on May 8, 2006, Printed on May 9, 2006http://www.alternet.org/story/36002/

There's been a lot of hysteria on the Internet lately over something called "network neutrality," and you can blame it partly on AT&T chair Edward E. Whitacre Jr. Whitacre, whose company's recent merger with SBC Communications makes it one of the biggest owners of telecommunications cables in the country, got all huffy late last year about sharing AT&T's precious wires with any old Internet service provider who felt like sending packets. "For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!" he told a Business Week reporter in one of those classic "will somebody please tell our chair to shut up" moments.

However crudely put, Whitacre gave voice to a sentiment that's becoming common among execs of companies like AT&T, Comcast, BellSouth, and others that provide the actual physical wires (often called "pipes") that bring us the shiny Web. Because companies like Google take up a lot of space on AT&T's wires, AT&T wants to get paid extra to handle that. Think how much more cash it could be making if Google paid for the privilege of offering faster searches over AT&T. That's exactly the way Whitacre and his ilk see it.

The problem with this moneymaking idea is that the architects of the Internet and industry regulators at the FCC are enamored of something they call the network neutrality principle. Although never written into US law, this principle holds that nobody's Internet traffic should be privileged over anybody else's -- to do so would be like letting an electricity company cut a deal with GE so that only GE appliances got good current. As it turns out, the neutral network provides an excellent platform for business models that cluster at the ends of the wires: Everything from Google and eBay to ISPs and music-downloading companies are based on the idea that money is made by shooting good stuff over the wires, not by making some wires better at getting good stuff.

Underlying network neutrality is the idea that people should be allowed to attach whatever they like to the ends of the Internet's wires -- and they should be able to do it without significant hindrances, like paying steep access fees to AT&T to get their businesses online. Neutrality is why we routinely get cool new "end" innovations like virtual reality world Second Life or smart phones that connect to the Internet. As both Internet protocol inventor Vint Cerf and former FCC chair Michael Powell have argued, these kinds of new worlds and widgets are only possible because the wires are neutral and their ends are open.

What would a world without network neutrality be like? The worst possibility is that companies like AT&T would create "prejudiced pipes" that push paying customers' traffic along more quickly than nonpaying customers'. If indie bookstore Powell's wasn't able to pay AT&T's fees, its online store might load far more slowly than Amazon's -- if it even loaded at all. Some companies might force music and movie companies to pay extra to make their downloads work, thus preventing anyone but the major labels and studios from making their wares available online. Ultimately, consumers would have less choice online, and small "end" start-ups would be at a great disadvantage when they put their stuff online. If established players like the New York Times can pay the prejudiced-pipe owners for quicker load times, who will bother to read slow-moving blogs?

Many fear that this scenario may come to pass rather soon, because Congress is in the yearlong process of trying to replace the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with an updated legislation package. Several potential drafts have included language that would enshrine the principles of network neutrality in law. Proponents of this move, whom superwonk law professor Timothy Wu has dubbed "openists," say that mandating network neutrality will lead to greater innovation and consumer choice. Meanwhile, deregulationists like the AT&Ts of the world are pushing Congress to keep neutrality out of the law so they can build prejudiced pipes and start charging Google to use 'em.

If the deregulationists succeed, power over the Internet will be centralized among the companies that own the wires, and everyone but the big corporations will lose. We may be about to witness the end of the ends.

Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who prefers to stay neutral.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/36002/

Privacy Invasion - Dead or Alive

2006-05-15T18:46:00.000-04:00

Liberals just don't get it.

The whole idea is that by invading every American's privacy, the government can reduce via prevention the death and injury toll that terrorists might inflict upon Americans as they did on 9/11.

Clearly the focus is upon preventing violent crime.

Does anyone think that a victim of criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, or aggravated assault, truly cares whether she died by the hands of Muhammad Atta of the Middle East, or at the hands of Harold Sweeney of Boston? Dead is dead, raped, robbed assaulted, it is all the same to them, correct?

Can you even begin to calculate the number of violent crimes we could prevent if the government could listen to every phone or oral conversation every person in America is having, read the mail or email of every person in America, or know there every location at the snap of a finger?

When you consider that in 2004 there were 1,367,009 violent crimes committed in the US, why stop with terrorists, when we could prevent thousands and thousands of violent crimes through the logic of privacy invasion. These criminals terrorize Americans daily.

Invade their privacy, stop crime. It's a no brainer.

The Fourth Amendment had its chance. It was good for a couple of hundred years or so, but given George Bush's inherent executive power during the war against terrorist inflicted violent crime, why stop at preventing the small number of terrorist casualties we imagine, when we can prevent so many violent crimes?

IT'S TIME TO GIVE AMERICANS THE PREVENTATIVE SECURITY FROM VIOLENT CRIMES THEY DESERVE.

INVASION OF AMERICA'S PRIVACY WILL PROTECT US FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

VOTE NO FOR PRIVACY, AND BE SAFE . . .

AT LEAST FROM EVERYONE EXCEPT THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO ARE EMPLOYED BY CITY, COUNTY AND STATE GOVERNMENTS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ALL THEIR OUTISDE PAID CONTRACTORS.

Karl Rove Indicted

2006-05-14T04:58:00.000-04:00

"Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Saturday 13 May 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.

The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office. The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media.

As TruthOut reported Friday evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity Friday night, sources confirmed Rove's indictment was imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."

Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.

A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.

That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.

The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.

But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.

Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.

However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.

The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony and resulted in the indictment.

Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and that the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.

"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."

Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t. He is the author of the new book NEWS JUNKIE. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview."

PhoneGate 'Net ReMix

2006-05-12T19:36:00.000-04:00

Raw Story:

Reps. Jane Harman (D-CA) and John Conyers (D-MI) today introduced the "Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by NSA Act" (The LISTEN ACT).

The Act would require any attempt to listen in on Americans or collect telephone or e-mail records to be be conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), or Title III of the criminal code. In both cases, court warrants based on probable cause are required. The Act states that FISA is the exclusive way to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons on U.S. soil for intelligence purposes.

It also states that the 2002 Congressional Act authorizing the use of military force did NOT authorize spying outside of FISA. Rep. Conyers further says:

"It is a sad day when the Congress of the United States must compel the President to abide by the onstitution." The Ranking Member on the House Committee on the Judiciary said further, "I regret that we have to legislate once again on an issue that was clearly settled by this Congress nearly 30 years ago in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

But the problem isn't a lack of laws, it is a lack of enforcement of our current laws.

If this proposed legislation truly covers the same ground as does FISA (which is what Conyers and the article seem to be saying), it may actually harm the Dems' best position on the issue, since the Repugs will say that Bush's spying must be lawful and not covered now by FISA, if the Dems are trying to pass legislation to have FISA cover it. It also could make Harman appear to be doing something, when she was one of the few Dems in the world who knew about the eavesdropping and kept Bush's secret(s).

Maybe they're hoping that two statutes trump a signing statement!

GREAT MOMENTS...in telecommunications (Daily Kos):

1844: In the first demonstration of Morse Code, the message What God Hath Wrought is transmitted from the Supreme Court room in the Capitol to Baltimore, Maryland.

1876: "Mr. Watson, come here...I want you! (If ya know what I mean...)" [and Watson, tears in his eyes, arms outstretched, comes running...]

1878: Emma Nutt becomes the first telephone operator in America, earning 10 bucks a month.

1927: The first transAtlantic telephone service begins between the U.S. and London.

1951: Long-distance calling without operator assistance begins.

1954: The Ericofon becomes the coolest phone ever made.

1965: Maxwell Smart foils KAOS terrorists thanks to his shoe phone.

1964: World's first videophone system.

1983: Chicago becomes the site of the first cellular phone system in America.

2004: Mink, Louisiana becomes the last community in the United States to get phone service.

2006: "The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call recordsof tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY. The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans -- most of whom aren't suspected of any crime."

Holy police state, Batman!

[Paean to Mother's Day:
Batman's Mother:
"It's a nice car, Bruce, but do you realize how much the insurance is going to be?"
George W. Bush's Mother:
"Well, George, why can't you be more like your father?"]

My fellow Americans, in the eyes of Republican President George W. Bush, we are all al Qa'ida suspects. (Complimentary AK-47s are now available in the lobby. Make sure you grab an extra one for Grandma.)

Just be thankful the MSM aren't calling it "freedom listening" or something similar.

But hark! WAPO uses the L word (no, not that L word, silly -- the L-ying one!) in a headline...hell just got very chilly. But that was just on the internet. They were a bit more circumspect in print.

BTW - I can't get this picture out of my head of...
Scott McClellan - Laughing....
Tony Snow - Crying....
Welcome to the Big Time Mr. Snow!!!!

Watching Bush deliver his statement, I noticed that his eyes shifted up and to the left, indicating that it was auditorily constructed. If you asked someone to try to create in their mind the highest pitch possible, this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they Auditorily Constructed this sound that they have never heard. Let's say your child asks you for a cookie and you ask them "well, what did your mother say?" As they reply, "Mom said... yes.", they look up and to the left. This would indicate a made up answer as their eyes are showing a "constructed image or sound." Looking to the right would indicated a "remembered" voice or image, and thus would be telling the truth -- except in Shrub's case it would be him trying to remember a lie someone constructed for him.

Question: Which way do you look when you're listening to the little microphone in your ear?

Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. To make real progress efficiently, put it in Third!

Let's all repeat together now: PERFECT STORM!
Has anyone noticed what the stock market did yesterday? Now, you may say, "A coincidence." And I say, "Bernanke."
That worthless piece of horsepucky Greenspan propped up Bush for his entire Presidency.
Bernanke's going to bring him down.
If there's one thing the plutocrats don't like, it's a falling stock market.

Yeah, and what's their other election year issue? "Don't elect Democrats or they'll investigate us?"

They're gonna run on Karl's playbook:
- Taxes
- Abortion
- Amendment outlawing equal civil marriage.
They don't have anything else.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. -- Baez

Maybe the tinfoilers are onto something...
The flouride in the water probably makes the reception in my fillings a little clearer for the Feds.
Actually, flouride makes you passive. It's what they used in mental institutions back in the day.

"Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling

Olbermann mentioned that this database might make it easy to check on whistle-blowers -- look up specific reporters' numbers and see who they're talking to. Cross-check those numbers with the numbers of government employees who might have inside knowledge to spill. Voila! Leak plugged!

Tinfoil battened down nice and tight? Try Thom Hartmann filling in on the Majority Report:

He mentioned an interesting little nugget I had never put together ... that Tom Daschle and Pat Leahy were both in key positions to stop the Patriot Act ... and they were the only two to have letters with anthrax in them mailed to their Senate offices.

Makes one wonder ... whatever happened to the investigation into the anthrax attacks?

JESUS SAVES! Republicans run up the debt.

If I was really a conspiracy theorist, I'd wonder if this leak wasn't the most Rovian masterpiece of all -- a distraction to aid the quiet passage of the Billionaire Subsidy and Relief Act, aka the tax cut reconciliation bill (H.R. 4297), which provides households with income of $1 million or more an average tax break of $42,000. In gross contrast, the more than three-quarters of the nation's households with annual income of $75,000 or less will receive an average tax cut of $30 for one year - not even enough to pay for a single tank of gas. And average families will end up footing the bill for millionaire tax breaks through cuts in vital services and added national debt.

A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

Insurance companies will want to know whose calls and purchases reflect certain patterns of risk:
Calling phone sex numbers? AIDS risk. No health insurance for you.
Calling your shrink or a counseling center? Suicide risk. No life or mortgage insurance for you.

The NSA most certainly monitors the books you buy because it is so much easier than collecting library records. I'd be surprised if they didn't have some kind of automatic scoring mechanism, so that if you buy a book by Noam you get a mountain of points, but if you buy a book by Rush you get points forgiven (not because they think you're good, but because they know you're stupid).

The real irony is that there's a backlog of calls in Arabic and Farsi and Pashto that are sitting in a drawer somewhere because they fired all the gay linguists. Hayden makes the horse lawyer at FEMA look like he was doing a heckuva job, indeed.

"One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal." Bill Moyers

We have buried McCarthyism and, although some think we're well into Stalinism, I think a better metaphor might be Pinochetism. At the very least, if people don't see this as a slippery slope at this point I don't know what will wake them up.

I am not blaming those who are resolved to rule, only those who show an even greater readiness to submit. ~Thucydides

A new poll conducted in Pennsylvania by Zogby International and commissioned by OpEdNews.com asked some of the questions the corporate media has failed to ask. The answers are surprising. One revelation is this: the single greatest predictor of an American's political views is whether s/he watches Fox News.

By far the most dramatic determinant of belief that Bush lied in the Iraq runup was the respondent's most watched television network for news. Viewers of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, ranged between 89.1% and 63.2% believing Bush lied. Among Fox viewers, a whopping 2.3% believe Bush lied, a confluence similar to talk radio listeners'. Among viewers of Fox, only 14.7% disagree that the president has the right to attack Iran without support from Congress. Among non-Fox viewers, support for pro-impeachment candidates ranges from 60.4% to 75.3%. Among Fox viewers, it's at 1.8%.

There's nothin' wrong with this country wot a few good Visigoths can't cure.

In his final weeks, Nixon was lying as fast as he could, on a daily basis, just to make it through the evening press conference, knowing all the while that his lies would be debunked the following day. Those were desperate days.

Now we have the same pattern with Shrub. Each new story is just an attempt to put up one more little firewall to stave off the inevitable damning revelation of the next ever-more-horrifying truth. As the end draws near, each revelation comes a bit faster on the heels of the last. These are desperate days.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."-George Orwell

You know what's so delicious about all this? No one is going to tell Bush that he's at 29% and this putz is going to trot out his tired lines for another two weeks while the storm turns into a Category Five.

Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

At least one good thing could come of this: We can prove I was not the one calling Bill asking if he had Prince Albert in a can. [Name withheld to avoid lawsuit] did it and we now have proof. Besides, "They" are still in charge and with "Great Patriots" like Jon Kyl of AZ and kiss asses like Charles Schumer, nothing is going to change. Case in point: Sen. Cornyn was captured saying on TV that we counted on there being dumb terrorists who get caught in our simple-minded phone snooping. Uh, Sen. Cornyn, it's not the DUMB ones we need to worry about, nitwit.

It's the warrants, stupid! That should be the meme that gets traction. Without warrants, there's no accountability, no paper trail, no explication.

So here we are - the last Americans, whether we're called "liberals," or "Democrats," or "progressives" - we're the last stand. Are we throwing Molotov cocktails at the cops? Are we hurling bricks through windows? No. We're asking for the rule of law, for the protection of warrants. And this, according to the ruling junta, is far too much to ask. I think this may be the tipping point. I've called that before and been wrong, but Shrub coming out within hours of the leak makes this one look like it's the big enchilada.

People were talking about this at work today. They've NEVER talked politics before. And in India they're saying, "Those Americans sound upset today."

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Did you try to read the writing on the wall
Did that voice inside you say I've heard it all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again

Day by day I hear the voices rising
Started with a whisper like it did before
Day by day we count the dead and dying
Ship the bodies home while the networks all keep score

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Could your eyes believe the writing on the wall
Did that voice inside you say I've heard it all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again

One by one I see the old ghosts rising
Stumblin' 'cross Big Muddy
Where the light gets dim
Day after day another Momma's crying
She's lost her precious child
To a war that has no end

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Did you stop to read the writing at The Wall
Did that voice inside you say I've seen this all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again
-- John Fogerty

"This time, lawmakers should not roll over when Mr. Gonzales declines to provide answers." NYTimes.

Please. Roll over? They gave tongue.
Makes you wonder what else of the TIA is being done in secret...right now...to you.

That explains the American Idol results!

Heil myself
Heil to me
I'm the [deleted text: kraut] fundie
Who's out to change our history {note how that rhymes better, too}
Heil myself
Raise your hand
There's no greater
Dictator in the land!
Everything I do, I do for you! ...

I'm the [deleted text: German Ethel Merman] American Ken Mehlman

Dontcha know

We are crossing borders
The new world order is here
Make a great big smile
Ev'ryone sieg heil to me
Wonderful me!
And now it's...

Springtime for Bushie, and Amerika

George Bush: "We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans."

What would it take for the press to ask, "What does 'mining and trolling' mean?", then sit back and watch him stumble all over himself?

Mining = All of this country belongs to me.
Trolling = Where can I find a cold beer?

When what he wanted to say was, "Because those innocent millions are customers of Qwest. See, the other millions, customers of AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth, we have mined and trolled them. What that means is that those millions have been mined and trolled. In other words, to say that we mined and trolled the customers of Qwest must be one of those eggs-a-ger-ay-shuns."

Cheers to current events for proving that I'm not dangerously paranoid.
Jeers to current events for proving that I'm not dangerously paranoid.
Cheers to all of us fighting this smug, corrupt, selfish, lying and malicious administration in any way we can. "We're not trolling" indeed.

"A court order couldn't be obtained to just wholesale surveil," said Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing AT&T in San Francisco. "The legal standard requires something more specific. You can't get everybody's data unless you have some suspicion."

Raw Story: "One government lawyer who has participated in negotiations with telecommunications providers said the Bush administration has argued that a company can turn over its entire database of customer records -- and even the stored content of calls and e-mails -- because customers 'have consented to that' when they establish accounts. The fine print of many telephone and Internet service contracts includes catchall provisions, the lawyer said, authorizing the company to disclose such records to protect public safety or national security, or in compliance with a lawful government request."

Yes, that little-known provision is called the "Fuhrer clause".

Don't you realize that President Bush is trying to protect us from terrorists who want to take over our country, depleat our treasury, strip us of our civil rights, subvert our democracy and bring us to ruin?

After World War II, the NSA's predecessor, the Army Signal Security Agency, sent representatives to the major telegraph companies and asked for cooperation in getting access to all telegraph traffic entering or leaving the United States. The companies complied, over the objections of their lawyers. When these practices came to light as part of a 1976 investigation into intelligence abuses, President Gerald R. Ford extended executive privilege, which shielded those involved from testifying publicly, to the telecommunications companies on the recommendation of then chief-of-staff Dick Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to the Project on Government Oversight.

It's all about ELS Coding. Fear not.

FBI COUNTERTERRORISM OFFICIAL George Bauries stated that any encryptions available to the public are useless in this exchange on CNN's Situation Room yesterday:

BRIAN TODD: George Bauries is a former FBI counterterrorism official who also worked with the NSA in counter-intelligence operations. Bauries says the NSA can also collect your credit card and ATM records, airline and other travel data, medical and educational records.

BAURIES: They don't disclose exactly where it's stored, how it's stored. It's just that all the data is stored and that anything that would be sent electronically...

TODD: And so-called spyware you might use to protect your information is, Bauries says, meaningless

BAURIES: Any locks on files, any method of encryption, any of the over-the-counter programs that are openly available to the general public, that would not have the ability to stop the NSA.

TODD: That's what Bauries says the ancient agency is doing.

The LA Times sears: Is any phone call off-limits? Latest NSA revelations show that the White House can't be trusted to draw the line on liberties. ...... In other words: Trust us. But by now no one in (or out of) Congress should have any faith in the administration's assurances about either its actions or its intentions under this program. As another president once observed: Trust, but verify. Congress needs to fill in the blanks.

From AmericaBlog:
Washington Post's Eugene Robinson:

At least now we know that the Bush administration's name for spying on Americans without first seeking court approval -- the "terrorist surveillance program" -- isn't an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak after all. It's just a bald-faced lie....

You'll recall that when it was revealed last year that the NSA was eavesdropping on phone calls and reading e-mails without first going to court for a warrant, the president said his "terrorist surveillance program" targeted international communications in which at least one party was overseas, and then only when at least one party was suspected of some terrorist involvement. Thus no one but terrorists had anything to worry about.

Not remotely true, it turns out...

Washington Post editorial almost calls Bush a liar

For the Washington Post, that's a big step. Think of it as a first step in twelve.

WHEN THE New York Times revealed the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping program late last year, President Bush assured the country that the operation was carefully limited to international calls, targeted only al-Qaeda
suspects and did not involve snooping on law-abiding Americans. That turns out to be far from the whole truth.

or ...
That turns out to be a lie. COME ON, Potomac Pravda -- afraid the Kremlin won't invite you to any more cocktail parties? WaPo - tiptoeing into sanity one tarnished slipper at a time.

Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's telecommunications and internet panel: "The NSA stands for Now Spying on Americans."

Of course, Shrub says he fully supports Hayden. In fact, there's lots of talk about the WH support of Hayden and how he's their guy. OK, so why did they cancel some of his visits yesterday? Sounds like another botched nomination. So how long is Hayden going to be in play before getting tossed aside?

Or are they just going to wag the dog:
AS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS HEAD TOWARDS GULF, NEW CONCERNS OF IRAN STRIKE PLANS...
US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike

Well, either it or their usual Osama tape surfacing bit would be better than the lame Mehlman "outing" yesterday!

29!

WSJ poll numbers here: Key approval numbers: Bush 29%, Congress Overall 18%, Republicans in Congress 20%, Democrats in Congress 23%.

NONE of the morning news shows mentioned the 29% approval...

Someone claimed that it couldn't go lower than 0% but consider this: If the rapture comes and the dead start walkin' around again and they [deleted text: hate] respectfully disagree with the president, too, his numbers could actually dip into negative territory.

Nothing short of an aroused public can change things, nothing less than democracy is at stake- Bill Moyers

I'm going to start using smoke signals...

The only mention on CNN's webpage is the third small sidebar headline "Bush: We're not trolling your personal life".

The main headline is "Big Easy's New Evacuation Plan -- Don't bet on it."

I bet the White House is praying for another major hurricane soon. Cable news fluff coverage, even billions more distributed to "contractors", and another reason to start back at Step 1 with Katrina "recovery". Creeping fascism needs distractions.

A generation which ignores history has no past and no future. -- Rbt. Heinlein

Remember how Orwellian Bush looked lit in light blue speaking in New Orleans' cathedral plaza?

Didn't Alberto Gonzalez, in the NSA spying hearings, refuse to rule out as illegal breaking into Americans' homes without a warrant to look for Terrorist Ties??

"Is the law a law or is it a piece of toast?" -G. Keillor

Hey, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean ShrubCo isn't out to get you.

Bush's wet dream right now includes a blonde cheerleader disappearing, a great white shark attack on Memorial Day weekend, and Angelina giving birth -- to triplets -- one at a time over the space of six weeks.

If some of the hookers at the Watergate were blondes, would that help him? I'll bet they've fired their usual "journalists" for hire and now have Rita 'I know I have a dick down there somewhere' Cosby and Nancy Grace on payroll instead.

Shades of The President's Analyst:

Dr. Sidney Schaefer (James Coburn), a psychologist, is chosen by the U.S. Government to act as the President's personal analyst. (security anylist)

He is constantly telephoned at any/all hours to go to the White House and listen to his client's daily problems, and quickly becomes overwhelmed by stress.

Schaefer begins to feel that he is being watched everywhere and his paranoia grows to an almost insane degree; he even suspects his sweet girlfriend (Joan Delaney) of spying on him.

Eventually, he goes on the lam and manages to narrowly avoid several assassination attempts by tiny agents from the "FBR", who are trying to kill him due to his having been pegged as a risk to national security.

At the same time, spies from every corner of the world attempt to kidnap him because of all the secret information the President has provided to him.

Two of Schaefer's previous clients, a "CEA" assassin (Godfrey Cambridge) and a Russian spy (Severn Darden), come to his aid and help him expose a major conspiracy involving The Phone Company and world domination.

"In war-time the word patriotism means suppression of truth." -- Siegfried Sassoon

An ABC poll says 66% of Americans will gladly give up the 4th amendment -- nothing to fear if you did nothing wrong.
But who defines wrong?
Congress that we can vote out of office?
Super secret NSA who Congress cannot even investigate because Congress does not have clearances to observe what the NSA is doing - and determine wrong.
In the famous words of George Bush "the god-damned constitution is just a piece of paper."
Again - who defines wrong?

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi

A little blackmail here and there somehow doesn't seem beyond these...these...Words fail me. Somewhere, there is an archive of tapes with Bill O'Lielly begging a series of young women to take a shower with a falafel.

1978: Rights to Financial Privacy Act
Sets conditions under which federal investigators can access an individual's bank account records.
1978: Electronic Fund Transfer Act
Requires banks that provide EFT services to disclose the circumstances under which account information can be disclosed to third parties.
1980: Privacy Protection Act
Protects the press and others that disseminate information to the public from unlawful government searches and seizure of their work product and other materials.
1984: Cable Communications Policy Act
Protects the privacy of cable television subscriber records.
1986: Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Protects the privacy of electronic communications and transactional data such as telephone records.
1988: Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act
Protects individual privacy in connection with government benefit programs in which an individual's records at one government agency are compared against similar records at other agencies.
1988: Video Privacy Protection Act
Mandates a court order to gain access to videocassette rental records.

"We have to address the fact that the president has broken the law." -- Senator Russ Feingold
.
Of course, USA Patriot Act emended and amended a lotta US Code, particularly the Communications Act of '34. The effects cascade, statutorily. I advise getting to know the Patriot Acts chapter, para, and verse. As for the 1986 ECPA, it superceded the Smith v. Maryland decision, which stated that people have no expectation of privacy in the numbers they dialed. The Patriot Act then extended the definition of "pen register" to include programs which did the same function as the original telecommunications devices. Bottom line: the probable cause DOMESTIC standard for business records search is now very low -- subpoena.

Verizon is denying that their wireless program is involved but not that their landlines are:

Thank you for contacting Verizon Wireless through our website. My name is Stephen, and I am happy to assist you regarding the USA Today article.

Recent stories suggest that the Federal Government has been collecting the phone records of potentially millions of Americans as part of the war on terror. The stories specifically reference customer records of landline companies, including AT&T and Verizon. This is NOT a story that affects Verizon Wireless customers.

If you are a customer of Verizon Landline Communications, you may want to contact the company at 1-800 483 7988.

Verizon Wireless is not involved in this situation.

One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the NSA program: Qwest. (The NSA knew better than to ask Working Assets. They've actually joined the ACLU lawsuit.)

According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order - or approval under FISA - to proceed.
...
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government.
...
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
...
"They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

I love the smell of indictments in the morning!!

"At Delta House we have a saying: Don't Get mad, Get even." Daniel Simpson Day

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The spin machine is at work. Kit Bond on Lehrer:

1. The revelation that the NSA collects phone records has very seriously endangered and damaged national security.

Bull. Terrorists (at least the ones we really need to worry about, as opposed to doofuses like Richard Reid and nutjobs like Moussaoui, already know or assume that we're doing these things. Any smart 10 year old knows that we're probably doing these things. Bond clearly takes us all for morons, but he's the real moron if he thinks we're falling for this. It's laughable to even assert such a thing.

2. A court decision in the late 70's (Maryland v. something, I forgot the specific name) established the right of the government to obtain business records without warrant.

Leahy proceeded to demolish this by stating that subsequent decisions and laws, including the Patriot Act, have overriden this precedent. This legal argument simply doesn't hold water (see above).

3. This program only targets calls in which one end is abroad.

Lie. As the USA Today article clearly points out, this program specifically collects call records on domestic US calls.

4. The ntelligence committees have been fully briefed on this and other programs.

Lie. Only a handful of members have been regularly briefed on selected portions of these programs and then not allowed to discuss these details with their colleagues, let alone the public.

LIES. It's in their DNA. It's what they do. It's who they are. But you can see it in their faces when they do it. Bush is especially bad at hiding his "tells", but it was evident on Bond's face as well.

NY DAILY NEWS

10 things you should know about phone scandal

1. What is the National Security Agency doing?
The government spy agency is collecting the telephone records of ordinary Americans and building a massive database of nearly every call made within the country. We're talking 200 million phone lines across the U.S. and billions of calls, including an untold number just in New York City.

2. When did this start?
Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to USA Today. The bigger question is, where does the NSA snooping stop? Because if they can track our calls, there's little to prevent them from reading our e-mails, text and video messages. Even Internet phone services that encrypt their calls could be vulnerable to Big Brother.

3. Why is the NSA doing this?
Identify potential terrorists by tracking who talks to whom in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance. It's a process known as "social network analysis" that aims at identifying previously undetected connections between people.

4. Are the feds listening in to our phone calls?
No. [At least not admitting it.] But they are keeping track of who we call. The NSA records don't include names and addresses. But critics say identifying a caller from a phone number is a snap. They also question the government's rationale for doing this because terrorists can easily get off "the grid" by using pay phones, calling cards and Internet cafes. They can also cover their tracks by using disposable - or a variety of - cell phones.

5. Which telephone companies turned over their records to the NSA?
Verizon - with 7 million landline users just in New York State - AT&T, and BellSouth Corp. cooperated with the feds. They are the nation's biggest telecommunications companies and provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers. But Qwest, which has 14 million customers in 14 mostly Western states, refused.

6. What's President Bush's position?
Bush insists the feds are not "mining or trolling through the personal lives" of Americans. He says the NSA's actions are "lawful" and that he has briefed members of Congress.

7. What does Congress say?
Many Democrats and some Republicans are outraged and are demanding answers. They suspect it may be unconstitutional and violate privacy rights. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has vowed to grill phone company honchos about the NSA snooping. But Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is defending the program as a necessary tool for fighting terrorism.

8. What is the potential political fallout?
It could stall the confirmation of Bush's pick to run the CIA, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden. He was already taking flak for spearheading the NSA's electronic eavesdropping program on telephone calls and e-mails from within the U.S. to suspected terrorists overseas.

9. So that's different from what we're finding out now?
Yes. That program involved the NSA tapping telephone calls and e-mails from within the U.S. to suspected terrorists overseas - without warrants. This NSA program keeps tabs on all of us - also without our knowledge.

10. What happens now?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) warned of a "major constitutional confrontation." The debate over civil liberties and the legal underpinnings for the Bush administration's actions has already begun. But the public is divided over how much privacy should be sacrificed in the name of safety from terrorism.

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

Chicago Tribune's tech writer had an interesting overview of phone data mining. The view, buried in the story, is that it's theoretically possible but unlikely to work.

Best case scenario is that it would be one of several tools that can be used after they know who the terrorist is. Of course, left unsaid is the fact that they could go to a FISA court and do traditional phone call tracing if that's the case.

Also left unsaid is what could happen if this was put in the hand of people who hate environmentalists, Muslims, Quakers, protestors or any other people who disagree with them. Find a target, find out who they talked to, who those people talked to, etc......round 'em up.

Even among the techies interviewed for this article, the fear is that the agents won't understand the limitations of such systems and will just use it as a short cut to haul innocent people in.

"Who knows but that which seems omitted today, waits for tomorrow?" Kahlil Gibran

The next stage is here

Credit card transactions? Probably next. After all, these terrorists (etc) have to be funded from somewhere. But don't worry, we only look at terrorist transactions...er, those that fund terrorists...er, those whose financial transactions originate or end up outside the U.S....er, well, just have all the records to datamine; but, trust us, this is only to look for terrorists.

Internet traffic? Yep. Internet backbone is...anybody?...Bueller? Bueller?...the telcos. They probably have that information stored too (wait for the release in a few weeks).

E-mail? Probably. It's a lot more data than simple point-to-point IP addresses and telephone numbers...but you can sniff for certain words/phrases and copy those e-mails more selectively.

Yes, health records, credit card transactions, the actual phone calls (internals) and, it is reasonable to assume they are already doing this without warrants.

Otherwise they're asking us to believe that they have spent billions of our children's tax dollars, to build a a huge database that will not lead to any actions.

They intend to take actions, without warrants, such as listening to actual phone calls, based upon the patterns that they identify as high threat patterns and are already doing so because there would be nothing to base a warrant on.

First, the NSA will identify the patterns without oversight -- information from a warrantless secret monitoring program -- meaning that all downstream actions are also warrantless and secret.

Second, paranoia is its own reward. Remember this administration, the DoJ, NSA, etc. believe that the bar for monitoring should be reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.

The big difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause is that probable cause requires facts.

Suspicion on the other hand, requires a lack of facts.

Reasonable suspicion is an oxymoron.

Suspicious people never understand that.

Indeed, for the suspicious, the lack of facts confirms that the suspected is far more devious and dangerous than previously thought. This in turn, is a call for bolder actions, more monitoring, more intrusion and they have just the program for that.

You won't mind, will you? Unless, of course you have something to hide.

Obviously, anybody called by a known or suspected terrorist or any one called by someone who was called by a terrorist or someone who was called by someone who was called by a terrorist or someone who called someone who, well, you get the idea.

Using this line of suspicion, you could quickly turn Mohamed Atta ordering pizza into the need to listen to all the phone conversations in Boston.

How about people opposed to the president's actions?. As we know, Shrub only wants what is best for the country. He said so himself and presidents never lie -- he said that as well. Thus people who are opposed to the president's actions are opposed to what is best for the country and therefore are with the terrorists -- all 71% of us.

Anyone calling Congressman Conyers, called by Congressman Conyers, etc.

The determination of the calling patterns that will qualify for further monitoring, perhaps a black bag job, are up to the NSA, without oversight.

Of course, no Republican president would ever keep an enemies list and spy on them.

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." --George W. Bush, Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000

Today's mental iPod Inspired by the good folks at the NSA...It could've been Blondie's"Call Me" or ELO's "Telephone Line". Meri Wilson's "Telephone Man" or Sheena Easton's "Telephone" would've been just fine...but I can't find the words for them and I am feeling blue, so I'll just choose this sad ol' song to send along to you:

"Operator"..By Jim Croce

Operator, oh could you help me place this call
You see the number on the matchbook is old and faded
She's livin' in L.A.
With my best old ex-friend Ray
A guy she said she knew well and sometimes hated

Isn't that the way they say it goes
But let's forget all that
And give me the number if you can find it
So I can call just to tell them I'm fine and to show
I've overcome the blow
I've learned to take it well
I only wish my words could just convince myself
***That it just wasn't real***
But that's not the way it feels

Operator, oh could you help me place this call
'Cause I can't read the number that you just gave me
There's something in my eyes
You know it happens every time
I think about the love that I thought would save me

Isn't that the way they say it goes
But let's forget all that
And give me the number if you can find it
So I can call just to tell them I'm fine and to show
I've overcome the blow
I've learned to take it well
I only wish my words could just convince myself
That it just wasn't real
But that's not the way it feels

No no no no
That's not the way it feels
Operator oh let's forget about this call
There's no one there I really wanted to talk to
Thank you for your time
Oh you've been so much more than kind
And you can keep the dime

Isn't that the way they say it goes
But let's forget all that
And give me the number if you can find it S
o I can call just to tell them I'm fine and to show
I've overcome the blow
I've learned to take it well
I only wish my words could just convince myself
That it just wasn't real
But that's not the way it feels

Somebody should clue him in to the Freeper's lament: It's all Bill Clinton's fault!"

You look so tired, unhappy/Bring down the government/They don't, they don't speak for us."--Radiohead

Another item of interest in this whole mess is that it is an extremely large database. You don't run databases this large without the participation of database companies and developers. What database system do you think they are using? IMS? Teradata?

I suspect we could see a spike in the profits for some company due to large (secret) government contracts. It is almost certainly either Oracle or DB2. This would be a very large connected series of relational databases.

Except, of course, this IS government work, so it is probably Access or MySQL, in which case we really have nothing to fear. The darn thing will crash with that much data.

I feel better already.

An empty limosine pulled up and george w. bush got out.

I wonder if Arlen Spector will refuse to swear in the heads of the communication companies like he did with the heads of the oil companies and AG Gonzales.

This isn't any more about terrorism than anything else they've done. It's all about power, retaining power, getting more power. The reason they make you go through that crap at the airport while refusing to scan cargo -- they want you to face the idea of terrorism and be scared, be quiet, be compliant. They know they're not going to catch any terrorists this way and they have no intention of wasting any of their stolen money on cargo scanning. It's about control and cowing the public.

Be scared, be quiet, be compliant...while they steal everything that isn't nailed down and then they'll steal you and sell your services to the highest bidder.

It's a prison for your mind. -- Morpheus
Courtesy of Rovus Vulgaris Americanus: nasty, freshly-demoted, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator

While I was scanning the web for more information on the subject, I came across a reference to VoicePrint.

Not only do they offer technology to record calls, digitally, but they also offer the data mining tools to analyze these recorded calls:

Actionable Intelligence from Each and Every Call
Activ Insight's state-of-the-art speech recognition technology converts recorded conversations into text, which can then be searched and analyzed to uncover valuable business intelligence for trending and other purposes. Unlike other speech recognition and data mining technologies available today, Activ Insight's advanced capabilities provide multiple search criteria and trending features, which in turn deliver a broader scope of actionable business intelligence.

Analyze 100% of Calls
Organizations traditionally expend massive resources in telemarketing campaigns accompanied by exhaustive manual playback sessions in order to uncover business intelligence. By using Activ! Insight's data mining capabilities in conjunction with Voice Print's Activ! Suite of digital recording technology, businesses can immediately begin analyzing 100% of their calls.

So dig a little further on their website... Who are their customers?

Well, among their client list, you'll find:

U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Marines

And if you click through to their Government Agencies link, you'll also see the logo of the F.B.I. rotating through in the upper left corner of the page on their list of government clients.

The question which should be asked about the NSA data collection effort is: How did the NSA avoid collecting information about the John Kerry campaign and staff? Unless they took special steps, they would have information on everyone Kerry called and when. So the White House could have found out everyone Kerry called to raise money or discuss strategy with. If the White House had access to this information, then they had a tremendous, unfair advantage in the last election. [NOTE: If you're asking more formally, ask the White House to release the access control list and the audit records for this data.]

Freedom may or may not be on the march but aircraft carriers are steaming toward Iran. Who ya gonna call, DiFi, Patty, Maria, Hillary, or any one of the Democrat men?

"It's the Government, we're hear to help you."

How I know the worm is getting ready to turn? Andrew Sullivan is contemplating flipping:
This monarch, already eager to perpetuate a dynasty, needs more scrutiny. It may require voting Democrat this fall to give it to him.

"As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but all together, we make a mighty fist" Watanka Tatanka (Sitting Bull)

The (Tens of) Millions-Mined March
Good day for it: September 17 is Constitution Day, the anniversary of the Battle of Antietam Creek -- an appropos day for America to redeclare her independence.
Come on down and protest around!
You don't have to shout, the SS has great microphones to record you. Cameras too! So fix your hair up and dress nice! Say cheese for the cheesy administration...
As an old Scout, I'm sure I could come up with a torch (Scouts are all pyros - it's a prerequisite) - to add to the protest...
Let your voices be heard, fellow Patriots!

Why not have everyone bring two dixie cups and a string to the protest???
(Cheers to Lenny Bruce, who warned us that if we screw around with the phone company we'll all wind up with a Dixie cup and string and Dr. Johnny Fever--man, you weren't paranoid after all. There really are Phone Police!)

And, lest we forget, "God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." -- Less Nessman, who some believe is safely in residence at Faux News

Of course, there's always Les Kinsolving in the WH Press Room. That's close enough.

Q: There are Canadian news reports that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has contended that one of the sexual orientations is sadomasochism, while in Ottawa, the Justice Department has called for the legalizing of polygamy. And my question: Does the President recognize these developments as logical progression from the current demand for same-sex marriage by the sodomy lobby?

A: Well, direct your questions to Canada.

Translation: Ladies and gentlemen, Les Kinsolving! The one member of the press corps that we can be absolutely certain, when everyone else is asking about the Vice President shooting an old man in the face, will ask a question about the "sodomy lobby".

"I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

So here's a question for the community. And am I right in assuming that, if we looked, we could find administration officials and right-wing pundits vowing up and down at each stage that the next stage was a complete impossibility, a mere fabrication of paranoid minds?

And what will be the next revelation that we're told, by the exact same government sources and partisan hacks that assured us none of what we now know to be happening was happening? That the White House or other government agencies, say, have been sporadically requesting call data for specific individuals? Say, Christianne Amanpour?

Richard Clarke?

Dana Priest?

Of course not. Don't be silly. This is a very limited program.

"Le sens commun n'est pas si commun." -Voltaire

Dean Recants, Sorta

2006-05-11T19:24:00.000-04:00

Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana blog has an update wherein he describes "a red-faced Dean" backpedalling. Dean also says, in so many words, that the platform plank is nothing more than toothless, platitudinous mush except for the important difference that it opposes a constitutional amendment designed to "short-circuit" the pathway to justice.

In other words, virtual equality lives on at the DNC, continuing to push actual civil equality aside.

HRC's Joe Solomonese wasn't buying Dean's denouement, either:

"Governor Dean's comments weren't a mere slip of the tongue but a glaring reminder of the governor's lack of leadership on this issue.

"As we face a Senate vote in June that threatens to put discrimination in our Constitution, Governor Dean should not only have known better but he should have used the opportunity to speak out about the lack of values involved in the current constitutional debate.

"While Governor Dean's clarification of the Democratic platform's inclusive message is a step in the right direction, it's imperative that the Democratic National Committee and Governor Dean himself continue on that path in a clear and unequivocal way. We join fellow gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender leaders in concern over a troubling series of missteps that fail to convey Governor Dean's and the DNC's commitment to equality."

Nor did Rusty Shackelford in his response to the Stonewall Democrats' doing their best "yeller dawg":

"Oh please mary,

We know this wasn't a mistake. Gay Democrats have corrected Dean on this very issue before.

"Are you going to tell me that Governor Dean just didn't know what his own party platform says?

"Are you going to tell me that Governor Dean went to speak to Pat Robertson at the 700 club and WASN'T prepared by his communications team to answer a question on marriage?

"This was planned. And Dean is intentionally distancing the DNC from the LGBT Community because he mistakenly believes it will help come election time. He is wrong!"

Rusty then gets down to brass tacks:

"If you don't take a stronger stand on this issue, and soon, you might as well go to your conference with a big sign around your neck that reads 'Kick Me'."

Howard Dean Flies His True Colors

2006-05-11T11:32:00.000-04:00

PREFACE: If the following strikes a nerve, please help replace the money NGLTF had to give back to the DNC in order to maintain The Task Force's integrity. Call S. Ezra Towne at NGLTF's Washington Office: 202-639-6312 or go to the Task Force website.

Never one not to say, "I told you so", irritating cuss that I am, let me remind people that I tried to warn them about Howard Dean, who this morning appeared on the 700 Club emphasizing his view of the Democrat's national platform plank on gay families, which is that it supports the notion that "marriage is between a man and a woman".

NGLTF has already taken umbrage, chastising Dean and giving him back the donation they recently got from Dean's Democrats:

PRESS RELEASE:

MEDIA CONTACT:
Roberta Sklar, Communications Director
(Cell) 917.704.6358
rsklar@thetaskforce.org

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
denounces DNC Chair Howard Dean's misrepresentation of party platform
Returns $5,000 donation from Governor Dean in protest

WASHINGTON, May 10 -- In a Christian Broadcasting News segment aired today on The 700 Club concerning how Democrats are reaching out to evangelicals, Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said, "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says. I think where we may take exception with some religious leaders is that we believe in inclusion, that everybody deserves to live with dignity and respect, and that equal rights under the law are important."

In fact, the DNC 2004 platform says, "We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a 'Federal Marriage Amendment.' Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart."

This plank was considered a victory for its inclusive references to gay families and activists. We are proud that two of our current Task Force board members -- Roberta Achtenberg and Jeff Soref -- fought hard for it. The platform was approved by the more than 4,000 elected and at-large Democratic delegates who met in Boston in 2004 to pick a presidential candidate, and there have been no official revisions of the platform since 2004.

Statement by Matt Foreman, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

"Governor Dean is wrong about what the Democratic platform says about marriage equality. Disturbingly, this is not the first time he has misrepresented this important and affirming plank, and he has been asked before to correct the record and to cease making these misleading statements.

"Governor Dean's record on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues since becoming DNC chair has been sorely and sadly lacking. The Democratic Party chair should stand by and fight for the party's own platform and values. In light of Governor Dean's pandering and insulting interview today with the Christian Broadcasting Network, we have decided to return the DNC's recent $5,000 contribution to us. We do so with great sadness, knowing that the Democratic Party has long been a champion of our rights. Once again, we urge the governor to accurately represent the party's commitment to equality for LGBT people and our families, and to do everything in his power as chair to realize this vision. This would include but not be limited to fighting anti-gay ballot initiatives in various states this November. We urge him to take the money we are returning today and spend it to defeat these attacks on LGBT people and our families."

-30-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Founded in 1973, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation (the Task Force) was the first national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights and advocacy organization and remains the movement's leading voice for freedom, justice, and equality. We work to build the grassroots political strength of our community by training state and local activists and leaders, working to strengthen the infrastructure of state and local allies, and organizing broad-based campaigns to build public support for complete equality for LGBT people. Our Policy Institute, the community's premiere think tank, provides research and policy analysis to support the struggle for complete equality. As part of a broader social justice movement, we work to create a world that respects and makes visible the diversity of human expression and identity where all people may fully participate in society.
Headquartered in Washington, DC, we also have offices in New York City, Los Angeles, Cambridge, and Miami. The Task Force is a 501(c)(3) corporation incorporated in Washington, DC. Contributions to the Task Force are tax-deductible to the full extent allowed by law.

A little history is in order:

A. Howard Dean has never been a friend of the equal right of civil marriage for same-sex couples. I know that many were led to believe otherwise but he isn't and never was. Yes, he was the architect of Vermont's civil unions statute but he did that to prevent equal marriage, not promote it.

You see, at that time, the legislature was deadlocked on the issue and, had they not acted, it would have gone back to a court which had already said it would resolve the issue by simply ordering the state to issue us marriage licenses. Dean had his eye on a run for the presidency by then and, true DLCer that he is, just couldn't let that ruin his chances -- and neither could he afford to be seen as anti-gay by vetoing what many feared would be a protest measure by conservative forces in the legislature designed precisely to force Dean's hand.

According to people who were at that time my colleagues and counterparts in LGBT organizing and lobbying in Vermont, Dean strong-armed gay organizers to accept his civil unions sellout, warning them that opposing it or even openly criticizing it or him would cost them other things they held dear such as funding for antiviolence programs and even state AIDS funding.

B. The 2004 platform plank in question was, at the behest of the Kerry/Edwards campaign with DCL leadership's approval -- Dean and the Clinton forces included -- left intentionally vague to accomodate Kerry's outright opposition to equal marriage and Edwards' politically expedient one and to give the party leadership the sort of plausible deniability wiggle room Dean exercised this morning on the 700 Club.

Just as important, they knew they had a tough enough row to hoe to get Kerry elected and they couldn't afford to be so clear about their position on our status as full human beings deserving of equality under the law that we would jump ship in favor of the third party candidates who don't think so little of us.

Added to that, we had gay Dems who were tasting the illusion of power in the party and found that faux meal strangely satisfying enough to play along. Thus a statement that looked good at skin level but lacked muscle to support it was born.

It is a good thing that Matt Foreman and the Task Force are trying to hold what little line it gave us but Dean is, simultaneously, not altogether incorrect. The platform just intentionally left too much to interpretation.

It is time to force the issue with the party: Are they with us or, when the storm winds blow and the sharks threaten, are we just going to be the first to be pushed off the lifeboats again? Are we humans with the fundamental right to marry that that comes with or not in their eyes?

The first thing is to replace what Matt and the Task Force gave back to Dean and the DNC this morning. Next is to insist that the Dem's platform be unequivocal about our right to marry. If they turn us down, at least we'll know where we stand instead of being stuck in the quagmire of virtual equality.* We'll then be free to craft strategy based in reality, however unpleasant that reality might be.

*Virtual equality: a state of conditional equality based on the appearance of acceptance by straight America rather than on actual civil equality

Stonewall Dems Gone Mad?

2006-05-10T10:07:00.000-04:00

Stonwall Dems, with all the hotels in Pittsburgh owned by queer-friendly corporations to choose from, is holding its conference* at a HILTON hotel -- you know, the corporation that worked overtime to pass the anti-marriage-equality amendment in Hawaii and it's touting de-gay-the-DNC Dean as a big draw to boot.

What, are they selling mushy tomatoes and rotten eggs for the occasion and think this is going to boost sales???

I may have been as close to born a Democrat as they come but it doesn't require me to check my brain or my integrity at the door. Why are they asking me to?

*http://www.stonewalldemocrats.org/convention/

Child Porn Legislation -- Not Always What It Seems

2006-05-10T05:13:00.000-04:00

It's no secret that I'm a staunch opponent of child pornography and other forms of child sexual abuse. I've risked much to expose abusers and taken an active role in passing legislation to deal with the problem. But I've always fought simultaneously to keep that legislation narrowly tailored to that purpose and fought, usually successfully, to keep legislation in my sphere of influence from overreaching by using the penalties and tactics appropriate to stop child predators against the illegal acts of mere consenting adults with each other, not to mention the legal and often good acts involving sexual subjects, including HIV and sexuality education and just plain old adult pleasure.

As Attorney General Gonzales and the issue of child pornography on the internet have been much in the news of late, it wouldn't hurt to revisit the last overreach this administration pushed in a sleazy attempt to use the best desires of all decent people to protect the weak to accomplish a far broader, by no means all laudable goal. Make no mistake about it, they want to get that unconstitutional trash reinstated.

I encourage you to communicate to your Congressional representatives that you support strong enforcement against traffickers in children and child pornography but that legislation must be crafted so as not to weaken the First Amendment nor reward the Dominionists with yet another step into the mire of invasive hyper-Calvanism run amok.

I also encourage support of those groups like Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund that help keep the line between enforcement of the unthinkable and persecution of the merely lawfully discomforting bright.

2006-05-10T00:13:00.000-04:00

What a friend said to me about how she feels about war:

"War is nothing but government-mandated retroactive abortions. If they want to take my child to fight in the war, I'd say to them, 'If I hadn't wanted this child, I wouldn't have gone through 9 months of puking and misery. I could have had an abortion.' That could have been my choice. They want to tell you that you can't kill them when you conceive, but then they take them without your consent and kill them after you've had all that time to get attached, and you have no choice. People don't think about how mothers feel. We don't want people to take our babies ... EVER. I mean, really, think about it. How can they say abortion is so wrong? They throw a big fit saying, 'You can't kill. You can't kill. It is a viable life.' An eighteen year old is definitely a viable life. It's not that I'm for abortion. I'm not. But, I think the two are comparable."

2006-05-07T12:31:00.000-04:00

I Can't Afford My Gasoline

Quote of the Day

2006-05-03T08:59:00.000-04:00

"Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies."
-- Nelson Mandela, Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize

TrueMajority.org

2006-04-09T08:13:00.000-04:00

Ben Cohen (of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream) explains the national budget using Oreo Cookies.

Most Recent UCC Ad

2006-04-08T21:23:00.000-04:00

Here's another ad that's 'too controversial' to be aired on network tv stations. (African American mom and crying baby, gay couple, person with a walker, Middle Eastern man ... all are ejected from church pews.) The written tag line is, "God doesn't reject people. Neither do we." The voice over at the end says, "The United Church of Christ. No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you're welcome here."

Brokeback Lost and Found

2006-04-06T12:54:00.000-04:00

On the Brokeback Mountain website, there's a place for people to write their own stories...

I may be one of the few queers in America who hasn't seen Brokeback Mountain. I sense that it will take much courage and time to process and haven't had the luxury of time for that lately, especially as I've been dealing with the resurfacing in my life of the woman I lost at twenty-one to family prejudice, her internalized religious bigotry, and my fears of destroying the relationship by letting it grow where it should have -- fears born from having previous ones fall apart as soon as the other person crossed that line to sexual expression and scared herself enough to need to run far and fast away from that part of herself -- only to have the non-blooming-non-growth stymie my relationship with my girlfriend all by itself until she ran into the arms of the first man who offered.

I remember my mother calling me a liar when my father spilled the beans my stepmother had broken my confidence about, saying, "R. would never do a thing like THAT!" -- "That" said with all the disgusted vehemence of a slap across the face -- "That" being the look in R's eyes I saw when I awoke to find her kneeling by my bed watching me sleep, wanting desperately to wake me and make love with me but too afraid of herself, her mother's already profoundly expressed disapproval, her fear of eternal damnation -- "That" being my very being -- me wrapped definitionally in a sense of love and being orchid-fragile and years from being able to stand tall and take for myself from myself.

I remember flying back to town for R's wedding just a few months after that confrontation that ended with me leaving home for good -- going to a shower, spending precious moments with her after the clueless gaggle of girls had left...She showed me the dress she and her mother had finished just the night before and we talked about her plans and I tried so hard to be happy for her. The next day, though, I sat next to my mother in the church with tears silently escaping down my cheeks, mother all stone cold disapproval, fully sure that everyone there could read my mind and were staring not at the bride but at her -- she feeling enough misappropriated embarrassment and shame that she broke her icy patrician facade with a whispered scolding that actually did draw the puzzled attention of a few.

I took the groom aside at the reception and promised him in graphic terms that, if he ever hurt her, he'd have to answer to me. R, believing that I would be the one hurt instead, never told me that he was physically and emotionally abusive, beginning within hours of their wedding with a pronouncement that she was to stop the music and dance performing that was so central to her soul. She cut off communication very quickly because she knew that, if she didn't, I'd know and would act and that the chances of tragedy were too high for her to let that happen. She rapidly lost herself in the recurrent spiraling cycles of abuse and only after all but the youngest of their four children were on their own did she finally manage to leave him.

As I'd changed my name, having dropped my stepfather's last name she'd known me by and reclaimed my old family names I'd originally been given from my mother's maiden names instead, it took her some years to find me after she took her first tiny steps into freedom, finally finding me through Julien's List. Only then did she say that she knew even before her marriage -- the first time they ever had sex -- that she realized that being with him felt like rape both because she was suddenly aware she was never going to not be a lesbian and because he was an abuser to his core. She knew she shouldn't marry him but, given what her church had taught her, she could see no way out.

She is still very damaged -- just a tiny bit of the vibrant pixie I knew remains -- and it breaks my heart. But she's fighting hard to get her self back. I sense that she's come quite some way and that there's hope for her but I can't help but weep for the unnecessary pain and loss of the intervening years and for the hard road she has yet to travel just to get back to where we parted so many decades ago.

She obviously had hopes that she could come back to me and take up where we left off. My wife of over two decades, Phyllis, is a generous person who trusts in the depth of our love and commitment enough to never keep me from enfolding R in a healing embrace -- no matter what its depth or scope -- but the urgency of R's initial hunger for that faded some with her understanding that, where her growth was stymied, mine was not and that, while I am still myself, I've lived in such a way that that old me she wanted to be held by is just a small part of who I am now and that we would not be a good fit anymore. She obviously doesn't know what to do with that and I'm left just being kind and gently solicitous when I remember to be and overwhelming when I don't and she sends me e-mailed slightly revealing humor the way she used to bake me lemon poppyseed bread.

Sodomy Laws Around the World

2006-04-01T20:33:00.000-05:00

"Sodomy laws are any of the many laws which criminalize non-reproductive, non-commercial, consensual sex between adults in private."

Recent News
Scalia: Gays Have No Constitutional Rights - March 2006"Question comes up: is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question."
Iraqi Gay face Death Squads - March 2006Shiite Muslim leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a death-to-gays fatwa in Iraq last October, and now squads of the local Badr Corps are systematically targeting gay Iraqis for persecution and execution.

Are the Neocons Losing It?

2006-04-01T15:58:00.000-05:00

March 25, 2006

Are the Neocons Losing It?By Patrick Buchanan

While President Bush appears serenely confident about Iraq, the same cannot be said of the War Party propagandists who were plotting this conflict when Dubya was still a rookie governor of Texas.

William Kristol of The Weekly Standard now demands the firing of Donald Rumsfeld. William F. Buckley, whose National Review branded the antiwar Right "unpatriotic conservatives" who "hate" America, now calls upon Bush for an acknowledgement of defeat."

Richard Perle says the administration "got the war right and the aftermath wrong." Self-described "humiliated pundit" Andrew Sullivan confesses to "a sense of shame and sorrow." Michael Ledeen says of Bush's war, "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong way, wrong place."
.....
"The trickiest issue is how to handle Karl Rove," says Barnes. I don't think so, Fred. I think "the trickiest issue" will be how to handle Dick and Lynne when they are told by Dubya they must give up a constitutional office to which Cheney was elected by the nation, vacate the vice presidential mansion and turn the keys over to Condi Rice.

That's right, Barnes urges Bush to appoint Condi vice president and "anoint" her as "presidential successor."

Who would replace Condi at State? Pro-war liberal Joe Lieberman.
.....
That Bush is in trouble is undeniable. But his people are not Bush's problem. His policies are. It is these policies, not his advisers, that have given us huge deficits, 12 million illegal aliens, a trade deficit running at $800 billion a year and a
no-win war that is bleeding our country.

If Bush should follow Barnes' advice and throw his most loyal people to the wolves as a P.R. stunt, he will have earned their lasting contempt, and that of the country. For all will know he was scapegoating them for his own failures -- failures that come of having listened to the neocons who are even now slipping out of camp, rehearsing alibis and blaming Bush for not heeding their brilliant advice.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

Hardball's Chris Matthews Eggs Prez Hopeful Allen's AntiGay Bigotry On

2006-03-29T18:09:00.000-05:00

Dear Mr. Matthews:

I was rather insulted by your tee-heeing response to Sen. George Allen's foundationless assessment of how Mr. Jefferson would regard equal access to civil marriage for same-sex couples if he were alive today.

While Mr. Jefferson's views on gay people are appalling when viewed through the lens of today's knowledge of human sexual orientation, they were based on the best science he had available to him at the time and were the most progressive views of his time. Mr. Jefferson's pursuit of the best scientific knowledge never ceased to the end of his days. He was, in addition, a champion of the rights of the individual and was the author of the document that is foundational to the penumbral rights of the Constitution. He was, as well, this nation's most critical legal foe of the mixing of church and state.

There is thus no basis in fact to believe that Mr. Jefferson would not hold the most scientifically sound, psychosocially and legally progressive views on the subject if he were alive today and would thus recognize that denying same-sex couples equal access to laws regarding civil marriage -- especially in the oft-proven absence of those things necessary for the government to block such equal access to this long recognized as fundamental a right -- is unconstitutional and anti-Jeffersonian.

The organizations of Mr. Jefferson's descendants -- both those that recognize Hemings descendancy and those that do not -- do recognize the life-partners of gay descendants as Jefferson family members, including those life-partners who are domestic partners, those who are religiously married to the descendants in lieu of civil marriage availability, and, most recently, those who have availed themselves of civil unions and civil marriages in Canada, Vermont, and Massachusetts.

I expected ignorance-and-partisan-fueled bigotry from Sen. Allen. I did not expect chuckling encouragement of it from you, who ought to know better. In so doing, you have insulted me; my wife (religious of twenty-five years and civil of nearly three); my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, Mr. Jefferson; and the rest of my family who value the rule of law as well as the bonds of love and family so amply displayed in my marriage and the unions of our many other gay cousins (despite that some of our family have failed in the latter where our Hemings-related double-half-cousinhood is concerned).

Please do not make this error of historical analysis in the future.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Marla Jefferson Randolph Stevens

FOUND! Dem with Spine: Thank You, Senator Feingold!

2006-03-22T07:45:00.000-05:00

FINALLY!

A Democrat with a spine, who can CLEARLY articulate a position.

Senator Russ Feingold tells the locals back home about why he wants to censure Bush and end illegal spying on hardworking, tax-paying US Citizens.

Instead of doing like Joe LIEberman or sHillary Clinton and ducking, dodging, cowering, and positioning, Feingold takes a strong clear stand - and the response?

Applause bringing down the house. Here's an excerpt.

when Feingold made his case to censure the president, he received sustained applause from a crowd of nearly 100 people at the Belle Plaine Community Center in Shawano County.

"If you were on the phone with an al-Qaida person, I support your being wiretapped, all the time, for a long time," he told the audience. "We have laws already that allow the president to wiretap your line for 72 hours without a warrant. All he has to do is apply for that warrant. . . . The whole thing they're saying about how Senator Feingold doesn't want us to be able to wiretap. That's absolute nonsense. I support wiretapping every single person who is working with a terrorist. Just do it within the law. That's all we ask."

In an interview, Feingold said letters to his office were running 3 to 1 in favor of his censure position. He said "people are coming around," although only two Democratic senators have become co-sponsors of the resolution: Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California.

"We cannot allow the president of the United States to break the law," he said. "Censure is a quick way to solve the problem. Pass a resolution. It's over. We can get back to the work of fighting terrorism, dealing with health care issues."

Feingold received a favorable hearing in Belle Plaine and at a later session at the Menominee County Highway Department.

"When he called for the censure, it pleased me enormously. The issue is not a safe issue because so much of the public seems to be in support of wiretapping," said Joan Hoffman, 69, who lives in Menominee County.

For the full article, click here.

Freedom and Democracy - relative terms.

2006-03-21T07:20:00.000-05:00

Some time ago, there was a bit of a furor in the Liberal Blogosphere over the whole "some Islamic Nations execute gays and lesbians" issue. Subsequent to that topic, some people argued for Islam, and some argued against. Many of the arguments sounded a lot like this.

FOR: Islam is a misunderstood religion.

AGAINST: You nuts? They lop our heads off!

FOR: Islam is a religion of peace.

AGAINST: Excuse me - but that whole "lop our heads off" issue? I'm a fag/dyke and I'm NOT on-board with this!

FOR: Islam is a religion of compassion.

AGAINST: So, you are saying I get some general anesthesia before Islam lops my head off for liking boys/girls?

FOR: You are a bigot - one only sees this sort of behavior out of extremists driven to that point by oppression, suffering, and poverty.

AGAINST: Saudi is a poor, suffering, oppressed country? The servants don't have sufficient income for their own bullet-proof Mercedes, so they support public beheading of GLBT folk (and everyone else; the Human Rights Watch Article linked here)? The expression "Turkish Prison" makes us fags/dykes just a bit afraid: whazzup with that, do you think?

FOR: I said, you are a bigot.

AGAINST: I'm into self-preservation, thanks. With even the liberals like sHillary Clinton selling us out, I think we need to pick our friends carefully.

FOR: RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!

AGAINST: Oh, put a sock in it, will ya?!

And on and on and on it goes, much like I just described above.

Until now - because Russ is a brilliant, attentive, insightful news reader and commentator.

Russ (reporting here, at Pam's Blog and here, at his own Radical Writ) comments on how the newly-free, newly-elected, Democratic Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is faring . . . and how the citizens, freed of the oppressive, violent Taliban, have voted Quranic Sharia Law in.

That is right - the VOTERS in Afghanistan make the Quran their Constitution, JUST like under the Taliban.

The upshot?

The upshot is right here, on the Feminist Afghanistan Organization, RAWA's, website: An Afghani Man who chose to convert to Christianity, per Quranic dictate, has been formally arrested, charged, and, if found guilty, will be beheaded. Just like this guy was, in Saudi Arabia. This photo is one of the few available images from Saudi's infamous "Chop-Chop-Square." This photo is a bootleg, taken by a Westerner, of an official Saudi State execution.

Saudi Arabia does not allow images taken of State Executions. Because of the strict Quranic enforcement of governmental policy, the irony is the tourist who took this picture was, himself, taking a risk: he could have been next at Chop-Chop Square to lose the hand holding the camera as the official punishment would be having the offending, camera-holding hand severed from his body . . . just above the wrist.

While I would not mind seeing such an end for some of the JEEEEE-zzuuzz'lubbin, Holier-than-thou, self-absorbed, judgmental AmTaliBangelist Types (because I'm an Angry Liberal filled with Rage and Hate), I must say that Russ's analysis is dead on.

And so are the linked articles.

So go check it out, come back, and comment: are WE getting closer to such days ourselves between the AmTaliBangelist and the Spineless Dem crowd?

Jay is Kicking Butt

2006-03-18T08:52:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week, between spending time listening to my patient tell me about how (1) the CIA implanted a monitor-transmitter in the spouse's skull to monitor the family, (2) family members are trying to poison the patient by breaking into the hospital dispensary at night to fill all medications with cocaine and (3) the patient's spouse uses a special virus-and-bacteria-derived sexual lubricant and engages in rampant sex in all 50 states in the attempt to thin the world's burdening population via STDs (so, "yes, it was a damn long week," thank you very much), I had a chance to have a chat with Jay Lassiter of Lassiter Space.

this would be Jay, protesting the Iraq war

I have probably commented on Jay before - I rather like his company and his insight: he is one of those very liberal liberals with the "critical thinking" wiring more heavily focused on how he develops his views than the "how I feel" wiring.

I rather respect that perspective and try to maintain it myself: if everything was "how I feel," at the end of the day, that patient I described above would have as much a right to vote feelings as those who want to hug bunnies, shrubs, twigs, and berries. Surely, sometimes (and some would argue "often") I fail: I am a damn cranky and damn irritable liberal, but I am starting to suspect I need to remain that way if, for no other reason, it leaves me with thicker skin and more rigid spine than people like sHillary.

As for the "feelings" issue and "the CIA is putting implants in my family," given the patient is clearly mentally ill, I guess this would be a good moment to think about the next time any of us considers the voting booth, and the "how we feel" versus "what we know" issue eh?

In any case, back to Jay . . . .

Jay has started is own unique protest against Iraq. One I think is profoundly interesting: read about it here, but feel free to comment back here, too!

Oh - and Jay does give credit to the original protestor, but this may be a good time to join him, perhaps, in finding a creative way to stand up and say, "NO!"

I'd not advise standing up and saying, "The CIA is putting implants in my head."

From Rochester,

Wildmon Loves Dobson -- Another Rocky Mountain Love Story or Where Is Annie Proulx When You Need Her

2006-03-11T10:00:00.000-05:00

Matt Foreman, NGLTF's executive director, and other utterly charming folks from a dandy little group called DefCon -- Campaign to Defend the Constitution Because the Religious Right Is Wrong -- have been so successful at getting the goat of the Head-Ground-Zero-AmTaliban-In-Charge, James Dobson, that his best buddy, the American Family Association's Donald Wildmon, has been reduced to begging their sheep to write Dobson little buck-up notes.

The cause of all that Rocky Mountain ennui?...the DefCon ad in Wednesday's New York Times entitled, "These Religious Leaders Have A Serious Gambling Problem" that ties Dobson, Ralph Reed, and Lou Sheldon to Jack Abramoff. I suggest you ignore Wildmon and, instead, send Dobson a paper hanky and a metal slug with instructions that he 'call someone who cares.'

While you're waiting for that to get there, send Dobson, Ralph Reed, and Lou Sheldon an e-mail via the DefCon site suggesting that they stop telling others how to act and start practicing what they preach.

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

2006-02-27T20:14:00.000-05:00

Some fun over at Shakespeare's Sister -

Have at it!

I can pass by the way:

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 10/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

(Something tells me Dubya and Jebbie would not do so well...)

Heckuva Job, Dubya...some "Mission Accomplished"

2006-02-26T18:06:00.000-05:00

But hey, he sure showed pappy he could get that SAD-dam.

The Legacy of George W. Bush

2006-02-25T17:56:00.000-05:00

A boy injured by a car bomb explosion looks up while recovering in a hospital, in Karbala, 80 kilometers (50 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq, Saturday, Feb.25, 2006. A car bomb exploded Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, killing at least six people, including two women, and injuring more than 52, police said. The attack occurred as Baghdad and three nearby provinces were on a second day of a daytime curfew aimed at dampening the wave of sectarian violence that has killed more than 140 people since the bombing of a Shiite shrine.(AP Photo/Alaa Al-Marjani)

The sHillary Backlash

2006-02-23T08:56:00.000-05:00

As most here know, Pam has had a series of posts at the Blend about Senator sHillary Clitten and her "suck up for money and votes and then drop her supporters" actions.

It seems the fine Senator's actions are now catching up with her, as those in the solidly Democratic branch of the Democratic Party are getting sick of sHillary's Republican-Lite turncoat flim-flam.

The most significant moment came yesterday, when the Empire State Pride Agenda said "Hell no!" to requests for fundraising asistance. Clicking here will take you to the original Pam's House Blend Post - and links at Pam's will take you to The New York Observer, where this all started.

I was just so impressed with my fellow New York Liberals, I had to chime in:

'Bean
Registered Democrat, Monroe County
Registered Member, MoveOn Progressive PAC
Contributor, Julien's List (GLBT blog)
Rochester, NY 14615

Dear Empire State Pride Agenda Representative:

Today, I read this article about Executive Director
Alan Van Capelle's decision to not support Senator
Hillary Clinton in any future endeavors given her
stances and policies.

The article I mention is linked to a GLBT blog, Pam's
House Blend here:
http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2006/02/ny-gay-rights-group-blasts-shillary.html

Given driving out to your offices, throwing my arms
around Alan Van Capelle's neck, and intimately kissing
him breathless for finally standing up to a Turncoat
Liberal like Clinton would be (1) inconvenient, (2)
time consuming, (3) awkward, (4) likely a tad
embarrassing for all involved, and (5) a rather
probable way to get arrested (although, believe me,
when I read the article, doing as described *WAS* my
first instinct), I quelled my enthusiasm and decided
to write this note instead.

A note is more civil, after all.

THANK YOU SO MUCH for finally taking a stand for
GLBT liberals - and for GLBT liberals in a state
reputed for *BEING* liberal, at that.

When I first moved to New York State in 2004 from a
Hate State (Ohio), I was initially impressed with
Senator Clinton's "newsmaker" face and comments.

As she started shilling for the Iraq war, defending
her husband's DOMA legislation, cheering for CAFTA in
light of NAFTA as New York job losses continue,
co-supporting "Flag Burning Legislation" with a
GLBT-hating-and-baiting Republican nut-job from Utah,
and finally saber-rattling at Iran in the pages of
Salon Magazine . . . and then she has the tasteless
gall to come and ask GLBT folks for votes and money?

This series of events rather left a bad taste in my
mouth.

I sincerely, vigorously, unabashedly, unashamedly, and
publicly thank both the Empire State Pride Agenda and
Director Alan Van Capelle's courage to stand up and
say, "Hey! No more 'something for nothing, lady!'"

Please note I copied the publishers (who are, in some
degree, also my friends) on this letter: the GLBT
community needs and deserves to know that (1) not only
did someone finally say "Enough!" to the Spineless,
Self-Serving, Democratic Turncoats like Clinton who
sell out their supporters . . . but that (2) one of
the GLBT people you support by your work is willing to
publicly support you, too.

VERY well done - and so tastefully, too: thank you!
Thank you so very much!

The only possible way I could be any happier this
moment is if you managed to get the South-Central
Republican-Lite Carpetbagger back on a train to
Arkansas!

Warmly,

'Bean

Cc: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, via Senatorial
website

This, however, is not the end: stay tuned to our local section of the blog-o-sphere for the "NO!" campaign, which could be launched as early as tomorrow.

And what is the "NO!" campaign?

You have to come back to find out!

UPDATE: Pam of Pam's House Blend posted the letter over at her place. For those of you so inspired, I'm sure the Empire State Pride Agenda would appreciate some support for taking a strong stand on GLBT rights. Their homepage is here.

Taliban Thinking in France re Marriage Equality

2006-02-22T17:56:00.000-05:00

The FRC and RCC are rejoicing over a new report commissioned by the president of France that ignores the rights of children of gay couples but accurately says that granting equal rights to civil marriage makes denial of such regarding adoption and access to reproductive technology illogical. They failed to properly weigh the evidence on the consequences of all this to children and children of same-sex couples -- and their parents -- will suffer as a result. It does not bode well for French-European Union relations, either. I could say something about France's Vichy past and its history of puppet to Rome relationship but that would be tacky.

Whether end OR begining, it seems that Dems still suck.

2006-02-22T09:09:00.000-05:00

I tried to post a scathing-and-supportive comment to American Online's post with a similar title, below.

But blasted Haloscan ate my comments - and I've been having busy days.

Fortunately, it seems that in BushWorld, the passage of time makes all things surreal.

Welcome to the new Democratic Party: front-to-back, top-to-bottom, dedicated so dearly to failure that the leaders can't even make hay of Scandals. Or, as the Salon.com headline reads, "Ohio Democrats Shying Away From Ney Race."

Say "hello, Governor Blackwell!" Also say, "hello" to ending adoption, visitation, and foster rights to Ohio GLBT parents.

I knew there was a reason to leave Ohio when I left in 2004: what astounds me is how few reasons there seem to actually stay there.

Follow the Money: Dubai Ports=CSX=ShrubCo=China=Solitary Confinement at Guantanamo

2006-02-22T05:48:00.000-05:00

Not only are the ShrubCo prime directives were intact in the attempted ports deal with Dubai:
1) Transfer wealth to the rich from everyone else and/or
2) Distract the pilferees from the fact that #1 is taking place.
We may all be numb to the usual outrages that result from that but following the thread a bit further this time will lead a decent person to, at minimum, severe dyspepsia.

The New York Daily News story, "W aides' biz ties to Arab firm", exposes two keys reasons for the proposed deal with Dubai Ports World:

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel [a part of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.] that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. ...

... lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

ShrubCo's reportedly bewildered by all the fuss. After all, they already turned over various ports' control to lots of other countries, including the largest state-owned Chinese shipping company. Any wonder we're still holding an unknown number of Uighur nationalists in Guantanamo despite that the tribunal there determined that these men "pose no risk to the United States"?

Wrote Adam Wolfe in Asia Times Online in late 2004:

There is little chance that the detainees will be freed from US custody any time soon, because there is little maneuverability for Washington's Xinjiang policy. The US will continue to search for a country that will accept the detainees, but China's importance to global capital markets makes this unlikely to succeed.

And ShrubCo and friends continue to laugh all the way to the bank.

SnoopGate, ChickensWait, FedUpSate

2006-02-22T01:02:00.000-05:00

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."
-- Henry Mencken (Hat tip to the Smithsonian's ever-astute Gordan Sillars)

We're now so far beyond the farmer letting the fox guard the chickens. Now the chickens -- or at least my chickens, Sen. Tom Harkin and Rep. Leonard Boswell of Iowa -- are saying it's fine with them if the fox is the henhouse watchman.

On SnoopGate, all will be okay with them with a bill designed to make the illegal legal after the fact. No calls for an independent prosecutor. Letting a Congress controlled by Shrub's own "investigate" is fine with these chickens -- and I do mean chickens.

What's wrong, guys? The people are saying that they'll have your back -- as soon as you show us one with bones in it and not just a gelatinous second soft belly.

Jews - the 2% Solution

2006-02-20T23:34:00.000-05:00

From My Left Wing:

"For those not familiar with the Indiana prayer issue, here is a Washington Post article- The whole thing blew up when one person offered the House's openening prayer, then led the whole legislative body in a rousing, with standing and clapping, rendition of "Just a Little Talk With Jesus," which many found rather less than non-denominational."

"Last Tuesday, the Indianapolis JCRC’s Jewish Lobby Day was held. Around 40 Jews from around the State of Indiana came to Indianapolis to lobby our state senators and representatives on a number of issues.
The day ended with a private meeting with Speaker of the House Bosma meeting our group in the beautiful House chambers. We asked questions about full day kindergarten, about the clinics, and a young member of the delegation asked about providing sexuality education in public schools that is more than abstinence based. He responded to everything we asked. Sometimes we liked what he said and sometimes we didn’t. Speaker Bosma wondered why we hadn’t discussed the controversy surrounding the issue of prayer in House chambers. He told us his version of what happened and what he believes, and a passionate exchange took place. The end of this exchange left us, the Jewish delegation, in shock. Speaker Bosma, defending the prayer issue, asked, “How many Jews are there in Indiana? About 2%? There are at least 80% Christians in Indiana.” The implication of this statement was that our minority community doesn’t and shouldn’t have any say or any voice. It is about the majority and what the majority wants. The jaws of the delegation dropped to the floor. We were speechless. Everything we believed about this country had just been trampled. Gone was the belief of the constitutional protection of minorities. Gone was not feeling marginalized. Gone was the belief we were not strangers in this country. I am sure that Speaker Bosma is a fine man, but in that moment, for the first time in my life as a citizen of this country, I was scared. It is what I now call the 2% solution (and Jews are much less than 2% of this state) that if you are only 2% don’t even bother to speak up as the “Tyranny of the majority” will prevail.
I am sorry to bring such a depressing message as we prepare for Shabbat, but it needs to be said and addressed. I have been reminded about why we need to be vigilant. So I come to you on this Friday, February 17, 2006, to ask you to use this Shabbat to think about joining me and others at times to raise our voices. We might not agree on all the issues, but we agree that as Jewish residents of this State we should have a voice. 2% or less shouldn’t matter. It is not about the majority. It is about us.
As you light your Shabbat candles this evening, light one for this great nation that has allowed us to grow and prosper and worship as Jews without restrictions. Light the other as beacon to our elected officials who if they follow the light will understand that leadership comes with responsibility to all, to be inclusive of all, and to help those who need the most help.
Shabbat Shalom"

In the end....Dems suck

2006-02-20T18:45:00.000-05:00

When all is said and done, we must come back to the sad reality, noted frequently by Bean, that the Democrats IN CONTROL OF THE PARTY, as a whole, are weak, lack any sign of having a fight in them, and have little to add to the disaster they so recklessly and/or willingly helped create. This is so despite the best efforts of Howard Dean, given that the Bidens, Feinsteins, Liebermans and their ilk, degrade and disrespect him openly. A look at what they did to Hackett is aperfect example.

There is a good reason why Bush was able to win in 2004. If you all recall the inside the beltway democrats sat on their ass while Kerry crashed and burned. They sat their as if it were not their business whether Kerry won or not. Yes, I know, a few were front and center, but the power was not.

The Republicans have handed the Dems more material with which to bury the Repubs daily. But as they have failed to do for years, they fail to close the points. Instead, they think that since they get it all, i.e., that they understand the implications, that therefore everyone else in the US gets it and thus they can win by default (a mistake Kerry made when he failed to respond to the Swift Boaters). They are deluded as they are wont to do.

My take: If the Dems cannot take the House with these facts on the table, then you can kiss 2008 goodbye. Even if they do, you have a Dem in mind who can capture the majority of electoral votes? Now be serious.

U.S. church alliance denounces Iraq war

2006-02-20T18:19:00.000-05:00

By BRIAN MURPHY
AP RELIGION WRITER

PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil -- A coalition of American churches sharply denounced the U.S.-led war in Iraq on Saturday, accusing Washington of "raining down terror" and apologizing to other nations for "the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."

The statement, issued at the largest gathering of Christian churches in nearly a decade, also warned the United States was pushing the world toward environmental catastrophe with a "culture of consumption" and its refusal to back international accords seeking to battle global warming.

"We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights," said the statement from representatives of the 34 U.S. members of World Council of Churches. "We mourn all who have died or been injured in this war. We acknowledge with shame abuses carried out in our name."

The World Council of Churches includes more than 350 mainstream Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox churches; the Roman Catholic Church is not a member. The U.S. groups in the WCC include the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, several Orthodox churches and Baptist denominations, among others.

The statement is part of widening religious pressure on the Bush administration, which still counts on the support of evangelical churches and other conservative denominations but is widely unpopular with liberal-minded Protestant congregations.

The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky, the moderator for the U.S. group of WCC members, said the letter was backed by the leaders of the churches but was not cleared by lower-level bodies. He predicted friction within congregations about the tone of the message.

"There is much internal anguish and there is division," said Kishkovsky, ecumenical officer of the Orthodox Church of America. "I believe church leaders and communities are wrestling with the moral questions that this letter is addressing."

On Friday, the U.S. National Council of Churches - which includes many WCC members - released a letter appealing to Washington to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and saying reports of alleged torture violated "the fundamental Christian belief in the dignity of the human person."

The two-page statement from the WCC group came at the midpoint of a 10-day meeting of more than 4,000 religious leaders, scholars and activists discussing trends and goals for major Christian denominations for the coming decades. The WCC's last global assembly was in 1998 in Zimbabwe - just four months after al-Qaida staged twin bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

"Our country responded (to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks) by seeking to reclaim a privileged and secure place in the world, raining down terror on the truly vulnerable among our global neighbors ... entering into imperial projects that seek to dominate and control for the sake of national interests," said the statement. "Nations have been demonized and God has been enlisted in national agendas that are nothing short of idolatrous."

The Rev. Sharon Watkins, president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), worried that some may interpret the statement as undermining U.S. troops in Iraq.

"We honor their courage and sense of duty, but ... we, as people of faith, have to say to our brothers and sisters, `We are so profoundly sorry,'" Watkins said.

The message also accused U.S. officials of ignoring warnings about climate change and treating the world's "finite resources as if they are private possessions." It went on to criticize U.S. domestic policies for refusing to confront racism and poverty.

"Hurricane Katrina revealed to the world those left behind in our own nation by the rupture of our social contract," said the statement.

The churches said they had "grown heavy with guilt" for not doing enough to speak out against the Iraq war and other issues. The statement asked forgiveness for a world that's "grown weary from the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1102AP_Brazil_Churches_Iraq.htm

Dick

2006-02-19T17:23:00.000-05:00

"What Friends Are For

Whittington apologizes for being shot
The lawyer shot by Vice President Dick Cheney left a Texas hospital Friday, saying "accidents do and will happen" and adding that he was "deeply sorry" for allowing his face to get in the way of Cheney's gun.
"I clearly obstructed a very good shot by the vice president, one which might easily have bagged several pen-raised quail if my upper torso and head hadn't absorbed most of the blast," Whittington explained. "I only hope he can find it in his heart to forgive me for not getting out of the way faster when he whirled and fired without warning."
Whittington added that that he has offered to reimburse the vice president for the full cost of the hunting trip, including the wasted birdshot.
A spokesman for Mr. Cheney declined to comment, saying the vice president first wants to see what kind of money Whittington is willing to put on the table.

Posted by billmon at 08:19 PM"

Where the Un-Civil War Begins

2006-02-19T17:19:00.000-05:00

"Basra. Official sources announce three soldiers from British Army, which controls this part of the country, were arrested in southern Iraqi town of Basra, Arab network Moheet informs.
The soldiers were arrested after being accused of rough behavior towards Iraqi youths.
Spokesman for British Embassy in Baghdad clarified the case was being investigated.
There are no more details in connection to the accusation of the three Britons."

What It Means To Be A Republican

2006-02-19T17:18:00.000-05:00

"Published on Sunday, February 19, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

by Larry Beinhart

The vice president shoots you in the heart and in the face. Then you apologize for all the trouble it’s caused him. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

Despite almost hysterical warnings the president stays asleep at the wheel. He does nothing about terrorism and 9/11 happens. He responds by running away to Nebraska. Three days later he makes a supposedly impromptu speech with a bull horn on the rubble of the World Trade Center. He is universally cheered as a hero. That’s what it means to be a Republican. The president puts together false claims to go to war with the wrong country. His party universally supports him. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The administration mismanages the war in Iraq so that it creates chaos, a breeding ground for terrorists and political opportunities for Islamic fundamentalists. Along the way, the reasons for going to war are exposed as false. The president runs on national security as his main issue. He is re-elected. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The president cheerfully gives away the surplus to the richest people in the country. Then he runs up record debts, just to throw more money their way. He claims it has helped America’s economy. People act like they believe him. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The administration continues it’s magnificent tradition of going to sleep when it is warned of disaster. It does nothing when Katrina is coming. It continues its record of doing nothing when disaster arrives. As New Orleans was lost, just as when the World Trade Center was lost, the president got as far away as possible. But he can’t be blamed for what nature did. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The president orders wiretaps without warrants, a straightforward violation of the constitution. When the Attorney General is called to testify, the head of the Judiciary Committee insists that his testimony not be under oath. The head of the intelligence committee suggests that the law be changed, now, to make it legal after the fact. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

Alberto Gonzales helped come up with the program that rejected the Geneva Conventions, that permits torture, that says that the president is above the law and that “I was only following orders” should be a defense against a charge of war crimes. Ah, if only the Nazi war criminals who were hung at Nuremberg had Gonzales there to defend them. The president nominates Gonzales to be his new Attorney General. He is confirmed with little debate and no outrage. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

This needs to be understood.

What it implies is that Republicans can’t be dealt with as if reason and facts will sway them. Because it wont. It’s hard for reality based people, regular Democrats and Liberals to understand that.

What it let’s us know is that reality based people, Democrats, Liberals, real Conservatives, old-fashioned Republicans and non-profit Christians have to take more vigorous and rigorous stands. Or reality and real American values and the American landscape will disappear, not just temporarily, but forever.

Larry Beinhart is the author of Wag the Dog, The Librarian, and Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin."

My letter to Paul Hackett, Dem with a Spine

2006-02-14T18:56:00.000-05:00

I just wrote the letter below to Paul Hackett, The genuinely Democratic Ohio Senatorial candidate, who not only got screwed by the Right-Wing-Stupidity Tide, but also by his fellow Dems. *

Hackett comes from a place so profoundly right-wing that locals joke car dealers in that part of the state don't bother to put left-turn signals on the cars they sell. In spite of that, he not only had a good run - he even stood for vigorous support of us GLBT folk. *

* Hat-tip, Pam at Pam's House Blend.

Dear Serviceman Hackett:

I am a former Ohio resident. I was born (1968) and raised in Dayton, spent my post-college years in Cincinnati, and finally spent my last seven Ohio years, ending in August 2004, in Columbus.

Mr. Hackett, I left Ohio precisely because my beloved Northern Midwestern State has turned into a right-wing bastion of narrow-minded, exclusively-Christian, bigoted selfishness and hate: I made it a point to move before the 2004 election because, to be utterly frank, I just plain could not take the crap any more.

Today, I was deeply saddened to read you were stepping out of the Senate race: it has been a long, long, long time since I heard a truly liberal, truly pragmatic, truly level-headed-yet-impassioned voice coming from what used to be my beloved home (Carol Graff, Howard Metzenbaum come to mind). I desperately wish those fools in the Ohio Democratic Party gave you the credit you are due and the chance you deserve.

To be yet more blunt, given what "Ohio" has become, I anticipate growing into middle and then old age in Rochester, New York. Given I am an American-born Persian, a Jew-by-choice, and a gay man in a long-term relationship, Ohio is neither a comfortable nor safe place for me to live - and the greater irony yet is that I am a medical professional and my long-time partner an astrophysicist with post-doctoral training.

Sir, kindly do Ohio's citizens, poor, disenfranchised, ill, swept-aside vets (my clinical time illustrated how Republicans - both Ohio and Federal - behave towards Vets: HORRIBLY), non-Christian, and gay-lesbian folks a favor and embrace the Latin bit of common wisdom "nolite tes bastardes carborondorum" (don't let the bastards get you down).

The reality is, while many fools with voter registration cards and Rush-Limbaugh-tuned radios live, mouth-breath, and vote around you, the reality of what is happening today demands someone of your caliber: who else is there, at least in Ohio, to stem the tide of right-wing stupidity?

The Ohio Democratic Party is no less guilty - some of the bullshit and back-biting actually made the news out here: I am truly sorry that you, of all people, were the victim of your own.

And, while I can see you may want or even need some time off, I hope you do not give up: not only are there are a lot of people in Ohio who need someone like you, there are a few key Democrats who, frankly, well-deserve a fist in their face too. I'm guessing you'd be well-qualified to act on both counts!

Please accept my sincerest wishes for success - as well as a promise to contribute to any of your future campaigns. While I cannot see reason for me to return to Ohio, deep down in my memory, despite the hatred and discrimination the Ohio government has shown me, "Ohio" will always be "home."

Regards,

Mobeen Shirazi

You know, if this is not cause to eviscerate the self-proclaimed moderate turncoats, who offer self-serving decisions cloaked in "bipartisanship" and "cooperation," I dunno what is.

Suggesting we Boycott Ohio,

Gore Speech --The Teeter-totter of History Revisited

2006-02-14T11:30:00.000-05:00

The attempted concealment of Cheney's shooting his friend and advisor last weekend oddly brings us full circle in history to another era and reminds me as well of the pivotal time between these two antipodes -- the late antebellum through Reconstruction period on which the Adamsian/Jeffersonian transition and today teeter. Reasoned voices of those who passionately loved freedom and democracy warned at all three periods of similar things.

Al Gore's superb speech for the Liberty Coalition and the American Constitution Society at the D.A.R.'s Constitution Hall on Martin Luther King Day, January 16, 2006, brought abolitionist Sen. Charles Sumner to my cousin Jill Sim's mind. It's an apt connection. My favorite Sumner quote could have been written today about the criminals now in charge:

"A humane and civilised people cannot suddenly become inhumane and uncivilized. We cannot be cruel, or barbarous, or savage, because the Rebels we now meet in warfare are cruel, barbarous and savage. We cannot imitate the detested example."

Would that today's radical Republicans had the souls of the Radical Republicans of yore.

If you haven't listened to the Gore speech, you should. To enhance that experience, you can follow along with the printed text of it here.

From that transcript:

At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently.
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.
Our founding fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law.
As John Adams said, "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."
An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive; too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free.
In the words of James Madison, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet on "Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that, in his phrase, "the law is king."
Vigilant adherence to the rule of law actually strengthens our democracy, of course, and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint under the rule of law.
And make no mistake: The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and examined through the normal processes of government that are designed to improve policy and avoid error.
And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents overreaching and checks the accretion to power.
A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability helps our country avoid many serious mistakes that we would otherwise make.
Recently, for example, we learned from just-declassified documents after almost 40 years that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which authorized the tragic Vietnam War was actually based on false information.
And we now know that the decision by Congress to authorize the Iraq war 38 years later was also based on false information.
Now, the point is that America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. And that is the reason why following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable.
The president and I agree on one thing: The threat from terrorism is all too real.
There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attacks on September 11th and we must be ever vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm.
Where we disagree is on the proposition that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government in order to protect Americans from terrorism when, in fact, doing so would make us weaker and more vulnerable.
And remember that, once violated, the rule of law is itself in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows, the greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles.
As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its mistakes and reveal errors, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police its activities.
And once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we do become a government of men and not laws.

This is just a taste. The speech, via references to history and solid reasoning, expertly deconstructs every major defense the president and his defenders have put forth for his actions and makes clear that we are facing a Constitutional crisis the likes of which this nation has never seen. It is a must-see for every citizen who wishes to claim the title of knowledgeable patriot. It is a rallying cry worthy of Charles Sumner, perhaps even of Thomas Paine.

As Gore reminds us, as if Sumner had reached back into history to harness Jefferson (from his first Inaugural speech) as a solution for our current Adamsian Alien and Sedition Acts nightmare:

"The essential principles of our government form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. Should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain that road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety."

Frist, Santorum and the K Street Project Do Not Lobbying Reform Make

2006-02-13T18:06:00.000-05:00

Bob Casey, running for Rick Santorum's senate seat out of Pennsylvania, is anything but my ideal candidate but, about Santorum's fox-guarding-the-chicken-house appointment to oversee lobbying reform, he's got a point.

Go here to sign the petition.

Ohio Wingnuts Apparently Cave

2006-02-12T15:15:00.001-05:00

Pam has the story and commentary here.

But, here is a legit question.

Should we boycott anyway?!

Seriously: is this the straw that breaks the Camel's back?

Jay? Care to comment?

Why fighting back is important

2006-02-12T10:52:00.000-05:00

The Moderates have yet proved, via their failures, they have no damn idea how to lead.

And where do namby-pamby, idea-free, whining, simpering, fence-straddlers lead?

Why - very simply, they lead right to the opponent's agenda, just slowing the process long enough to allow events like this to happen.

And what is this?

The first documented case of an American with an opinion being investigated for sedition.

Remember: boycott Ohio - because Enough is just Enough!

Sounding the Call for Ohio Boycott

2006-02-12T09:24:00.000-05:00

I have been mulling this post by Pam over at House Blend for a number of days. This post is about Ohio's next major anti-gay bit of legislation: rest assured, Ohio is NOT done with discrimination yet.

Well, thanks to an endless supply of Republican-Christian-Wing-Nut behavior, I have a serious proposal I think it's time we all considered. And here are my reasons why I think we should consider it:

(1) Is it time to address this garbage behavior and garbage legislation coming out of places like Ohio: I am utterly disgusted, I have had it, and I do not want to take another moment of this kind of crap any longer. I am utterly sure Pam and Russ share this sentiment. I have been in regular communication with Jay Lassiter of both www.bluejersey.net and Lassiter Space and the feedback I get is the same - even as is the sentiment by our usually-better-mannered-than-damn-cranky-me Ms. Julien.

The reality is, we simply do not have to tolerate this treatment: we non-Christians, non-Midwesterners, non-heterosexuals are citizens as well.

Seriously - think about it: we are bloodly citizens, no different from these Hate State folks.

Enough!

(2) This endless portrayal of the more "progressive" (which means "more gay friendly") places in the nation as "filled with weirdo-nutcase-twig-chewing-hemp-wearing-hug-the-damn-bunny-while-being-rude-and-self-absorbed people" needs to stop.

For one, this perception of who the Progressive State people are by the Ohiolike folk is inaccurate.

This perception is also disrespectful to the Nation's history: the coast was long-established and the true cradles of the nation - with New York being the oldest of the bunch.

Hello? New Amsterdam? And when that that particular gig start?

To here the Ohiolike folk tell "how it is," we Progressive State people have sitting and sucking baby bottles, spending all our time in group-therapy, from the get-go.

I don't think so. For one, Washington started the American Revolution here - in the Battle of Long Island.

Both the East and the West has a history of being a bit scrappy, hard-assed, and overachieving.

I think that's something we need to be proud of: we did the work (and still do - think about the Wall Street scandals) so the Ohiolike folk can sit in judgement of us?

So this "tarring by default" that happens with such moves by places like "Ohio - the Fart of it All!?"

Enough!

(3) We, the folks in the more progressive places, are generally not a damn thing like the Ohiolike folk portray us. But we keep taking the portrayal and keeping our mouths shut.

And, truthfully, in my experience? We Progressive State people tend to behave better in the "Frist" place.

I ought to know - I'm a transplant. I moved here from "Ohio - The Fart of it All!" Never, in all my days, have I known a such a large volume of self-absorbed, JEEEEE-zzuzz loving, neighbor-hating, Bible-beating, self-aggrandizing, no-tax-paying, criticizing, without-knowing-nothing, right-wing-loudmouths as I did in Ohio, that Midwestern Hell.

Because I was raised in "Ohio - the Fart of it ALL!", however, I thought "this is normal."

Speaking from experience, those Ohiolike folk, the Good, Republican, Midwestern Christians they are, view the East and the West as seething with pushy, rude, self-absorbed, arrogant, Volvo-driving, tattoo-covered, psychologist-addicted Communists. Hell, the Wells-Fargo bitch at the North Columbus office said to my partner during the process of signing the mortgage papers, "Now, when you get to Rochester, you don't let those snooty New Yorkers push you around or Jew you down! Just remember, even if you come from Ohio, you are JUST as good as they are!" The damn Wells-Fargo bitch had JEEEE-zzuzz and Angle paraphernalia all over her office - which means she likely voted for Taft, Bush, and the Ohio Marriage Amendment.

So, who was really pushing US around?

The reality is, ever since I moved to the North East, I have not encountered GLBT discrimination as I did in Ohio. I have not found people looking down their noses at me for my ethnic background - or for the fact I am not Christian. I have not found people trying to push their right-wing bullshit on my plate. In fact, I HAVE found: (1) genuine tolerance; (2) genuine acceptance; (3) a level of decency I have not seen before - neighbors who actually work together, as a community on issues; (4) a tremendous kindness and "we take care of our own" mentality. Sure, people are brusque and busy - but just below the surface, whether it's Jay in New Jersy or Jason in Brooklyn or my neighbors in Rochester . . . EVERYONE seems to really have a sense of "we treat people right."

Until I moved here, I never had a neighbor decide to shovel out my driveway for me - without asking - because they knew I had to be at the hospital early in the morning. Until I moved here, I never encountered a large population of people who give respect and consideration to not only those who "look different" or "live different," but also "think different."

Meanwhile, in Ohio, they drive by and pretend not to see an old lady who slid off the road. "Mind your own business! I'm sure she has friends and family of her own!" they bark, in between puffing out quotes of Rush, the Bible, and cigarette smoke. The Ohiolike folk try to cram their views down any "different" throat and then, in justification, offer the "it's always been this way - and we are better" bullshit justification.

Enough!

(4) We Progressive State people have a history of the positives I am describing above and we need to be damn proud and stand up for what is right - as we have always done.

I have noticed Blue Staters can think with more than a few neurons at once. I have to say that I have more respect for someone who can say to me (a) I'm not comfortable with GLBTs or Blacks or Hispaics, (b) acknowledge that their discomfort is prejudice and then (c) do and say the right thing in a public setting, despite their discomfort. Such is the face of "prejudice" here - where those who carry the prejudice still acknowledge that "behaving decently" is a part of the greater North East Culture.

And Ohio?

Well - that link to Pam's article tells us all we need to know about "Ohio - The Fart of it All!"

Utterly enough!

You Ohio swine can live as you want - but you've pushed too far this time with your going-yet-further State-Sanctioned discrimination. I was ready to start this backlash when I was reading articles about how the Christian Coalition types are funding missions and outretches (and I do mean "outretches") in the North East and West to help further the Republican Christian cause . . . but nobody was sufficiently riled at the time.

Seems some people are finally riled - and I'm well beyond riled at this point.

THIS IS THE FORMAL CALL FOR AN OHIO BOYCOTT.

In support of our Ohio GLBT bretheren, I am strongly suggesting we (1) not travel to or through Ohio; (2) not use Ohio instutions such as universities or foundations; (3) not use products or services from Ohio-based companies (which would include the Kentucky-side suburbs of Cincinnati, Florence and Covington).

Jay is already on-board with this idea and I will be working with him on furthering the issue.

Why a boycott?

At the end of the day, the damn Republicans and damn JEEEEE-zzuzz kissers understand only one thing: MONEY.

Well, stay tuned to Julien's List and to Jay's blogs (linked above): if we can help any Liberals, GLBTS, or Non-JEEEEE-zzuzz kissers in Ohio (or even just simply some poor disenfranchised folk who happen to live in "Ohio - The Fart of it All!) get their voices back by pressuring the powers-that-be with some bucks?

You bet we're going to do it.

Ohio went one step too far this time: sure, there are more Hate-States out there, but it's time to make an example of one. And that one just raised it's hand, stood, and reported for duty.

Stay tuned for more information.

One of the most disturbing documentaries I have ever seen

2006-02-08T08:15:00.000-05:00

Last night, I watched FRONTLINE because I have been seeing this episode promoted about the Lefty Blogosphere. The episode itself is one detailing the gradually-exposed slave trade.

I don't mean the slave trade addressed in a previous FRONTLINE episode where some East African and Mideastern nations are engaging in the now-minimally-addressed slave trade for cheap labor.

I mean slave trading for sex workers.

That's right - buying and selling human beings as sex workers. Kidnapped, bought, and sold. In 2006. Out of Eastern Europe. Here is a link to the relevant site on the FRONTLINE home page.

What, exactly, was that clap-trap in the 1980s again about how "Freedom, Capitalism, and Democracy will solve all the Soviet-Bloc problems?"

Despite a variety of issues, I doubt Eastern Europeans behind the Iron Curtain faced outright sale of their relatives to the Turkish slave trade - which is, according to this report, precisely what is happening.

This is not to say the old, left Soviet Bloc was "good." Any authoritarian state sucks (although I would argue the majority of authoritarian states are more right than left, historically speaking). But phone taps, citizen surveillance, secret police, and breadlines, other than sounding like what we ourselves are becoming, are one thing.

Having your wives and daughters sold to Apo in Turkey (notorious sex-slave trader in Istanbul) , where she can be expected to service at least 15 men a day, seven days a week, until she grows ill from malnutrition and an assortment of infections is, entirely, another.

Bill Clinton on Coretta Scott King

2006-02-07T23:13:00.000-05:00

I just watched key excerpts from the King funeral.

I watched George W. Bush mau-mau a lot of bullshit from a pulpit to a fairly chilly audience.

I then watched a pastor BLAST the daylights out of George W. Bush.

Then, I watch Bill Clinton and his wife, my Senator, Billary Clitten (sic), address the crowd. Bill made a statement about how the event was "not political."

Really Bill? Ready to sell the little people out again? Cuz we can prove you did this time.

If the funeral did not have political overtones, why was the pResident Chimperor Himself there?!

Can someone please explain the disconnect here?

For those not interested in addressing this whole level of Clintonian "Step Right and Play Fair With Republicans" horsecrap, here is a most brilliant examination of Coretta Scott King sans bias by the New York Times.

And even though I am neither a woman or Af-Am, as a gay guy and social minority, I am deeply sad to see King go: rest well, dear lady. We will miss you.

My fave African-heritage feminist, next to Pam, of course.

2006-02-06T21:34:00.000-05:00

Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Somalian.

Liberal.

Member of Dutch Parliment.

Kinda striking (check out the photo, below).

And, like me, an Ex-Muslim

She speaks out about the political Islam thing, about the riots, about the threats, and about a few other things, here, in this Salon.com exclusive.

I could just kiss her for what she says in this interview (and we ALL know I don't kiss the girls freely).

Hmmmmmmmm.

Well, bloody hell: I don't kiss anyone freely. Let's be real, here!

Seriously, though - go read and come back and comment: Ali's insight on the whole Cartoon issue is just fantastic (watching a stupid commercial for day pass required, but worth it).

CORRECTION: this article was translated from the German by Christopher Sultan and was provided to Salon by Der Spiegel. My apologies for not checking credits accurately.

Islamic Rage: solution? Blame the Jews . . . .

2006-02-06T12:25:00.000-05:00

When I made the post below, I was only being somewhat Ironic. And I do mean "somewhat," as I knew it would only be a matter of time before the "Blame the Jews, blame Israel" machine kicked on.

Today, it did. Click here for the link.

And what are you looking for??

The protest witnessed the burning of Danish, German and Israeli flags and an effigy of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Protesters called for the death of anyone who insults Muhammad and demanded withdrawal of 530-member Danish military contingent operating under British control.

You know, for once, I would like to be wrong about my former people. For once, I would like to see my former people behave with dignity and grace and decency.

*sigh*

A point of comparison

2006-02-05T22:09:00.000-05:00

Pam has a most amazing, excellent post on the whole "Cartoon of Mohammed" thing here. The first GLBT Lefty blogger I saw mention it was Jay (here). And I made it a point to comment on her post - when a closer read led me to see there are links to "never protested" images of Islam and Mohammed. You can see the images here.

Which, given my Muslim upbringing, I can verify: my own Islamic primers were illustrated with stylized-but-realistic images of people (including Mohammed). Some of the images on the site noted above look, in fact, like they could have come from my primer.

What really gets me, though, is this image below.

Given I was much like that London-Style Pakistani chap, I actually offered such arguments for public consumption - and would be the first to call you a "racist" if you did not agree.

Shame it took this moment for the Left to really look at itself and where it stands in relation to Islam as a political movement and how that plays into the whole Israel-Palestine issue.

I am not a terribly warm, sentimental, kind, or cuddly man - as many of you here know.

But I am VERY Left.

Indeed, I am not a terribly patient man, either.

But I am, indeed, VERY painfully Left.

I may or may not be bright or well educated - you'll have to decide that for yourself.

But I am, indeed, VERY damn painfully Left.

But first-hand experience counts for a hell of a lot - and that, I think, I have in spades.

May free speech and thought lead the West until the end of time. Which, of course, means tossing the Right out of our own politics ASAP.

ADDENDUM: I did not intend to leave this our originally, but there are a set of critical points I need to note in the interests of being ethical: (1) Yes, I really was born and raised as a Muslim; (2) When, in my teens, I intellectually left Islam because I found it angry, painful, and oppressive, I evolved to atheism; (3) as a result of life-experience, a time came when I was open to a God-concept. When that happened, I discovered the Jewish perspective was tolerant, accepting, compassionate and humane, so I formally converted within the Masorti/Conservative/Reconstructionist area of the tradition.

Another violent queer bashing or...

2006-02-02T13:04:00.000-05:00

... No More Wire Wicks -- EVER!!!

The next whiny ChristoNazi who fusses about how oppressed they are better hope I'm not packing a hatchet, a machete, and a pistol and heading into their church/culture war HQ asking if it's an AmTaliban hangout as I'm downing a cup of coffee hour courage...

I'm so sick of candlelit vigils, I could scream!

[See comments for UPDATES and IMPORTANT Suspect Reporting Info]

Police investigate attack at New Bedford gay bar
[annotated and updated with extra info from Puzzles bartender, Phil]
By Ray Henry, Associated Press Writer February 2, 2006

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. --Police were searching for an 18-year-old New Bedford man who allegedly attacked patrons of a gay bar early Thursday with a handgun and a hatchet, wounding at least three people in an apparent hate crime.

The man walked into Puzzles Lounge in the city's North End around midnight, armed with a handgun and "some sort of cutting instrument," according to New Bedford Police Capt. Richard Spirlet. [NOTE: According to Phillip, the bartender who, before starting work there, had been a patron himself for about 5 years, there were two cutting instruments -- the one he used against several patrons was a hatchet and another, a machete, was found where he'd dropped it during a struggle before firing a gun first execution style into his first hatchet victim then at others who were down from injuries, then at another patron exiting the bathroom, then indiscriminately into groups of patrons nearby as the bartender helped ones at the other end of the bar exit out a door to that side.]

The suspect was identified as Jacob D. Robida, 18, of New Bedford. Spirlet said the incident was being treated as a hate crime. [NOTE: One woman who knows Robida describes him as a white supremacist.]

The bartender, who asked to be identified only by his first name, Phillip, because of concerns about his safety while the attacker was being sought, told The Associated Press that the man ordered a drink and asked if Puzzles was a gay bar. [NOTE: Phillip said his eyes were cold -- that he seemed at once emotionless and menacing. Phillip carded him, saying that, as it was Robida's first time in the bar and that Phil didn't know him, he had to ask for ID, and Robida produced one that showed he was born in 1982, which would have made him 23 years old. Phil said he was suspicious that Robida was younger than that but, lacking proof and concerned that he was odd, thought it best to serve him. Phil didn't know if he was asking about the type of bar because he was a potential basher or because he wanted to make sure he was in the right place. It's a smaller area bar with a mixed sex clientele who are often very close friends and thus physically warm with each other, so that wouldn't have been an unusual question. He thought, though, due to the dead coldness in the man's gaze, that it was more likely that he was in there for trouble and thus worth keeping a close eye on.]

He was told it was, then finished his drink and ordered another, Phillip said. He walked to the back of the bar where two men were playing pool. [NOTE: Phil could still see him from behind the far end of the bar.]

He shoved one of the men to the ground [NOTE: a cowardly attack from the rear after the guy turned his back on him to play the game], according to Phillip, then pulled a hatchet from his hooded sweatshirt and began swinging it at the man's head, cutting him [NOTE: severely, as the man went down]. The second pool player intervened, swinging at the assailant with his pool cue, but the man fended him off, the bartender said. [NOTE: Phil said that the attacker took the pool cue from the man trying to use it to save his game partner and began using it to beat the partner, then others who came to their aid, including Phil himself, who is still feeling the effects of one particularly intense blow to the lower part of his body, not to mention significant post-traumatic stress.]

Several other patrons tried to stop him, and at some point the man was tackled to the ground and the hatchet flew across the floor, Phillip said. He then pulled out a handgun and shot the two pool players, according to the bartender. He fired a bullet at a patron who was leaving the bathroom, hitting him in the chest.

"He was shooting at everyone," Phillip said.

Some patrons left through the front door while the altercation was taking place at the rear of the bar.

The attacker [NOTE: after pointing the gun at Phil's head from a distance of three to four feet, and sweezing the trigger with only the resulting click of an empty chamber] then shoved the bartender before leaving the building and running up the street, Phillip said. Moments later, the police arrived. [NOTE: Before leaving his behind the bar shelter to aid the his patrons, Phil had dialed 911, then dropped the receiver to the floor still connected.]

Robida was described as a short, stocky white man with dark hair. He was last seen driving a green 1999 Pontiac Grand Am and is considered armed and dangerous, according to Spirlet.

Phillip said the attacker was wearing all black [NOTE: pants, possibly jeans, with patches and had a hooded black sweatshirt that he had pulled up "over his face" gangster style when he sat at the bar] and that he left behind the hatchet, as well as a machete that he did not see used.

Two of the injured people were taken to Boston hospitals, and a third was taken to St. Luke's Hospital in New Bedford, said Spirlet. [NOTE: Phil heard the police radio report that, as one first attacked was being lifted into the helicopter the helipad on his way to Boston General, he was reported to have had no pulse. He had been shot in the face -- one report said that he was shot at close range more than once -- as he lay on the ground unable to move from his head wounds from the hatchet.]

The victims' names and conditions were unknown.Puzzles is popular with the local gay community and is listed on several Web sites offering resources to gays and lesbians.

Left, Fem, and Angry

2006-02-01T17:11:00.000-05:00

I just got an E-mail from the author of this post (because I'm on her distribution list - NOT because we're the closest of chums).

This woman's name may look familiar - as it should: she helped scuttle the Islamic Sharia Court in Canada. Ms. Namazie is a Lefty with true spine: Iranian, Socialist-Communist, female, and in British society, she takes on the lot of the right-wing . . . whether George or her own "Immacracy."

Visit, read, and comment! She's just brilliant!

More Fascist Resonance: that whole 'keep the workers willing' thing all over again

2006-01-31T09:08:00.000-05:00

Okay - so plenty of moderates and nearly all good, cable-news-watching, average Joe-and-Jane tax-paying people; people who keep their noses clean and do their jobs and pay their bills; really hate to see comparisons between the current state of affairs and the Fascist rise in Europe in the 1930s.

And such discomfort is understandable. That period in modern history is among the ugliest on a global scale. There are good reasons to not make comparisons to that time terribly lightly.

What the moderate and not-so-political folk often forget is, at that time in the past, there was a similar Fascist rise here in the USA. Thanks to the Great Society efforts by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that rise here was nipped in the bud.

Mussolini really put the proper face on what "Fascist" means when he said he hated the term "Fascism" because it was too emotionally loaded: he coined "Corporatism," as that term more accurately reflected the government both he and Hitler sought to create. And, in his speeches, Mussolini used the term "Corporatism" fairly freely.

But, at the end of the day, what does Fascist really mean? How can one define this term used not only to insult, but to also silence others?

Let's just go with the High School Senior version of world history. Within that easily-limited view here is what we can analyze given "common knowledge" via public education and the addition of some critical thinking.

(1) Fascism is government for the corporation.

Mussolini "made the trains run on time" and used government contracts to arm Italy - while at the same time creating jobs during a significant global Depression. Hitler provided IG Farben, Krupps Artillery and Bavarian Motor Werkes (yes - BMW: they used to make airplanes for the Luftwaffe) with labor camps to cut production costs and help insure prosperity to "True Germans."

State dollars funding the corporation to assure mutual growth and power, in short.

And today?

Our government is now run by corporate interests who dictate environmental, tax, labor/wage, and investment rules. Our government subsidizes key industries, even when those industries are mismanaged (eg. the airline bailouts). Our government encourages outsourcing to third-world countries to keep labor costs low so corporations can make bigger profits.

Oh - and two more words. "Halliburton Contracts." 'Nuff said?

(2) Fascism puts issues like "social services" and "social welfare" in the hands of the corporation.

Hitler used the lodgings vacated by the to-be-exterminated "undesirables" to house factory workers who moved from farm to city to help arm Germany for war. Both Hitler and Mussolini used the government's ability to garnish and sequester resources such as food and gasoline to provide workers supporting the war effort with a bit "extra." The goal of such actions goes back to the idea of Fascism being government for the corporation: together, the government and corporation work for their mutual self-interest, not for the society.

And today?

Today, we have state-run programs where our mentally handicapped must work to participate in state-run services. We have state-run programs where single mothers, the dispossessed, the poor, and the ill must work to get the most menial benefits - and the work itself is only minimally compensated.

We call it "workfare."

Conversely, corporations get tax abatements, subsidies, and other forms of gravy to grow and open new facilities (whether here or overseas). These abatements and subsidies derive directly out of citizen tax dollars paid to the government.

Doing a websearch on the term "workfare" and restricting the search to pbs.org provides some telling insight to my above statements.

(3) Fascism crushes the left and labor

Both Hitler and Mussolini used Left-Style social services, administered between an alliance of government and industry, to entice workers into supporting the Party, the State (and, later, the war). Free housing and healthcare were popular examples of such enticements (see my point about social services, above).

But to insure labor conformed, the Fascist state had to ensure a Left-Labor movement that was utterly devoid of power. Corporations insured unions leaders remained in either company or government pockets . . . if unions were allowed to remain at all (and unions often weren't). Socialist and Communist leaning ideas had to be silenced (not to mention outright Socialists and Communists themselves). To that end, anything of a Leftward flavor was crushed. Artistic movements from such perspectives saw the artists banned and paintings burned. Literature from such perspectives was branded subversive and made illegal. And the minds of the left? Those minds were imprisoned in what were, initially, work camps where the symbolic value of Capitalism as embraced by the Fascist state were displayed, quite literally, over the doors - arbeit macht frei (an accurate translation being "work liberates").

Granted, today, we know the statement " arbeit macht frei" is irony given what the camps were planned to become.

And today?

Today, our unions are gutted and we are as likely to see labor leaders lunching with high-level politicians as we are seeing them at a labor rally. Wages are down, job and worker protections are nil, and the left has been effectively silenced. In fact, we see our "left" leaders on the National level as often jumping into bed with the right as not (Hillary Clinton, Joe Liberman, Zell Miller) and our own voices are relegated here, to the back-rooms of blogs, where we cheerlead to each other but get very little useful national attention outside our own small forums.

(4) Fascism uses militaristic threat to keep both citizens and foreign powers in line

Germany invading the "Germanic Lands." And then Poland. And then the the other nations which evolved to being the European amalgam known as The Axis Powers.

You know the story: no need to drag this part out.

And today?

Today, we have the doctrine of both perpetual and preemptive war.

Sound familiar?

(5) Fascism also uses economic controls to keep both citizens and foreign powers in line

The Reich used funds to control other nations and groups - the most infamous action of which was passing legislation, under the rubric of the Nuremberg Laws, to deprive Jewish business owners of the rights associated with being both business owners and citizens: the property of such people was either redistributed to Germanic Aryan competitors or Party officials.

And what about today? Are there parallels today?

In fact, there are. Remember the election in India a few years back that led to a Socialist Prime Minister? Global concern about the future of India as a cheap labor source created such intense pressure that the democratically-elected PM stepped down? Or the flux of formerly Union-protected jobs overseas?

Perhaps these two are a bit of a stretch - but the end result is, certainly, quite similar: the consolidation of economic power to keep people and nations in line.

Do we live in a Fascist state, then?

I do not know.

But I do know this.

Between (1) the spineless Dems, the sellout Dems, the inability of the left to organize and take action (forget the protests - actually DO something) and the (2) systematic, efficient, cut-to-the-tendon-and-bone RethugliKKKans, things don't look good.

Hell - even with all the scandal, corruption, legal violations, and paper trails, making hay out of 9-11 failures, lies, faked intel, financial corruption, Katrina, and two court nominations, I'm still waiting for someone to start swinging a baseball bat.

From what I can see, I'll be waiting for some time.

For the moment, however, there is yet another 1930s flavor here: one worth addressing (credit goes to Salon.com).

CLARIFICATION: The link above connects to an article about the current economic situation - and some numbers we have not see since 1933 - The Great Depression

UPDATE: Gary posted this link, in some comments below, comparing the types of hate-speech from then to now. It's well worth the read.

PBS - an American Experience every GLBT needs to see

2006-01-30T22:28:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching PBS's American Experience tonight. The episode reminded me not only of this earlier post of mine . . . but also of this post on Pam's House Blend.

The particular episode of American Experience addressed The Nuremberg Trials. While listening to the Nazi defendants, I could not help but note how very much the Nazi German views on race, religion, and "others" sound like the fine Muslim commentator I quoted below - the commentator from the "Moderate Religious Islamic" website?

But, sadly, the mind-numbing parallels between both Nazi mythology and social stereotypes and subsequent Islamic Anti-Semitism is not the only disturbing parallel from 1935 to today. I noticed another parallel, too - one that came directly from the film clips of the prosecution of Hermann Goering.

That parallel was, believe it or not, the very basis for the Nuremberg Trials over 60 years ago.

And that parallel?

That parallel was in the text of The Nuremberg Laws, passed and amended by Hermann Goering and ratified by the Reichstag at various points in 1935.

The Nuremberg Laws - passed after the Nazis managed to go from being elected officials with great popular support to the sole dictators of the land, using frenzy, racism, nationalism, and hatred (towards leftists, intellectuals, different races, etc.) to keep their momentum richly fueled into 1945.

The Nuremberg Laws proved to be the backbone of the Allied case against Hermann Goering in the Nuremberg Trials. It was those laws that held together the Allied Prosecution's claim that Goering preplanned, in minute detail, to violate the peace, to dehumanize unwanted citizens, to commit acts of illegal war, to commit war crimes, and to commit crimes against humanity: all those acts on the part of Goering were, according to tonight's American Experience, developed their framework from The Nuremberg Laws . . . and those laws were drawn with premeditation, given the body of evidence against both Goering and the Nazis.

And what about The Nuremberg Laws is so disturbing today?

Only one particular element in the context of GLBT life, given the debates we GLBT folk are having today.

Check out the first article under The Nuremberg Laws, reprinted here from the English site Sparticus Schoolnet:

I) Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour (15th September, 1935)

Imbued with the insight that the purity of German blood is prerequisite for the continued existence of the German people and inspired by the inflexible will to ensure the existence of the German nation for all times, the Reichstag has unanimously adopted the following law, which is hereby promulgated:

(1) Marriages between Jews and subjects of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages nevertheless concluded are invalid, even if concluded abroad to circumvent this law.

(2) Only the state attorney may initiate the annulment suit.

(3) Extramarital intercourse between Jews and subjects of German or kindred blood is forbidden.

(4) Jews must not employ in their households female subjects of German or kindred blood who are under forty-five years old.

(5) Jews are forbidden to fly the Reich and national flag and to display the Reich colors.

(6) They are, on the other hand, allowed to display the Jewish colors. The exercise of this right enjoys the protection of the state.

etc . . .

Yep - that's right: the first bit of Anti-Jewish legislation passed by the Nazis was controlling the right for Jews, partial Jews, and Non-Jews to marry.

But don't take my word for it.

Check out what American Experience has to say. And for that matter, what The History Place, The US Holocaust Memorial Museum, The Jewish Virtual Library, Wikipedia, and Sparticus Schoolnet itself say.

I'll gladly spoon-feed ya, actually: they say what I've just told you above.

And that is why both the guy in this House Blend post (the queer who lost Kerry's first National Campaign: seems Kerry sunk the second issues campaign on Alito all on his own) and those who so stridently, ardently, loudly shout, "Play to the center! Don't rock the boat! Go along with the program!" should collectively have the holy-living-shit slapped out of them.

Speaking for myself, the mantra "Never Again!" really means "Never."

Implications of the Hammas win, or Holy Sh*t, Batman!

2006-01-30T18:31:00.000-05:00

I have, in the past, bantered about with some both here and at Pam's House Blend about the face of what Islam, as a political movement, means.

More than once, I have suggested, strongly, that Islam as a political movement is more like the Pentacostals on Anger-Steroids-a-go-go than "a religion of peace."

So, given the recent Hammas* wins in the PA, letting the speaker speak for himself is better than commenting.

So, from a religious Islamic website that is "moderate" in flavor (ummah.net), I bring you the following commentary (linked to the original form here).

Intelligence services intercepted information about possible future attacks on the American Jewry and its interests. This information teaches us that the people behind the threat are now more precise than ever : we don’t want troubles to all Americans, our target is very precise : we want to dislodge the Jews heavily controlling centres of power and propaganda in America.
Most people agree today that sept.11th attack was a very precise wide action: the head of the Snake: the Zionist Occupied Government and its outstanding symbols.

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." — Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.

Help to cleanse America of the cursed Jew , the main cause of anti-Americanism everywhere. The Jew who exported his conflict with Arabs to us. The Jewish high influence which is transforming USA to an instrument of war and to a worldwide dictatorship.
We are inheriting our today’s paranoia and daily psychosis of insecurity from the Jew. Each American is considered today in the Muslim world as a Jew under an American mask. The whole America is seen as a duplicate of Israel.

Fortunately, there is today a more and more growing awareness in America about the Jewish Question .Many ways to end it soon are underway .

People in Europa , China, Russia etc. (excepted Israel) are not living the same paranoia of threat simply because their Jewry is numerically less significant and less influent compared to America. Governments and public opinion in these countries are today against a war against Iraq. They consider the Judeao-American rush to war as suspect and contrary to the universal principles, to the international legality and to morals.

Remember Franklin Benjamin’s prophecy (1789): his early warning about the Jews and their assault on centres of power and decision in America.

In the far past , Babylon ( the today’s Iraq) destroyed the Kingdom of Israel. Almost 3000 years after, there is still a strong belief among the Jewry that a second destruction of the Kingdom of Israel (today’s Israel) by Iraq (ancient Babylon) is a possible assumption. The preventive destruction of Babylon( today’s Iraq) and the dirty jobs are going to be done today by the US Army. As a reward , we will be "controlling soon the abundant Iraqi oil".

The today’s US-Iraq crisis is showing clearly that it is far much easier to dupe the American opinion than the rest of the world.

Warmonger Jewish occupied media in America:
At the origin, the media were an additional instrument of democracy, a faithful mirror of the society. More precisely, the media were intended to be an indirect means of popular control of the government actions. The Jews occupied progressively this instrument, corrupted it and proved to us that this instrument can be transformed into a tool of smooth dictatorship: modelling the public opinion as required, like a modelling clay.
Remember the first measure taken by Hitler against the German Jews : no Jew in the German media.

Any questions as to why I left these fine folk?

* Note cover story is about PA and Israel: given the flavor, can we really buy this source as unbiassed?

Religious Groups Get Chunk of AIDS Money

2006-01-29T22:50:00.000-05:00

Religious Groups Get Chunk of AIDS Money By RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writer

President Bush's $15 billion effort to fight AIDS has handed out nearly one-quarter of its grants to religious groups, and officials are aggressively pursuing new church partners that often emphasize disease prevention through abstinence and fidelity over condom use.

...

The abstinence emphasis, say some longtime AIDS volunteers, has led to a confusing message and added to the stigma of condom use in parts of Africa. Village volunteers in Swaziland maintain a supply of free condoms but say they have few takers.

"This drive for abstinence is putting a lot of pressure on girls to get married earlier," said Dr. Abeja Apunyo, the Uganda representative for Pathfinder International, a reproductive health nonprofit group based in Massachusetts.

"For years now we have been trying to tell our daughters that they should finish their education and train in a profession before they get married. Otherwise they have few options if they find themselves separated from their husbands for some reason," Apunyo said.

An AIDS-program pastor in Uganda explained his abstinence teaching to unmarried young people.

"Why give an alternative and have them take a risk?" asked the Rev. Sam Lawrence Ruteikara of the Anglican Church of Uganda, a U.S. grant recipient. "This person doesn't have a sexual partner, so why should I report too much, saying that in case you get a sexual partner, please use a condom. I am saying, please don't get a sexual partner — don't get involved because it is risky."

Secular activists say it is not realistic to expect all teenagers to abstain from sex and that teenagers also should be taught how to protect hemselves.

...

Smith believes the administration is wrongly supporting some nonprofit groups. He and several other congressional conservatives wrote to Bush and the U.S. Agency for International Development, contending that several large grant recipients were pro-prostitution, pro-abortion or not committed enough to Bush's abstinence priorities.

...

Six congressional Democrats, in a letter last week to ecretary of State Condoleezza Rice, accused the conservatives of a distortion campaign that undermines a balanced approach to fighting AIDS.

"Their attack is based on a narrow, ideological viewpoint that condemns condoms and frames any attempt to reach out to high-risk populations as an endorsement of behaviors that these critics oppose," said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

USAID has declined to renew funding for two major AIDS-fighting consortiums, CORE and IMPACT, headed by organizations the conservatives targeted. Those two groups fund hundreds of community and religious-based organizations.

...

Associated Press reporters Alexandra Zavis in South Africa, Thulani Mthethwa in Swaziland, Katy Pownall in Uganda, and Lewis Mwanangombe in Zambia contributed to this report.

82nd Airborne Division ... gay pornography???

2006-01-28T12:55:00.000-05:00

Sent to me by a friend who lives near Fort Bragg.

(01/27/06 -- RALEIGH) - Army officials are investigating allegations that members of the celebrated 82nd Airborne Division appear on a gay pornography Web site.

A Letter to All - From Mario

2006-01-28T09:19:00.000-05:00

This is really our last chance, folks...

Please read and help if you wish:

WE CAN STOP ALITO THIS WEEKEND

http://www.democrats.com/we-can-stop-alito

The last two days have been amazing.

Early Thursday afternoon, we broke the news that Senator John Kerry would lead a filibuster against Judge Sam Alito if he could get 41 Senators to sustain the filibuster. Three hours later, CNN confirmed our story.

Naturally, the White House freaked out and told Senator Bill Frist to schedule a cloture vote as quickly as possible - Monday at 4:30 p.m. - to prevent Democrats from uniting behind Kerry.

Then the White House called its media whores at the NY Times (David Kirkpatrick), AP (Jesse Holland), Pentagon Post (Charles Babington), CNN (Miles O'Brien), and MSNBC (Chris Matthews) and told them to trash John Kerry for daring to challenge the will of Emperor Bush, and to repeat over and over that Democrats did not have enough votes to stop Alito.

But even as Karl Rove was doing his dirty work, progressive activists like you were calling your Senators urging them to support John Kerry's filibuster.
And one by one, Democratic Senators began to turn around.

http://democrats.com/alito-48

At the start of the day, only Dick Durbin and Debbie Stabenow supported Kerry and Kennedy. Just before noon, Hillary Clinton's office called to say she supported us. Then Harry Reid came on board, along with Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, Chris Dodd, and (I think) Chuck Schumer.

Most importantly, we even picked up Dianne Feinstein, who just yesterday said she opposed a filibuster.

That's 12 votes for a filibuster - and exactly 12 more votes than we had two days ago!

I believe we really can stop Alito by Monday at 4:30 p.m. - but here's what we must do.

1. Ignore the media whores. Karl Rove is feeding them lies as he always does, and they are swallowing those lies as they always do. The only media that matters is the media we are creating right here by calling each Senator and getting a YES or NO statement from them.

2. Keep calling the Senators who are undecided or opposed to a filibuster. You can call their DC office all weekend and leave polite but firm voicemails urging the Senators to support Kerry's filibuster. When offices open on Monday 9 a.m. ET, make another round of calls. Let's shut down the Capitol switchboard on Monday!

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

3. Call the DNC (202-863-8000) and the DSCC (202-224-2447) and tell them your 2006 contributions will depend on the success of the Alito filibuster. Tell them they need to get every Democratic Senator on board.

Keep hope alive - because American Democracy is worth it!!!

Alito is wrong ....he was wrong 85% of the time....he is a right wing extremist who wants to give unregulated power to the president ( remember bushbots Hillary looks like our next president...do you really want her to have such powers?....I sure dont )

Our nation is facing a Constitutional crisis. We have a president who thinks he is above the law....and has willing accomplices in his party and in the corporate media....we cant afford to have an extreme right wing judge in the swing seat of the SC.

This is a man who always sides with big government and corporations...in other words......a Fascist.

This is a man who thinks it is ok to strip search 10 year old girls w/o a warrant.

But most of all he is incompetent...he was in the minority dec. 85% of the time...even in the 3rd District..one of the most conservative circuits in the judicial system.

He is Brownie with a robe.

I didn’t do this when Bush nominated Roberts...and I didn’t have to when he nominated the obviously unqualified Myers....but I draw the line at Alito...he is a slap in the face of American Democracy.

I cant urge this enough.....phone calls work! We cant take these pigs golfing in Scotland but we can threaten them and make them act like Democrats....for once!

"Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives."

Portland Oregonian

Some Friday Amusement

2006-01-27T16:11:00.000-05:00

One examination of who we are and what this all means.

One worth watching and laughing over.

Is it time?

2006-01-27T14:41:00.000-05:00

I have been re-reading David McCullough's most detailed, painstaking, journal-and-letter quoting John Adams and have, page by page, been marveling at the likes of Mr. Adams, Thomas Jefferson, the painfully-flawed but brilliant Ben Franklin, as well as the other men and women (and the women did have their role, even if society limited them with what we hope are long-gone prejudices) who contributed so much to who we are today.

I'm re-reading the book because I'm thinking about both what happened in the Middle East yesterday and anticipating the PBS special about John and Abigail Adams in the next days: believe it or not, these events are connected.

As I reflect on the Hammas win; on our current Christian, Conservative, Hammas-Like Leaders; their equally aggressive, mindless followers; and on how both these leaders and followers daily subvert our Constitution, I thought it may be a good idea to revisit that critical moment in history leading to this country - that moment where these fantastic, insightful, hardworking, selfless, long-gone-yet-long-remembered people collectively said, "Okay - that's it: we've utterly had enough and we're not taking any more."

Therefore, with a hat-tip to Julien and a sly wink in the background, I thought it would be good to visit a portion of the Declaration of Independence; the full text of which is linked HERE, to a server at a law school in Indiana.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of . . .

There are only two thoughts that really intrude on me at this point.

One is that we can continue the above document with, ". . . American Progressives, with the current Administration as it stands . . ." and really have to change little in the list of insults that finally caused the break from the British Crown.

The other thought is more of a question. Namely, "How much longer will it take for any progressive leaders to step forth, not only noting the Patriotic resonances with the past, but also noting legitimate grievances today and subsequently acting as strong leaders to take decisive action toward ending the abuses the Christians, the Republicans, and the current Administration, daily, perpetuate with the aid of corporate media and financial interests?"

We had such men and women as a part of our past - and they were the men and women our history books today laud as our great founders and leaders.

Is there not one person with such stature today?

Or did America finally run out of heros?

Is it time we found one?

And, finally, to close the rather large circle I have drawn: amazing that so many people, whether here or whether in the Palestinian Territories, will vote anger and theology over self-improvement. What does it take to move a people - an entire nation - beyond such self-defeating choices towards real progress; progress of the type that people like Adams and Jefferson did, in fact, achieve?

Bush Spreading Freedom and Democracy: just not the way HE wants it.

2006-01-27T08:07:00.000-05:00

This morning, I was greeted by my favorite news source (I always start the day with Salon.com, then WaPo, then the NY Times, then over to Atrios, Raw Story, Buzzflash, and Democracy Now - to compare headlines and stories; but I digress) touting how Democracy in the Middle East means "Hammas."

This is the story very much worth reading - again, a day pass is required, but it's very well worth watching a damn PC Commercial.

The story started me thinking about a question I never considered. And that question is, "What does a 'by the people' Democracy mean in the Middle East?"

Actually, I have the answer to that question, as my parents were Expat Persians (hailing back to the days before "Iran" and "Iraq"); my grandparents were the Persians who went Expat in the early 1900s, and all relatives except my brother and I hold dual citizenship - in most cases somewhere in Europe and either Pakistan or India.

Add that my Good Westernized, College-Educated, Muslim Parents (tm - the Shirazi Family, inc, llc, fubar) sent us to an assortment of Islamic Madressehs with the sole intent of keeping our cultural, social, religious, linguistic, and economic heritage "pure" (meaning "insuring their American-born children were nothing like you," dear reader), and that does put me in a unique position.

The synopsis of the Salon article in conjunction with my own experience is this: quite simply, expect more Hammas as the March of Freedom and Democracy spreads, whatever the particular local flavor of "Hammas" happens to be.

After all, when Benazir Bhutto's father became Pakistan's PM on a Socialist, egalitarian platform, he was very quickly tried and executed for crimes against the state (in Pakistan, where the word 'Pakistan' means 'Religiously-clean place with no Non-Muslims to spiritually mess things up,' the underlying text behind the execution meant Zulfaquar Bhutto 'violated Islam.').

Or the Nigerian Shariah Court who decide that stoning a young mother to death was an appropriate punishment for premarital sex?

Granted, those event was some time ago and will require some work on your part to verify - so I'll toss a few easier pitches next.

The recent Tsunami - remember the official Islamic stance on that? Actually, there were two. The purists claimed the Tsunami was god's punishment for not practicing a pure Islam: those who died deserved it because they were the equivalent of Kaffirs (Non-Muslims). The softer sell was god's punishment for allowing Non-Muslims to vacation on Muslim land.

And, more recent yet, over at Pam's blog, the reports of Islamic nations executing their GLBT folk - something we GLBT folk of such a socio-cultural background have been mentioning for some time but, sadly, not quite getting the coverage the issue deserves. Fortunately, in a recent UN vote, the USA sided with places like Iran, Sudan, China, and Zimbabwe - two of which do openly execute their GLBT folk - and has thus helped us GLBTs gain attention to the issues we face (not to mention, make the Bush administration's evil a bit more readily evident).

But back to my point - what does the Hammas win and "Democracy in the Middle East" mean on the Middle East Street?

It means that, in the PA, the Religious Police can use a long (3 to 5 foot), flexible switch to whip any female for not wearing a headcovering. Or, for that matter, any female who behaves in an "enticing" way.

The Hammas win means that Honor Killings will not only go un addressed and uninvestigated, they will actually be enforced: Honor Killings are required for key "offenses" per the Quran.

The Hammas win means that any PA GLBT folk need to seriously consider leaving - because Quranic enforcement of homosexuality started yesterday. And that enforcement?

Honor Killing.

Much like the Good, Patriotic, Christian Folk of the South and Midwest, who voted for Bush, JEEE-zzuzz, the Bible, Christmas, a "purer Christianity," sentiment, emotionalism, self-absorbed drivel, (and, ultimately, a snow-job run by those who seek power and wealth at the expense of those who voted for them), the Hammas vote was much the same. Sentiment for "a Better Islam," religious-purity-as-decency, and blind adherence to theology ruled the day . . . and those who will suffer most?

Those who will suffer most are the ones who voted Hammas. Much like those who suffer most, today, on our soil are the blue-collar factory worker or the nearly-bankrupt farmer who, here, voted for Mr. Bush.

Boggles the mind, eh?

How do you like your "March of Freedom and Democracy" now, Mr. Bush?

United Nations: U.S. Aligned With Iran in Anti-Gay Vote

2006-01-25T19:00:00.000-05:00

Rice Must Explain Repressive UN Ban on LGBT Rights Groups
(Washington, D.C., January 25, 2006) -

In a reversal of policy, the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, a coalition of 40 organizations, led by the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called for an explanation of the vote which aligned the United States with governments that have long repressed the rights of sexual minorities.

“This vote is an aggressive assault by the U.S. government on the right of sexual minorities to be heard,” said Scott Long, director of the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch. “It is astonishing that the Bush administration would align itself with Sudan, China, Iran and Zimbabwe in a coalition of the homophobic.”

In May 2005, the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which is based in Brussels, and the Danish gay rights group Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske (LBL) applied for consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council. Consultative status is the only official means by which non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world can influence and participate in discussions among member states at the United Nations. Nearly 3,000 groups enjoy this status.

States opposed to the two groups’ applications moved to have them summarily dismissed, an almost unprecedented move at the UN, where organizations are ordinarily allowed to state their cases. The U.S. abstained on a vote which would have allowed the debate to continue and the groups to be heard. It then voted to reject the applications.

“The United States recklessly ignored its own reporting proving the need for international support for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “The State Department’s ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices’ show severe human rights violations based on gender identity and sexual orientation occur around the world.”

As the U.S. government acknowledged in its 2004 country report on Iran, Iranian law punishes homosexual conduct between men with the death penalty. Human Rights Watch has documented four cases of arrests, flogging, or execution of gay men in Iran since 2003. In its 2004 country report on Zimbabwe, the U.S. government noted President Robert Mugabe’s public denouncement of homosexuals, blaming them for “Africa's ills.” In the past, Mugabe has called gays and lesbians “people without rights” and “worse than dogs and pigs.”

The U.S. has reversed position since 2002, when it voted to support the International Lesbian and Gay Association’s request to have its status reviewed. Officials gave no explanation for the change.

“It is deeply disturbing that, at the UN, the United States has shifted gears toward an aggressive stance against human rights for LGBT people,” said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. “Unfortunately, denying LGBT groups a voice and a presence within the United Nations – the world's most important human rights institution – is fully in keeping with the U.S.’s assault on basic human rights principles worldwide.”

In voting against the applications to the NGO committee, the U.S. was joined by Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Votes in favor of consultative status came from Chile, France, Germany, Peru, and Romania. Colombia, India, and Turkey abstained, while Côte d'Ivoire was absent.

“It is an absolute outrage that the United States has chosen to align itself with oppressive governments – all in an effort to smother the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people around the world,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “It is deeply disturbing that the self-proclaimed ‘leader of the free world’ will ally with bigots at the drop of a hat to advance the right wing’s anti-gay agenda.”

In addition to the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the organizations signing the letter are:
Advocates for Youth
Al-Fatiha Foundation for LGBT Muslims
Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School
Amnesty International USA
Catholics for a Free Choice
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
Center for Women’s Global Leadership
Colombian Lesbian and Gay Association (COLEGA)
Congregation Beth Simchat Torah
Equality Now
Family Care International
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Gay Men’s Health Crisis
Global Rights
Immigration Equality
International Women’s Human Rights Clinic, City University of New York School of Law
Ipas
Jan Hus Church
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Latino Commission on AIDS
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
Legal Momentum
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center (New York City)
MADRE
Mano a Mano
Metropolitan Community Churches
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Coalition Building Institute Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Caucus
National Center for Lesbian Rights
New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition
Open Society Institute
Queer Progressive Agenda
Queers for Economic Justice
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.
Women's Environment and Development Organization

For further information, please contact:
In Washington, D.C., Jay Smith Brown (Human Rights Campaign): +1-202-216-1580, or +1-202-716-1650 (cell)
In New York, Scott Long (Human Rights Watch): +1-212-216-1297, or +1-646-641-5655 (cell)
In New York, Geoffrey Knox (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission): +1-212-229-0540, or +1-917-414-1749 (cell)
In New York, Roberta Sklar (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force): +1-646-358-1465

LETTER:

January 25, 2006

The Honorable Condoleezza RiceSecretary of StateU.S. Department of State2201 C Street NWWashington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Rice,

On behalf of forty U.S.-based organizations advocating for human rights, including the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, we write to express deep disappointment at the United States’ actions this week in the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Committee of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

As you may be aware, both the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), and the Danish national gay and lesbian organization Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske (LBL) had applied for consultative status with ECOSOC. The United States abstained on a virtually unprecedented motion to deny these organizations a fair hearing on their application. Still more disturbingly, the United States supported a separate motion to summarily dismiss their applications. The motion to dismiss passed by a vote of 10 to 5 with three abstentions.

Monday’s vote represents a reversal of U.S. policy. When ECOSOC voted on ILGA's previous application for consultative status in 2002, the United States joined sixteen other nations in supporting ILGA’s application for consultative status.

We hope you will provide the reasons for this reversal. Is it now the policy of the U.S. government to oppose consultative status for all organizations working to promote the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people?

As the State Department’s own reporting demonstrates, severe human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression take place in many countries around the world. Arbitrary arrest, torture, and extrajudicial killing are common. We are grateful for the State Department’s effort to include these incidents in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. We find it incomprehensible that the U.S. government would recognize these human rights abuses—while denying the people subject to them the right to make their case, alongside other respected human rights organizations, before the U.N. It is, moreover, widely recognized that persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression drives populations vulnerable to HIV/AIDS underground, and contributes substantially to the spread of HIV/AIDS.

As long as human rights abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people occur, it is vital that NGOs working on their behalf are given a place and voice at the United Nations. Applications of three other such organizations are pending before ECOSOC: the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe), Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Québec (CGLQ) from Canada, and Lesben- und Schwulenverband in Deutschland (LSVD) from Germany. We urge you to support these applications. In this week’s vote, the U.S. ranged itself on the side of severely repressive governments. As U.S.-based organizations working in the fields of human rights and sexual rights, we are dismayed—and we expect better.

Please reply to Scott Long, Director, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program, Human Rights Watch, 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor, New York, NY 10018-3299 (tel: 212-216-1297).

Sincerely,

Advocates for Youth
Al-Fatiha Foundation for LGBT Muslims
Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School
Amnesty International USA
Catholics for a Free Choice
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
Center for Women’s Global Leadership
Colombian Lesbian and Gay Association (COLEGA)
Congregation Beth Simchat Torah
Equality Now
Family Care International
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Gay Men’s Health Crisis
Global Rights
Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights Watch
Immigration Equality
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission
International Women’s Human Rights Clinic, City University of New York School of Law
Ipas
Jan Hus Church
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Latino Commission on AIDS
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
Legal Momentum
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center (New York City)
MADRE
Mano a Mano
Metropolitan Community Churches
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Coalition Building Institute Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Caucus
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Center for Lesbian Rights
New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition
Open Society Institute
Queer Progressive Agenda
Queers for Economic Justice
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.
Women's Environment and Development Organization

Cc: The Honorable John Bolton, United Nations Ambassador for the United States
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar, Chair, United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Ranking Member, United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chair, United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee
The Honorable Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee
The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Chair, United States Senate Appropriations Committee
The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, United States Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
The Honorable Frank Wolf, Chair, United States House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and Related Agencies

Republican Spin Machine WaPo stands behind false assertions on Abramoff

2006-01-21T14:13:00.000-05:00

It seems that George's Republican Spin Machine extends well beyond the likes of Upstairs-Downstairs Bill O'Lie-ly, self-made heifer Rush Turdbaugh, and the shrill Tran Coulter.

Per this article at Salon.com, WaPo still stands behind assertions that Jack-the-Hack Abramoff and the K Street Project have Democratic connections, too.

As those who read both (1) regularly and (2) with attention to detail know, Abramoff, the K Street Project, and all the crap now going down with both the Republican Party and this mis-administration have about as much to do with Democrats, the Democratic Party, Democratic Officials, or anyone just a shade Left of "W," Dick, and DeLay-Frist-Robertson crowd than, say, a dentist has to do with a colo-rectal examination.

The term "nada" comes to mind.

Per the Salon article, which is well worth the day pass and is likely the most intense read of the week, the WaPo seeks to "prove" their claims rather than standing up, being honest, and admitting error.

Sound a bit familiar? Relative to tax cuts, WMDs, and a war somewhere in the Middle East?

This disgusting deception is an excellent time to hold WaPo editor's Deborah Howell to the fire and insist she, as the Washington Post's ombudsman, quote facts and sources - because should she not do so?

This deception really will be one of the last knells for free speech in the nation.

The WaPo had a pivotal role in taking down the only administration as dirty and corrupt as this one - namely Nixon's administration. Should the WaPo fail to embrace the responsibilities it has to both free speech as well as to being a member of the fourth estate (look up "fourth estate" should you not know the reference), we should, as bright, dedicated liberals, be prepared to return the favor tenfold on Editor Howell's head.

A response to Pam's request for leaders with SteelSpine (tm)

2006-01-20T13:46:00.000-05:00

Well, Pam, et al . . . this one is for you: MD Strikes down ban on same sex marriage.

See? Sometimes, the good guys do win. But rest assured the battle ain't over yet.

Liberian becomes Africa's first female president

2006-01-16T12:15:00.000-05:00

Laura Bush leads U.S. delegation to inauguration in Monrovia

Yeah, great...because the US sure as hell wouldn't elect a woman president - all we get is the president's Stepford wife paying lip service.

Meanwhile, our country becomes more backward every day -

Congratulations Liberia for out-evolving Dubya's empire.

The Way it Should Be....

2006-01-15T21:37:00.000-05:00

....if man hadn't created the Bible which says that man can treat animals like sh*t if he wants to.

Why Puppy Mills Suck....

2006-01-14T20:03:00.000-05:00

This story (through www.schnauzerrescue.com) is why I espouse rescue dog adoption.

ANNIE'S STORY

Annie's story is presented here to inform people about the reality of puppy mills. Annie is a typical example of the condition of most puppy mill dogs while they are in the puppy mill and when they are all bred out and no longer of any use to the owners. Annie is alive today only because she was rescued rather than being killed, which is the cheapest solution and usual fate of puppy mill dogs that are no longer profitable.

The upper two pictures show Annie as she came from the puppy mill. Since most females are bred every single heat (at least twice a year) from their first heat on which occurs while they are still puppies their bodies become used up and broken down at a very young age. When these pictures were taken of Annie she was only 5 years old. She had many C-sections and the scar tissue was severe, so even though her normal weight for a girl her size should have been about 15 lbs, she weighed over22 lbs--she had been bred so many times that over a third of her body weight was mammary tissue!

Annie had produced a litter of puppies that were all born dead two weeks before these photos were taken-that is why she was to be shot. When she was rescued she had the following conditions, all of which were chronic and of long standing duration and all of which could have been avoided by proper humane medical care and treatment--routinely not provided by puppy millers because medical care comes directly out of the profits these animals produce and it is cheaper to shoot dogs no longer able to produce than it is to give medical care and treat the dog humanely.

Annie Before:

Infections in both ears; many rotten teeth (sawdust is routinely mixed with dog food to reduce expenses, and consequently the dogs' teeth rot at an early age because sawdust clings to the gums and teeth and promotes decay---untreated abscessed and rotten teeth promote secondary infections including heart disease, which are not treated); abscessed rear paws (all paws have severe scar tissue from wire cage cuts); severe urinary infection; infected uterus (when the veterinarian opened the dog for spaying, parts of the uterus were green, rotten and dying);bladder stones; kidney stones, and one kidney was mostly nonfunctional.

All of these conditions were determined to be a result of long standing neglect, lack of medical care and extremely poor nutrition. ANNIE'S CASE IS NOT UNUSUAL. It is the norm. What happened to her puppies? According to the American Humane Association, over 90% of puppies sold in pet stores are from puppy mill moms like Annie. DON'T BUY PUPPIES FROM PETSTORES.

Annie Today:

Annie was one of a few lucky puppy mill dogs that got rescued. Most are killed (usually shot or drowned, sometimes electrocuted) by their owners before they ever leave the mill.

No Caption Necessary

2006-01-14T16:28:00.000-05:00

Nicholson/The Australian/Melbourne, Australia
CartoonArts International

Do it in the name of heaven...you can justify it in the end

2006-01-13T13:16:00.000-05:00

Amazing how the lyrics of "One Tin Soldier" are even more apropos today than they were when they were written...particularly in the antics of the Taliban and the American Taliban (i.e. religious right and their savior Dumbya):

Listen, children, to a story
That was written long ago,
'Bout a kingdom on a mountain
And the valley-folk below.

On the mountain was a treasure
Buried deep beneath the stone,
And the valley-people swore
They'd have it for their very own.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

So the people of the valley
Sent a message up the hill,
Asking for the buried treasure,
Tons of gold for which they'd kill.

Came an answer from the kingdom,
"With our brothers we will share
All the secrets of our mountain,
All the riches buried there."

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Now the valley cried with anger,
"Mount your horses! Draw your sword!"
And they killed the mountain-people,
So they won their just reward.

Now they stood beside the treasure,
On the mountain, dark and red.
Turned the stone and looked beneath it...
"Peace on Earth" was all it said.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Amicus Briefs Filed In CA Freedom to Marry Case

2006-01-10T09:16:00.000-05:00

Rare is it that I will post PRNewswire stuff verbatim but this one's crowing is worth repeating!

Religious and Civil Rights Groups Support Same-Sex Couples in Legal Battle to Marry

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- In eight amicus briefs filed Monday with the California Court of Appeal, more than more than 250 religious and civil rights organizations urged the court to put an end to state laws that deny same-sex couples the protections of marriage. The Court is hearing the State's appeal of the March 2005 decision by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, which held that California's current statutory ban on marriage of same-sex couples violates the California Constitution.
"I am proud to join with other civil rights leaders in standing up for fairness and dignity for all," said Alice Huffman, President of the California Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "Never before has such a diverse array of groups stepped forward to call for an end to the unfair treatment faced by same-sex couples and their families when they are denied the ability to marry."
The group filed an amicus brief asking the Court of Appeal to apply the holding in Perez v. Sharp, the 1948 California Supreme Court decision striking down laws banning interracial marriage, to the current case. The NAACP's brief was authored by longtime civil rights advocate Jon B. Eisenberg.
More than 200 local, regional, and national religious organizations and clergy also filed a brief arguing that the constitutional principle of religious freedom supports the right of same-sex couples to marry. Groups joining the brief include the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Unitarian Church, the California Council of Churches, California Faith for Equality, the Ecumenical Catholic Church and the Buddhist group Soka Gakkai International-USA.
The brief was authored by a team of attorneys under the leadership of Raoul D. Kennedy.
"There is great diversity among people of faith throughout California on the issue of marriage for same-sex couples," said Rick Schossler, Executive Director of the California Council of Churches and California Church IMPACT, which represent 50 Protestant and Orthodox judicatories throughout California with more than 1.5 million members. "It is a matter of religious freedom to allow faith communities to practice their faith by performing and blessing marriages between same-sex couples who wish to make a commitment to each other, while allowing denominations that oppose such marriages to refrain from so doing."
Twenty-one civil rights, community and legal groups joined a brief criticizing laws that discriminate against gay people, including the law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. Karin Wang, Vice President for Programs of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California and of-counsel on the brief, said, "APALC supports this case because people of color in California are sadly familiar with marriage discrimination, as many of our communities were targets of racially restrictive marriage rules in the past. In addition, the civil rights of all communities are inseparably linked so it is important for civil rights groups to stand together in support of marriage equality."
The brief was authored by attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.
Other groups who joined the brief include the Japanese American Bar Association, the Japanese American Citizens League, People for the American Way, the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, and Equal Justice Society, among others.
More than 25 Asian Pacific Islander groups joined an additional brief describing the long history of discrimination against API communities with regard to marriage in California.
The brief was authored by Victor Hwang, an attorney with Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach. "As an Asian American whose ancestors were denied equal rights and protections under California law, I recognize the profound harm caused by denying lesbian and gay people the ability to protect their families through marriage," said Hwang.
Women's organizations also filed an amicus brief in support of same-sex couples, including the California Women's Law Center, Equal Rights Advocates, Legal Momentum, and the Queen's Bench Bar Association of the San Francisco Bay Area. Professor Herma Hill Kay, one of the leading family law scholars in the nation, also joined this brief, which was authored by attorneys from Irell & Manella LLP.
MassEquality, Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and Freedom to Marry submitted a brief, authored by attorneys from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Another brief was submitted by Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, Family Pride, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, the National Lesbian and Gay Law Association, Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays, SacLEGAL, and the Tom Homann Law Association in San Diego. The brief was authored by attorneys from Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP.
Law professors from across the United States and Canada also filed a brief noting that a growing number of other countries now permit same-sex couples to marry and explaining that marriage is a fundamental human right. The Women's Institute for Leadership Development, an international human rights organization based in California, also joined the brief.
The plaintiffs in the case are twelve same-sex couples, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition, who are represented by lead counsel National Center for Lesbian Rights, along with co-counsel Lambda Legal, the ACLU, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP, the Law Office of David C. Codell, and Steefel, Levitt & Weiss. The City of San Francisco is also a plaintiff in the case, represented by City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, along with the law firm of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin. The case likely will be set for oral argument in the spring.
For a complete list of organizations filing amicus briefs supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry, please see the attached sheet.
List of Organizations and Individuals Filing Amicus Briefs in Support of Marriage Equality Brief Filed On Behalf Of The California NAACP, Authored By Jon Eisenberg
Brief Filed On Behalf Of Civil Rights Organizations, Authored By O'Melveny & Myers LLP
* AGUILAS
* Asian American Justice Center
* Asian Pacific American Bar Association
* Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California
* Asian and Pacific Islander Lesbian and Bisexual Women and Transgender Network
* Asian Pacific Islander Pride Council
* Bienestar Human Services
* Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
* Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
* Equal Justice Society
* Japanese American Bar Association
* La Raza Centro Legal
* Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
* Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
* Multicultural Bar Alliance of Los Angeles
* National Black Justice Coalition
* National Lawyers Guild of San Francisco
* People for the American Way Foundation
* United Lesbians of African Heritage
* Ventura County Black Attorneys Association
* Zuna Institute
Brief Filed On Behalf Of Women's Rights Organizations, Authored By Irell & Manella LLP
* California Women's Law Center
* Legal Momentum (formerly, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund)
* Professor Herma Hill Kay
* Equal Rights Advocates
* Legal Aid Society -- Employment Law Center
* Queen's Bench Bar Association of the San Francisco Bay Area
Brief Filed On Behalf Of Asian Pacific Islander Groups, Authored By Victor Hwang Of Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
* Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
* Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area
* Asian American Justice Center
* Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
* Asian Equality, Asian Law Alliance
* Asian Law Caucus
* Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles County
* Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California
* Asian and Pacific Islander Equality
* Asian Pacific Islander Family Pride
* Asian Pacific Islander Health Forum
* Asian and Pacific Islander Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays
* Asian Pacific Islander Wellness Center
* Asian Women's Shelter
* Asian Youth Promoting Advocacy and Leadership
* Chinese for Affirmative Action
* Chinese Progressive Association
* Filipinos for Affirmative Action
* Gay Asian Pacific Alliance
* Gay Asian Pacific Support Network
* Institute for Leadership Development and Study of Pacific Asian North American Religion
* Japanese American Bar Association
* Japanese American Citizens League
* Korean Community Center of the East Bay
* My Sister's House
* Organization of Chinese Americans, San Francisco Chapter
* Southeast Asian Community Center
* Vietnamese American Bar Association of Northern California
Brief Filed On Behalf Of International Human Rights Organizations And Law Professors, Authored By Professor Noah Novogrodsky of University of Toronto School of Law
* University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, International Human Rights Clinic
* Women's Institute for Leadership Development
* Mayo Moran, Dean, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, Ontario, Canada
* Brenda Cossman, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, Ontario, Canada
* Sujit Choudhry, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, Ontario, Canada
* Robert Wintemute, School of Law, King's College, University of London, United Kingdom
* Paul Schiff Berman, University of Connecticut School of Law, W. Hartford, Connecticut
* Kenji Yoshino, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut
* Beth Van Schaack, Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California * William Aceves, California Western School of Law, San Diego, California
* Margaret L. Satterthwaite, New York University School of Law, New York, New York
* Barbara Cox, California Western School of Law, San Diego, California
Brief On Behalf Of California, Massachusetts, And National LGBT Organizations, Authored By Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
* Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere
* MassEquality
* The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
* Freedom to Marry
Brief On Behalf Of Additional California And National LGBT Organizations, Authored By Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP
* Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
* Family Pride
* Human Rights Campaign
* Human Rights Campaign Foundation
* Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles
* National Lesbian and Gay Law Association
* Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc.
* SacLEGAL
* Tom Homann Law Association
Brief Filed On Behalf Of Religious Organizations And Religiously Affiliated Individuals, Authored Under the Leadership of Raoul D. Kennedy By Elizabeth Harlan, Jo Ann Hoenninger, Joren S. Bass, Philip A. Leider, Michael D. Meuti, Stephen Lee, Eric Alan Isaacson, and Rev. Silvio Nardoni
* Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons
* Al-Fatiha Foundation
* Dignity USA
* Executive Committee of the American Friends Service Committee
* General Synod of the United Church of Christ
* Soka Gakkai International-USA
* The Union for Reform Judaism
* The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
* Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
* California Church IMPACT
* The California Council of Churches
* California Faith for Equality
* Council of Churches of Santa Clara County
* Friends Committee on Legislation of California
* Jews for Marriage Equality (Southern California)
* Pacific Central District Chapter of the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association
* Pacific Southwest Council on the Union of Reform Judaism
* Pacific Southwest District Chapter of the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association
* Progressive Christians Uniting
* Reconciling Ministries Clergy of the California-Nevada Conference of the United Methodists
* Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry -- California
In addition to these national organizations, the brief is also signed by 46 local faith organizations and 140 faith leaders
SOURCE National Center for Lesbian Rights
01/10/2006 07:00 ET

New Rules

2006-01-09T19:48:00.000-05:00

Bill Maher isn't the only one to propose new rules. Columnist Dan Carpenter must've been writing with Bean in mind in this excerpt from his Dec. 11 IndyStar.com oeuvre:

Sens. Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton, positioning themselves for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination by showing their Republican credentials, have
proposed cracking down on citizens who sell adult video games to minors and who
burn the American flag. Respectively, as opposed to simultaneously.

Lots of families no doubt were pleased with the timing of Bayh's recent announcement, in that news stories about it included examples of the menace he is attacking. A handy shopping list as the holidays approach, for sure. Not to mention another chance for product placement in the watchdog media.

What I could go for, if you want to know the truth, is a mandatory warning label on politicians who promise to protect our values while the big players devalue my paycheck. Grand Theft Auto would cover only one lobby, but it's a start.

While we're at it, maybe we should have an amendment to the Constitution governing desecration of the American flag. Specifically, let's criminalize the act of wrapping oneself in it to hustle cheap votes.

Speaking of the senator from New York, where is she getting this advice to go after conservative voters? Is there a single right winger in America she dares to be alone in a room with? Hill -- over here! Half the population is waiting. And have you noticed the war you won't retreat from now commands minority support?

Oh, well. Any woman president this country elects in the foreseeable future is going to be Margaret Thatcher, so Hillary may as well soften us up.

Speaking of softening folks up, another potential candidate for the White House, Condoleezza Rice, is back from her prisoner treatment clarification tour. One decided advantage she enjoys over her male counterparts is perhaps overlooked by observers -- a hairstyle that can hide the earplugs she might want to wear during inspections of certain European facilities.

Torture generally is prohibited under U.S. policy, President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have strongly reasserted. But there are exceptions, as any Bush victory speech or Rumsfeld laugh-along press briefing makes painfully clear.

On A Personal Note

2006-01-09T06:11:00.000-05:00

Pray For Rain

Grass fires. Oklahoma is burning.

There are fires both east and west of Tulsa. OK has not had rain for a long time. One report said it's been close to 100 days. There are burning bans everywhere.

Two hundred twenty homes and businesses have burned in the rural areas in the past two months. People are starting to have 'allergy attacks' (maybe due to smoke in the air?). This last bit is anecdotal, since it's not from anyone medical, but rather from conversation with others.

I woke up coughing within the last hour and took a decongestant. I hope there is rain soon.

On a different note: Level Two (second semester of nursing school) begins in less than four hours. The coursework seems a bit daunting. I need to focus on one day at a time and attend to what is before me each day.

Pray for rain.

*
Since Nov. 1 in Oklahoma, grass fires have consumed about 353,000 acres, destroyed more than 220 homes and businesses and been blamed for the deaths of two people.
*
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) _ About 200 out-of-state firefighters and support personnel have arrived in Oklahoma within the past week to help fire crews battle grass fires across the state.
*
The State Emergency Operations Center (EOC) remains activated to support local fire departments and other first responders who continue to battle wildfires across Oklahoma.
*
From Tulsa World newspaper this morning
Across Oklahoma, fire crews responded to more than 30 fires during the day, including a large blaze in southeast Oklahoma that scorched about 6,000 acres, according to the state's incident command center in Shawnee.

530pm Monday Jan 9, 2006 Update - Two things:

1)This email arrived today from a friend in Muskogee, Oklahoma.
"The fires have gotten within 5 miles of my home, so I have been told. So far they have burned on the east, south, and west of me. Sometimes I can smell the smoke and twice we could see it in the air. Sinus infection is what I am hearing the most about. Several herds of cattle have been trapped by the flames. I have friends on the police department and volunteer fire department that try to keep me informed. I pray a lot."

2)I told my mom about midday today about the fires and the need for rain, and how it hasn't rained in OK for almost 100 days. Now, a few hours later, there are thick clouds covering the sky, moisture in the air, and a forecast for rain for tomorrow. (Yesterday there was no rain forcast for the next week or so.) Maybe my momma has been praying up a storm. Literally. I could believe she has a special direct line to God. Thanks to all of you who do think of others and pray or send good thoughts or energy or meditate on good things. We're all in this (world, life) together. It means a lot to know people care. Thanks for being there.

And, a p.s. about school. I'm cautiously optimistic. :) I think it (this semester) is going to be okay. At any rate, the 1st day went well.

Race to the bottom loses all around...

2006-01-09T06:03:00.000-05:00

Indianapolis political gadfly, Jocelyn-Tandy Torkwase Adande, has been fussing about the new LGBT-inclusive Indianapolis Human Rights Ordinance, saying, "Passage of the ordinance was a mistake. To compare the plight of homosexuals to that of African Americans is an insult to my race."

Sounds like she needs to listen to African American gay people who can tell her that nobody's saying it's the same -- after all, how many parents of black people refuse to accept their children's phone calls because their kids are black? How many throw their underaged kids out on the streets to fend for themselves because they're black? How many of their brothers shoot at them through their car windows because they're black?

I'd ask if she knew which group suffers the highest number of hate crimes and which group has the highest incidence per capita of hate crimes.

I'd want to know if she knows which group's people can be put in prison in America for telling their government the truth that they're married to the one consenting adult they love and which group were kings and queens in their own lands while the other group was being burned in the fires of the Inquisition by the Roman Catholic church.

No, I wouldn't say it's the same at all.

But then I'd ask to which group the ideological and organizational genius* behind Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s non-violent movement and 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom belonged.

What most of the African American gay people I know would tell her is that oppression is oppression, that it typically flows from the same source, and that it doesn't much matter whether it happens to them because they're black or they're gay -- that it hurts into the bones either way.

What I'd tell her is that that's true but that she might look for commonality in practical terms to the poison to the soul that is passing and the history of people trying to move away from that to the honesty and spiritual wholeness that comes with being who they really are.

Jocelyn is trying to engage both groups in a race to the bottom instead of recognizing that oppression takes many forms against many people and that sometimes the same remedies work for more than one group of the oppressed.

She's playing to people who would keep us all down by reframing antidiscrimination laws as privileges -- which wierdly defines being discriminated against as being in a privileged state of affairs -- instead of acknowledging that they're remedies for something bad that simply try to get oppressed people on an equal playing field and stop them from being kicked off it again.

She's not doing herself or her people any favors. In fact, in trying to deny others just remedies for hurtful things, she's only hurting herself and hers in the bargain. Makes me wonder if she really counts all the hers as hers after all and what it's going to take for her -- and all of us -- to realize that us is them is us in an active enough way to finally end the pain.

* Bayard Rustin: "There are very few liberal Christians today who would dare say anything other than blacks are our brothers and they should be treated so, but they will make all kinds of hideous distinctions when it comes to our gay brothers. . . . There are great numbers of people who will accept all kinds of people: blacks, Hispanics, and Jews, but who won't accept fags. That is what makes the homosexual central to the whole political apparatus as to how far we can go in human rights."

About Bayard Rustin: "He shaped Martin Luther King Jr., brought Ghandi's teachings to the American Civil Rights movement and organized the historic 1963 March on Washington. But as an openly gay man in a fiercely homophobic era, Bayard Rustin was silenced, beaten, imprisoned and frozen out of important leadership positions-even as he fought for peace, racial equality and economic justice." -- excerpt from Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard
Rustin

For more about Bayard Rustin, see Remember...Bayard Rustin (1912-1987) and Brother Outsider: The Life
of Bayard Rustin

Ten Things About Gay Marriage

2006-01-08T08:48:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Pam for this humorous look at why marriage for gay folks should not be allowed.

Ten Reasons Gay Marriage Is Wrong

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

This is FUN!

2006-01-06T16:00:00.000-05:00

How to become a republican...

Try it TODAY!

My email to Anderson Cooper 360 (CNN)

2006-01-06T13:02:00.000-05:00

It was "great TV" to watch Anderson "emoting with the country" about the miners. Just great.
However, all this "emoting" would not have been necessary if the media had done its job and really reported on the cutting of funds to the agency(ies) providing oversight to such companies. Maybe if the media had "emoted" a little then, we wouldn't have to watch several miners die today due to countless safety violations which went "uncaught" due to the cutting of the budget.

I am no longer going to watch the "soap opera" that is CNN - and Mr. Cooper in particular. It is just a dog and pony show, and you have completely lost my respect.

This really sucks.

2006-01-06T12:15:00.000-05:00

IRS tracked taxpayers’ political affiliation

To quote my friend Judy:

UGH! UGH! Is anyone convinced that we no longer have any control over our own lives? That we have been losing civil liberties daily since 2000?

Indeed.

Ms. Julien needs a media contact...

2006-01-06T00:52:00.000-05:00

Hi readers - I have been trying to find a contact email for Anderson Cooper...can anyone help find even the "generic" one?

Thanks!

Ms. Julien

ACLU vs Domestic Violence Victims

2006-01-05T18:57:00.000-05:00

The ACLU filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the combined case of Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana, cases dealing with whether domestic violence laws and practices that provide for prosecution of abusers based on victims' statements to police and on 911 tapes proximal to the abuse (that the courts are not disputing to be reliable) when the victims cannot or will not testify in court can be upheld.

What it boils down to is that the ACLU -- no doubt in the form of the I[ndiana]CLU or at least with a surfeit of their board's typically shortsighted and overly conservative legal reasoning -- is filing a brief to undercut domestic violence law, claiming that these statements should be judged under the same standard as other ex parte statements (less reliable and more subject to coercion) despite that there's been zero evidence that they are anything but the most reliable, least coerced statements from domestic violence victims -- victims whose statements have been proven to become, in the aggregate when the victims are not available to testify, less reliable over time, not more reliable due to the actually coercive agents at play here: the abusers.

The ACLU's big solution to the dilemma of wanting to uphold the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and their so-called "commitment" to domestic violence victims is to tell the criminal justice system -- overworked, underfunded police and prosecutors who historically before these statements were considered evidentiary absent victims' in-court corroboration didn't much give a damn about these cases anyway because they were so frustrating to deal with what with their uncooperative complaining witnesses -- that it should just do a better job of getting these victims to court by spending money and time the system doesn't have and isn't going to have to provide "access to advocates who explain the process, help victims ensure their safety, and work with victims to deal with the legal, economic, and medical issues stemming from the violence." They smugly state, "This is not surprising, but it is often overlooked."

This is "blame the victims" one step removed to "shift an impossible burden to the victims in a manner that will virtually guarantee that they will remain victims" -- especially in light that the dichotomy the ACLU has framed between the needs of these victims and society versus the Constitution is a false one.

I am most deeply unimpressed with the "help victims ensure their safety" line. Makes me wonder if these all-head-no-heart, all-theory-no-sense lawyers ever actually dealt with a domestic violence case with an offender like an O.J. Simpson who wouldn't take a protective order seriously and just kept coming and coming in an inevitable progression to death -- dealt with such a victim enough to understand that nothing short of putting these obsessed abusers in prison will "help victims ensure their safety" -- and that even that isn't always enough. I wonder what it would take for them to understand that sometimes the only protection these women can create to "help [themselves] ensure their safety" is to not testify, thus giving themselves plausible deniability with their abusers by letting the law shift to itself the burden of holding the abusers feet to the fire -- especially as these statements can be understood NOT to be a danger to the Confrontation Clause when properly understood to be the most reliable statements from these victims.

The ACLU often does great work and we, as a people, owe them a great deal but, in this case, they're hurting us and should hear about it -- as should the Court.

Ah, Bush...Bastion of the Faith-Based Initiatives...Would Jeezus Do THIS:

2006-01-04T15:01:00.000-05:00

He sure has had a lot o' years of practice with the favored finger...

Nice - yet again.

2006-01-04T13:53:00.000-05:00

I know, just another winging from the tree-hugging pinko lesbian commie (ha ha Karen in Kalifornia) - after all, we are the only ones who would be upset at something like this, right? I know, I know, why vote for safety for miners when it is much more important to vote against the gays, for god, and for guns? At least those miners were allowed to be packin' - not that their guns did them much good when the mine was in violation of several safety laws and not enough funds were appopriated to oversite...thanks to dear leader. But hey - what's a little more death among the repugnicans? Their kids aren't in war - and their families sure as hell aren't down in the mines for the most part, either...

From The Nation:

W. and the Coal Miners: Photo-op Cover for Anti-worker
Policies
George W. Bush is crass.
Before heading to Texas for a month of vacation--longer than the average worker's--the President stopped at the local fire station in Green Tree, Pennsylvania, to (very publicly) visit with the nine miners recently rescued from a flooded coal mine. As could be expected, Bush hailed the episode as evidence of "the spirit of America, the great strength of our nation." He praised the people "who heard the call that one of my neighbors is in trouble," and he thanked the rescuers for "showing our fellow citizens that by serving something greater than yourself is an important part of being an American." As for the miners, Bush observed, "It was their determination to stick together and to comfort each other that really defines kind of a new spirit that's prevalent in our country, that when one of us suffer, all of us suffers." (Syntax in the original.)
That spirit, though, was not present earlier this year when the Bush administration proposed cutting the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by $7 million. The administration defended the 6-percent reduction by noting the number of coal mines has been decreasing. Yet coal mining fatalities have gone up for three years in a row. There were 42 mining fatalities in 2001, 29 in 1998. In March, Senator Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, maintained the funding cut would cause a 25 percent reduction in the government's mine-safety inspection workforce. As of March, 612 federal mine inspectors were responsible for enforcing safety regulations in 25 states, and there were signs the system has not been functioning well.
Last September, thirteen workers died in a coal mine 2,140 feet below Brookwood, Alabama. A spark caused by a rock hitting a piece of machinery ignited a methane-fueled inferno. The disaster, coming 12 days after September 11, did not draw much media notice. But it did prompt serious criticism of the MSHA. In March, the United Mine Workers of America accused the MSHA of treating "serious violations such as thousands of feet of combustible materials...and disruptions in the mine's ventilation system (which can lead to mine explosions)" at the Brookwood site as "minor infractions." The union claimed that federal inspectors failed to return to check on violations at this mine, which is owned by Walter Industries, that the MSHA did not respond to "requests by the miners for increased inspections when serious hazards existed," that the MSHA provided the company advance notice of inspection locations, and that a "MSHA supervisor divert[ed] an inspector away from an area of the mine that had known ventilation problems just prior to the explosion." At the time of the explosion, the mine had 31 outstanding violations and federal inspectors had not bothered to determine whether they had been corrected. As of mid-July, the MSHA had not responded to these accusations.
The Bush administration's less-than-ardent concern for mine safety is in step with its general attitude toward occupational safety. Fretting about regulatory burdens and calling for flexible standards, the Bush crowd has demonstrated more empathy with business owners than with workers. Twice, Bush has proposed decreasing the budget for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In its most recent budget, it called for reducing 64 slots in OSHA's enforcement division. The White House has also decreased funding for the National Institute for Occupational Safety. And it deep-sixed workplace safety rules for ergonomics, replacing them with voluntary guidelines for certain industries.
Yet there was Bush--with Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and MSHA administrator David Lauriski in tow--basking in the glow of the mine workers, while saying nothing about mine safety issues. He was exploiting a near-tragedy of the kind his administration has done little to prevent. "I want to thank you for the example you set," Bush told the nine. Too bad, the miners could not return the compliment.

Come in, come in, little girl, and play in Uncle DeLay's...

2006-01-03T17:35:00.000-05:00

House of Scandal

Heee hee hee hee.....

Taking back our Base

2006-01-02T15:59:00.000-05:00

In light of a post some time back where I, accidently, discovered where that inane "All your base are belong to us!" line originates, I did some nosing about the web to see if, perhaps, I could find some entertaining blowback.

Someone in the university setting has done a fantastic spoof on the cartoon - with the appropriate political and religious imagery. Catchy tune, too.

Let's watch, laugh, and remember one very important thng: 2006 needs to be a return to real progressive ideas and actions: no more of this Liberman or Clinton centerist bullshit, eh?

Happy New Year!

The Best Summary Yetof the Snow Job Bush Has Done on the American People

2006-01-02T12:16:00.000-05:00

From www.americablog.org:

Monday, January 02, 2006

Exactly how has Bush made America any safer in the past 4 years?
by John in DC - 1/02/2006 11:55:00 AM

It's one thing to give up our civil liberties in exchange for the safety of our children. It's quite another to give them up and get little in return. Let's examine just how much safer George Bush has made America since September 11.

Osama is still free, and Bush never even talks about him anymore.
We've turned Iraq into the biggest terrorist training camp in the world:

"Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of 'professionalized' terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank....

"President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war....

"Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government."
Our military is bogged down in a war that has nothing to do with the war on terror.
Far too many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, recommendations to make us safer, have still not been implemented.
The Homeland Security budget is being spent on frivolous pork:

"The District of Columbia used part of its grant to buy leather jackets and to send sanitation workers to self-improvement seminars. Newark bought air-conditioned garbage trucks. Columbus, Ohio, bought body armor for fire department dogs. These are not the priorities of a nation under threat."
The 9/11 Commission gives Bush a grade of "D" under the category: "Maximum effort to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD" - i.e., he gets a D for his efforts to stop terrorists from getting nuclear bombs. Here's what the 9/11 Commissioners had to say about Bush's efforts to stop Osama from getting a nuclear bomb and dropping it on an American city:

"Countering the greatest threat to America’s security is still not the top national security priority of the President and the Congress."
Most of the world now hates us.

"Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology."
And let me leave you with the words of the head of Republican head of the 9/11 commission, just a few weeks ago:

"Four years after 9/11 it is scandalous that police and firefighters in large cities still cannot communicate reliably in a major crisis," said Thomas Kean, the Republican who was chairman of the commission.

"It is scandalous that airline passengers are still not screened against all names on a terrorist watch list.

"It is scandalous that we still allocate scarce homeland security dollars on the basis of pork barrel spending, not risk...."

"While the terrorists are learning and adapting, our government is still moving at a crawl."

Tell me again how Bush has made us safer?

Bush: The First American Dictator

2005-12-31T17:11:00.000-05:00

"The Hidden State Steps Forward

by JONATHAN SCHELL

[from the January 9, 2006 issue of Nation]

When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and--going even more boldly on the offensive--that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a "shameful act." As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal branch of government of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President?

Bush's choice marks a watershed in the evolution of his Administration. Previously when it was caught engaging in disgraceful, illegal or merely mistaken or incompetent behavior, he would simply deny it. "We have found the weapons of mass destruction!" "We do not torture!" However, further developments in the torture matter revealed a shift. Even as he denied the existence of torture, he and his officials began to defend his right to order it. His Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, refused at his confirmation hearings to state that the torture called waterboarding, in which someone is brought to the edge of drowning, was prohibited. Then when Senator John McCain sponsored a bill prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, Bush threatened to veto the legislation to which it was attached. It was only in the face of majority votes in both houses against such treatment that he retreated from his claim.

But in the wiretapping matter, he has so far exhibited no such vacillation. Secret law-breaking has been supplanted by brazen law-breaking. The difference is critical. If abuses of power are kept secret, there is still the possibility that, when exposed, they will be stopped. But if they are exposed and still permitted to continue, then every remedy has failed, and the abuse is permanently ratified. In this case, what will be ratified is a presidency that has risen above the law.

The danger is not abstract or merely symbolic. Bush's abuses of presidential power are the most extensive in American history. He has launched an aggressive war ("war of choice," in today's euphemism) on false grounds. He has presided over a system of torture and sought to legitimize it by specious definitions of the word. He has asserted a wholesale right to lock up American citizens and others indefinitely without any legal showing or the right to see a lawyer or anyone else. He has kidnapped people in foreign countries and sent them to other countries, where they were tortured. In rationalizing these and other acts, his officials have laid claim to the unlimited, uncheckable and unreviewable powers he has asserted in the wiretapping case. He has tried to drop a thick shroud of secrecy over these and other actions.

There is a name for a system of government that wages aggressive war, deceives its citizens, violates their rights, abuses power and breaks the law, rejects judicial and legislative checks on itself, claims power without limit, tortures prisoners and acts in secret. It is dictatorship.

The Administration of George W. Bush is not a dictatorship, but it does manifest the characteristics of one in embryonic form. Until recently, these were developing and growing in the twilight world of secrecy. Even within the executive branch itself, Bush seemed to govern outside the normally constituted channels of the Cabinet and to rely on what Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff has called a "cabal." Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported the same thing. Cabinet meetings were for show. Real decisions were made elsewhere, out of sight. Another White House official, John DiIulio, has commented that there was "a complete lack of a policy apparatus" in the White House. "What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm." As in many Communist states, a highly centralized party, in this case the Republican Party, was beginning to forge a parallel apparatus at the heart of government, a semi-hidden state-within-a-state, by which the real decisions were made.

With Bush's defense of his wiretapping, the hidden state has stepped into the open. The deeper challenge Bush has thrown down, therefore, is whether the country wants to embrace the new form of government he is creating by executive fiat or to continue with the old constitutional form. He is now in effect saying, "Yes, I am above the law--I am the law, which is nothing more than what I and my hired lawyers say it is--and if you don't like it, I dare you to do something about it."

Members of Congress have no choice but to accept the challenge. They did so once before, when Richard Nixon, who said, "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal," posed a similar threat to the Constitution. The only possible answer is to inform Bush forthwith that if he continues in his defiance, he will be impeached.

If Congress accepts his usurpation of its legislative power, they will be no Congress and might as well stop meeting. Either the President must uphold the laws of the United States, which are Congress's laws, or he must leave office."

Can we please wake up from this bad dream...NOW?

2005-12-30T01:04:00.000-05:00

Women's Rights Laws and African Custom Clash

(I guess my Social Darwinism acquaintences** would say this is happening because...)

**NOT friends of mine...

He got what he wanted...

2005-12-27T21:16:00.001-05:00

A chilling, apropos editorial from the Miami Herald:

Posted on Mon, Dec. 26, 2005

AFTER 9/11
Fear destroys what bin Laden could not

ROBERT STEINBACK
rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''

Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?

Do we?

A Few Questions/Thoughts

2005-12-22T20:23:00.000-05:00

When was the last time Bushie boy and his whacked sidekick Cheney treated us to one of their terror alert designed to scare the hell out of the easily manipulated? Think there was one after November 2004?

Ever consider that the reason that we have not been struck by Al-Q on our land is because Bush has done more than enough to cripple this country all on his own, that Al-Q is merely too busy sitting back and laughing at him?

How is it with all that spying Bush has done for all these years, and the huge rewards that have been offered, Bush has failed to capture Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

If Al-Q was such a huge threat and they are all around us in the 50 states as we are told, how is that we have not identified and arrested more than a couple of nit wits since Al-Q caught Bush sleeping at the wheel on 9/11?

This country is wide open to murderers who kill at their whim every day. If we cannot stop regular murderers before they act, why in the world would someone believe that Bush is actually preventing terrorists from acting because we check their email?

There's a sucker born everyday, and here in America most of them seem to work for the media.

If Muslims are so evil and hate us so much, how is that out of the millions who live here, that not one has blown himself up in a theater, or shot a cop, or set FEMA on fire?

On 9/11, 19 murderers managed to kill thousands of Americans for no good reason, so we vanquished what was left of the Al-Q (as if they waited around knowing that we were coming) and their hosts in Afghanistan, and then we decided to gut our treasury, kill thousands of Iraqi citizens, cause the death of our own military personnel by not protecting them, and waste our credibility around the world, while the country that caused it all, Saudi Arabia, still owns us. Make sense?

Could Congress pass a resolution or law authorizing the President to violate the 4th Amendment rights of Americans via spying? Of course not. So who cares if, as Bush argues, the war resolution can be read (which it cannot) to authorize it (an idiotic argument indeed)?

In the end, pray that the 2006 elections bring democrats into control of the House, so that hearing and articles of impeachment can be had.

Merry Merry.... Whatever

2005-12-22T08:28:00.000-05:00

Iraq's Muslim Mullacracy

2005-12-20T21:40:00.000-05:00

Well folks, it looks like that genius Bush has helped make it official: we now have an Iraqi democracy of the same kind that Iran has: mullacracy. And then can we expect Iran and Iraq to form Iranqistan, where everything western will be rejected, and all that which every American has given to this idiotic effort will have gone for naught? What a shame. If there was ever an argument that Intelligent Design had validity, Bush by his very existence disproves it from top to bottom.

Ready for a Change Yet?

2005-12-20T13:38:00.000-05:00

Americablog:

"Pentagon anti-terror investigators labeled gay law school groups a "credible threat" of terrorism
by John in DC - 12/20/2005 11:35:00 AM

Jesus f-in Christ. This has gone far beyond the pale. We need to do something now, and in massive numbers. I've been talking with several of the blogs and politicos in the last few days. This is even worse than I thought.

From the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a great organization that was created ten years ago to help overturn the military's anti-gay Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.

According to recent press reports, Pentagon officials have been spying on what they call "suspicious" meetings by civilian groups, including student groups opposed to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. The story, first reported by Lisa Myers and NBC News last week, noted that Pentagon investigators had records pertaining to April protests at the State University of New York at Albany and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's LGBT advocacy group OUTlaw, which was classified as "possibly violent" by the Pentagon. A UC-Santa Cruz "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) condemned the Pentagon surveillance and monitoring. "The Pentagon is supposed to defend the Constitution, not turn it upside down," said SLDN executive director C. Dixon Osburn. "Students have a first amendment right to protest and Americans have a right to expect that their government will respect our constitutional right to privacy. To suggest that a gay kiss-in is a 'credible threat' is absurd, homophobic and irrational. To suggest the Constitution does not apply to groups with views differing with Pentagon policy is chilling."

In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn enemies gay. The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was to develop "chemicals that effect (sic) human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic). One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior." SLDN also condemned that report, and the Pentagon later said it never intended to develop the program.

"The Pentagon seems to constantly find new and more offensive ways to demean lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said Osburn. "First, we were deemed unfit to serve our country, despite winning wars, medals and the praise of fellow service members. Then, our sexual orientation was suggested as a means to destabilize the enemy. Now, our public displays of affection are equated with al Qaeda terrorist activity. It is time for new Pentagon policy consistent with the views of 21st century America."

SLDN announced it plans to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to learn if it or other LGBT organizations have also been monitored by the Pentagon. To date, only a small portion of DoD's total database of information has been made public.

Sources that show the Pentagon keeping tabs on gay groups include this news report:

A secret Pentagon document obtained by NBC News reveals that the military has been spying on what they call "suspicious" civilian meetings - including many "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protests.

Only eight pages from the four-hundred page document have been released so far. But on those eight pages, Sirius OutQ News discovered that the Defense Department has been keeping tabs NOT just on anti-war protests, but also on seemingly non-threatening protests against the military's ban on gay servicemembers. According to those first eight pages, Pentagon investigators kept tabs on April protests at UC-Santa Cruz, State University of New York at Albany, and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's gay advocacy group "OUTlaw," and was classified as "possibly violent."

All of these protests were against the military's policy excluding gay personnel, and against the presence of military recruiters on campus. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says the Pentagon needs to explain why "don't ask, don't tell" protesters are considered a threat."

Torture -- One down, One to go

2005-12-20T01:05:00.000-05:00

Anyone else get a creepy feeling watching Shrub seemingly surrender to McCain over the torture issue, feeling it all too chummy for a White House known to be sore losers? Anyone else think Shrub looked entirely too happy, confident, and nonchalant to be properly in character?

Well, it's not because he's been hitting the happy juice again -- or at least not entirely why.

After hearing the media treat McCain-Murtha as the end of the torture issue, I grew even more greatly concerned that that would mean there would be no attention given to the way the Graham-Levin amendment to the same bill effectively makes mincemeat of McCain-Murtha.

You see, now that the House has adopted McCain/Murtha's anti-torture language, it unfortunately remains necessary to protect some of our prisoners from the practical gutting of that via the Graham-Levin Amendment. By chipping away at the right of habeas corpus by restricting the ability of detainees at Guantánamo to have an independent court review of the factual basis for their detention, Graham-Levin would seriously undercut the practical effect of the McCain amendment by barring Guantánamo detainees from applying to any court of law for relief from torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, and permitting the government to use evidence in court that has been obtained through the use of abusive practices, thus creating perverse incentives for our government to continue to engage in the very misconduct that gave rise to the McCain amendment.

In short, making it impossible for the victims of such practices to present their claims before an impartial judge would make the McCain/Murtha victory a Pyrrhic one.

What this country needs is more serious study of these issues. Instead of being subjected to another Sunday morning hour of Condi Rice, another of Shrub's spying-on-Americans-co-conspirators, claiming that post-9/11, we're in a wholly new, never-been-faced-by-America-before threat situation, our populace needs to hear our legal history in dealing with the concerns raised by enemy combatants -- particularly that we've dealt with this before -- from the Revolution onward -- without having to compromise our basic principles.

Would that our people were widely aware, for instance, that Washington opposed many of the excesses of his opponents in the Revolution when it came to treatment even of hired mercenaries (who before that had been considered not even subject to the small limits on prisoner treatment afforded declared enemies in those days) or that Lincoln faced the same dilemma with the Confederates of not wanting to accord them legitimacy that we face with al Qa'ida yet he relied upon the foundational work of the Lieber-code (aka "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," which President Lincoln approved on April 24, 1863 as General Orders No. 100).

Would that they understood what Lincoln did, that the exercise of humanity moves us forward so that they would have no fears of quashing the excesses of a president who relies instead on the twisted illogic of Yoo and Gonzales.

Even if our whole populace has missed this bit of essential education, our Congress should not before voting on it. Thus I call on all to insist that Congress -- particularly the Senate -- vote for and do everything in its power to remove the Graham-Levin from any bill that's moved beyond committee and see instead that it is assigned to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees so that it can be given the careful consideration that such a fundamental change in the law deserves.

Wow - Dubya is sure spying on terrah-rists, isn't he?

2005-12-19T22:03:00.000-05:00

From www.rawstory.com:

FBI watched array of environmental, animal, and poverty groups

Counterterrorism agents at the FBI have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show, the NEW YORK TIMES is set to splash in Tuesday's papers...

FBI officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the FBI's investigative powers. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities.

But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized domestic anti-terrorism spying without warrants, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.

One FBI document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third document indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has sought access to FBI files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

"You look at these documents," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the ACLU, "and you think wow, we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover."

#

More from the AP (advanced):

The American Civil Liberties Union has accused the FBI of misusing terrorism investigators to monitor some domestic political organizations, despite apparently disparate views within the FBI whether some groups supported or committed violent acts, the Associated Press is set to reveal, RAW STORY has learned.

Citing hundreds of pages of heavily-censored documents it obtained from the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act, lawyers for the ACLU described this disputed use of terrorism resources as the latest illustration of intensified surveillance aimed toward Americans. "Using labels like domestic terrorists to describe peaceful protest activity can chill robust political debate in this country," ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said in New York. The ACLU said it will publish the FBI reports it obtained on its Web site Tuesday.

In one case, government records show the FBI launched a terrorism investigation of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in Norfolk, Va., despite acknowledgment by one FBI official that, "The FBI does not consider PETA a terrorist organization." The FBI responded that it conducts its investigations appropriately - subject to U.S. laws and Justice Department guidelines. It said the ACLU mischaracterized some passing references to political groups in FBI files to suggest those groups were under investigation; in other cases the FBI confirmed it was acting on tips tying groups to alleged illegal activities. The FBI documents indicate the government launched its terrorism investigation of PETA because the group was "suspected of providing material support and resources to known domestic terrorism organizations," including the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. Advertisement

The ACLU said the FBI documents also suggest that federal terrorism investigators infiltrated the Washington-based American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. One document, sent to an FBI counterterrorism unit in Los Angeles, describes a list of attendees from the group at a conference in Stanford, Calif., to protest sanctions against Iraq in May 2002. Other FBI documents obtained by the ACLU describe efforts in May 2001 by Greenpeace and the Los Angeles-based Catholic Workers Group to disrupt missile tests in California. The FBI said the Catholic Workers Group "advocates a communist distribution of resources."

Oh, man - watch those Catholics...definitely terrorists...Would Would Popie Do? Wear Prada, I guess.

Julien's List

SOTU & Petraeus Synchronicity -- Can a One-sided Will To Win Prove Enough?

The Poodle Genuflects To The Rat

IMPEACH THE ##!!*!!* ASAP

My posting over at Pam's

Rep. Gerry Studds, 1937-2006

On Gay Men, Police, and the Parks

Wedge This!

Lesbian By the Grace of the Goddess, Queer By Choice

Truth, Justice, and the American Queer

Mission Accomplished!

Free mp3 Folk Music Downloads

The Web We Love is Endangered

Privacy Invasion - Dead or Alive

Karl Rove Indicted

PhoneGate 'Net ReMix

Dean Recants, Sorta

Howard Dean Flies His True Colors

Stonewall Dems Gone Mad?

Child Porn Legislation -- Not Always What It Seems

Quote of the Day

TrueMajority.org

Most Recent UCC Ad

Brokeback Lost and Found

Sodomy Laws Around the World

Are the Neocons Losing It?

Hardball's Chris Matthews Eggs Prez Hopeful Allen's AntiGay Bigotry On

FOUND! Dem with Spine: Thank You, Senator Feingold!

Freedom and Democracy - relative terms.

Jay is Kicking Butt

Wildmon Loves Dobson -- Another Rocky Mountain Love Story or Where Is Annie Proulx When You Need Her

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

Heckuva Job, Dubya...some "Mission Accomplished"

The Legacy of George W. Bush

The sHillary Backlash

Taliban Thinking in France re Marriage Equality

Whether end OR begining, it seems that Dems still suck.

Follow the Money: Dubai Ports=CSX=ShrubCo=China=Solitary Confinement at Guantanamo

SnoopGate, ChickensWait, FedUpSate

Jews - the 2% Solution

In the end....Dems suck

U.S. church alliance denounces Iraq war

Dick

Where the Un-Civil War Begins

What It Means To Be A Republican

My letter to Paul Hackett, Dem with a Spine

Gore Speech --The Teeter-totter of History Revisited

Frist, Santorum and the K Street Project Do Not Lobbying Reform Make

Ohio Wingnuts Apparently Cave

Why fighting back is important

Sounding the Call for Ohio Boycott

One of the most disturbing documentaries I have ever seen

Bill Clinton on Coretta Scott King

My fave African-heritage feminist, next to Pam, of course.

Islamic Rage: solution? Blame the Jews . . . .

A point of comparison

Another violent queer bashing or...

Left, Fem, and Angry

More Fascist Resonance: that whole 'keep the workers willing' thing all over again

PBS - an American Experience every GLBT needs to see

Implications of the Hammas win, or Holy Sh*t, Batman!

Religious Groups Get Chunk of AIDS Money

82nd Airborne Division ... gay pornography???

A Letter to All - From Mario

And one by one, Democratic Senators began to turn around.

Some Friday Amusement

Is it time?

Bush Spreading Freedom and Democracy: just not the way HE wants it.

United Nations: U.S. Aligned With Iran in Anti-Gay Vote

Republican Spin Machine WaPo stands behind false assertions on Abramoff

A response to Pam's request for leaders with SteelSpine (tm)

Liberian becomes Africa's first female president

The Way it Should Be....

Why Puppy Mills Suck....

No Caption Necessary

Do it in the name of heaven...you can justify it in the end

Amicus Briefs Filed In CA Freedom to Marry Case

New Rules

On A Personal Note

Race to the bottom loses all around...

IMPEACH THE ##!!!! ASAP