The Human Animal

Understanding the Occupy Movement

2011-12-04T18:48:00.001-08:00

What is the nature of this movement?

In the late 1700's, a group of guys, later to become known as "The Founding Fathers", embarked on a bold mission to form a new kind of Government, one that Abraham Lincoln would later describe as "a new birth of freedom... Government of the people, by the people, and [here's the important part] for the people." The waters into which the Founders endeavored to plunge were largely uncharted. Such an egalitarian vision of governance was audacious and earth-shaking, so much so that many of the Founders were not especially confident about its chances of success. Thomas Jefferson thought this experiment to be so tenuous that it would require "Periodic revolution, at least once every 20 years,” as “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

The Founders were aware that various forces are constantly at play to dismantle the efficacy of a truly democratic state, and that the maintenance of the same would require work , as well as the participation and action of an informed populous. Freedom, in other words, is not free.

Threats to our democracy manifest themselves in many ways. Sometimes, they come in the form of bombs on a Hawaiian military base, and sometimes as planes crashing into office buildings. Such threats are rightly met with the defiance of a united American people.

Sinclair Lewis said, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” In that same category, I would place threats that are wrapped in comfort, security, and plentiful media propaganda. Such threats are myriad, pervasive, and insidious.

In the over 200 years following the inception of our democratic experiment, we have experienced a slow revolution in America. The invaders use their tremendous wealth to buy politicians, influence the media, create fake grassroots movements, and to subvert the democratic process. The American public, subdued by the opium of television, microwave dinners, and just enough wealth to keep them fat and (sort of) happy, were caught largely unaware.

The revolutionary power to which I refer is , of course, corporate power ( I realize that the other facet of this revolutionary force is big money/ Wall Street interests. Besides being cumbersome to type, I am accustomed to using the phrase "corporate power" to encompass all facets of this multi-sided coin. I have been writing about the problem of excess corporate influence on politics for some time. I'm not very new to this movement.)

The corporate revolutionary force has adeptly used its great financial resources to establish an ideological infrastructure in this country that is designed to support its political ends, both by direct and indirect control of the media, the co-opting of political parties and movements, and the infiltration of the essential nature of our economic and cultural structure. The central ideological meme that the corporate revolutionary force has implanted in our collective American consciousness is as follows; "What is good for the Corporation, is good for America." Despite rather glaring evidence to the contrary (more to come), the American people have largely bought this message without reservation.

Perhaps more troublingly, we have learned to think of ourselves as powerless against the seething tide of the corporate juggernaut. The Corporate forces are so entrenched, pervasive, and so intrinsic to every aspect of our lives, that even if we see the problem , we are conditioned to pop open a Budweiser© and a bag of Doritos©, slide down in the Lazyboy©, and flick on the Game©.

Quiet the mind, numb the soul.

That is where the Occupy movements come in. We seek to put forth a vigorous reaffirmation of foundational American ideals. We the People are still in charge. We don't have to accept any nonsense from this insidious revolutionary force. They do business here at our leisure. Their right to make money ends where the interests of the average citizen begin. Their right to influence policy and politics ends where the interests of the average citizen begin.

Why? Because we say so. This is government for the People. This Land is Our Land.

Why is corporate power inherently a social problem?

Essential to the understanding of the dynamic which exists between the corporation and the culture in which it operates, is to understand the distinction between the Corporation, as a legal entity, and the individuals who operate within the corporation. Though individuals operating in a corporation may themselves be moral, patriotic people, they are trumped by the structural nature of the system to which they find themselves subject. This "structure" is inherently amoral, expansive, and disloyal. By design, corporations have but one driving force: The Profit Motive. They have no mechanism for any other mode of action. Put another way, people who are in charge of making decisions for corporations are structurally barred from incorporating morality into the decision making process. Free from the encumbrance of morality, corporations find themselves at a tremendous advantage over traditional businesses, and they begin to behave like viruses, and inevitably embark on a race to the ethical bottom. And why not? If they don't, some other corporation will.

It must be said that this problem is no one's fault, exactly. It is simply an unintended consequence of the corporate structure. It is a problem that must be fixed one way or another.

But don't corporations sometimes voluntarily do good things? Maybe, but only as a side-effect of The Profit Motive. Corporations will exploit, pollute, corrupt, influence, and subvert to the fullest extent of their capacity to do so, in order to serve the profit motive. Legally, they are compelled to do so. If a corporation were to knowingly take actions that were contrary to its ability to make profit, they could be sued by their shareholders.

It is for these reasons that corporate power must be seen as an inherent threat to the health of a democracy.

It is for these reasons that it is dangerous and absurd to give corporations the same rights as Human citizens to influence the political process (See Citizen's United vs. Federal Elections Commission). A healthy democracy depends on its citizens to consider not only what is good for the individual, but also what is good for the nation as a whole. Corporations have no mechanism for considering anything but their own Bottom Line.

If we accept that corporations are a necessary evil (which I will concede for the moment), the only reasonable way to safely incorporate them into the fabric of our society is to curtail, as much as possible, their ability to influence policy. It is also necessary to regulate, inspect, and monitor the crap out of them. Another step would be to educate the populous in our public schools about the dangers of corporate power. They are, after all, enemies in our midst; revolutionaries who seek to wrest our democracy from the control of the people. Thomas Jefferson said that "The price of freedom is constant vigilance." The vigilance that Jefferson prescribed is needed now. This is your call to arms.

"But Trey," you say, "aren't you laying this on a bit thick? I mean, I don't feel exploited or manipulated. And besides, I like my Budweiser© and Doritos©. Also, check out my nice house and my nice car... Life is Good©!"

The affluence that has been bestowed upon us comes at a terrible price. This Deal with the Devil is costing America its soul. The corporate lifestyle, with television, automobiles, junk food, recreational consumerism, and climate control as its central defining characteristics, has come with a number of problematic strings attached. First, the corporate lifestyle has served to divorce us from the natural environment from which our species has arisen. Whether this is by design or not, I don't know, but it certainly serves corporate interests by engendering complacency and dependency among the people, while simultaneously cultivating an indifference to the environment that is being eviscerated in the process.

Let me offer a few other examples.

My favorite example (and please stay with me here, this is a little different than Trey just going off on his vegetarian issues) is the industrial animal farm. We kill tens of millions of animals per day in America. But for many of them, death is a welcome respite from the terror and horror they experienced during their short life. Many of them were raised in complete darkness, emerging only briefly to have their throats slit. Many are raised in cages in which they can't stretch their limbs or turn around. When they get sick, they are thrown into big festering piles where they slowly dehydrate and die, and are then shipped to our landfills. Also, these animals are often fed a diet that routinely includes antibiotics for 2 reasons: 1) because infection is rampant in industrial animal production systems, and 2) for complicated reasons, to accelerate the growth of the animal. This practice is breeding drug-resistant strains of bacteria, which endangers the human population. Eliminating the use of antibiotics would result in an approximately 1% per pound increase in the cost of chicken. I'm guessing that most of us would rather have effective antibiotics around and pay 1% per pound more for chicken, yes? Why is this practice ongoing then? Can you say "Pharmaceutical Industry Lobbying"?

The meat industry pollutes our air and water, usurps our energy resources, spews millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere annually, exploits its workers, and exercises grossly inflated influence on our democratic process and our culture in general. It doesn't have to be that way.

People will generally fall into one of several categories on the issue of inhumane and unsustainable meat production:
1) The immoral position: We deserve to exploit animals to whatever extent we may in order to make meat as cheap as possible. We deserve this because we are more powerful than them.
2) Denial: We aren't really treating animals that badly, are we? (Is it mere apathy, or is it by design, that so few people know anything about the way their food is produced?)
3) Complacency: I don't like the fact that we treat animals inhumanely, and that I help fund the practice, but what can I do?

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I suspect that most people fall into the last category. Corporations have made us feel powerless to mitigate their inclination to commit immoral acts. They are using our money to do this. This is killing the soul of our nation. We can stop this tomorrow if we have the courage and the will. This we can do through the political process if it is functioning without undue corporate influence.

Example #2 American corporations are involved in exploitative and inhumane labor practices all over the world. That shirt you just bought for $6.99 at Wal-Mart could easily have been produced by a 7-year-old girl in Vietnam working 14 hour days. This kind of exploitative practice is to be expected. Corporations have no incentive to refrain from any manner of moral transgression to serve The Profit Motive. Once the corporate virus is unleashed, the inevitable race to the moral bottom is underway. Quite frighteningly, is it certain that we are nowhere near that bottom yet. It is essential for the health of our democracy , as well as the future of our world, that we do not find out at what depths that bottom lies.

People will generally fall into one of several positions on this issue of exploitative labor practices:
1) The immoral position: We deserve to exploit people to whatever extent we may in order to make products cheaper for Americans. We deserve this because we are more powerful than them.
2) Denial: We aren't really doing that to little girls, are we?
3) Complacency: I don't like the fact that American corporations are using my money to exploit people, notably children, all over the world, but what can I do?

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I suspect that most people fall into the last category. Corporations have made us feel powerless to mitigate their inclination to commit immoral acts. They are using our money to do this. This is killing the soul of our nation. We can stop this tomorrow if we have the courage and the will. This we can do this through the political process if it is functioning without undue corporate influence.

Example #3: Corporations have ravaged our great land and the ecology that depends on it. There are countless examples. A particularly nasty one that has been in the news lately is the practice of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas and oil from geological formations (a process known as "fracking"). This process is controversial because it involves pumping millions of gallons of chemicals permanently into the ground in order to fracture the rock so that gas can be removed. The industry has so far been able to successfully argue that they don't have to tell the EPA exactly what chemicals they are pumping into our ground. Think about that for a second: Oil companies have successfully refused to tell the EPA (the public agency charged with protecting us from environmental harm) what they are permanently pumping into our earth. That's crazy, isn't it? How can they get away with that except by exerting excessive power over public agencies? There is no reason any corporation should be able to place itself in such a position of superiority over the American public's right to know what, exactly, is being visited upon the Earth beneath their feet by some sleazy corporation. We have the power to protect ourselves and the Earth from corporate greed. Do we have the will to exercise that power?

People generally fall into one of several positions on this issue:
1) The immoral position: We deserve to pump millions of gallons of chemicals into the earth in order to make energy cheaper, regardless of the effect such practices may have on local communities, ecosystems, or future generations. We deserve to do this because we are more powerful than them.
2) Denial: Surely the oil companies wouldn't knowingly do anything dangerous to our world, would they?
3) Complacency: I don't like the fact that oil companies are poisoning the earth, but what can I do?

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I suspect that most people fall into the last category. Corporations have made us feel powerless to mitigate their inclination to commit immoral acts. They are using our money to do this. This is killing the soul of our nation. We can stop this tomorrow if we have the courage and the will. We can do this through the political process if it is functioning without undue corporate influence.

I think I could go on for days. And I regret to fail to mention the income/tax disparity that seems to be part of the core of the movement, but the figures are out there, and I fear that whatever audience that may have stayed with me so far may be growing weary of my tirade. But let me say this, over the past decade, the top 10% of income earners incomes has grown while the middle 50% has been essentially stagnant. The top 1% has risen faster than the top 10%. The top .1% has risen faster than the top 1%, and the earnings of the top .01% have skyrocketed. This fact prompted Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to call the disconnect between the "upbeat" economic news and the public’s negative attitude towards the economy, “the sixty-four thousand dollar question” in 2006. Truly mind-blowing.

There is a brave new dawn that awaits us if we believe in it. We can work to fulfill the promise of the foundational American vision for the world only if we are willing to step outside our comfort zone just a little bit. That promise is one of freedom, egalitarianism, justice, and self-determination, and maybe even that we Americans can be a collective instrument for the betterment of the world. In order to do so, we must take back control of our political system. We can return control of our once-great nation to We the People if we only make the choice to do so. What we must understand is that the corporate revolution is one made of propaganda, fear, and complacency. The question we must ask ourselves is this: Can we free our minds from corporate oppression, as a people? If our minds are free, our government must follow. Where has complacency gotten us, as a nation, or indeed, as a human race? The choice is ours, the time is now.

What, specifically, are the goals of this movement?

The only really straightforward "demand" that I think most of the people involved in this movement might agree on is that something be done to remedy the problems that have been created by the Citizens United decision. Ultimately, we need to go much further in limiting corporate influence in elections, but that would be a good start. The simplest way, as far as I can figure, to accomplish that goal would be to publicly fund political campaigns. The only argument I have heard against doing this is that Corps will be less able to have their interests represented in the political arena. Uhm... yeah.

Also, what I think would constitute minimal success is to initiate a new dimension to the political conversation in America, so that, for example, a politician's platform will routinely include what he/she plans to do to curtail the problem of corporate power and foster the health of the middle class. Moreover, that a particular politician might be under undue influence from corporate interests should disqualify him/her in the eyes of the voting public. This would require a considerable psychological shift in the collective American consciousness, and it would take a sustained effort.

But more broadly, there needs to be a new and brighter vision in the American psyche about what we want to become as a nation. The current trajectory of maximizing the wealth of a small few, at great material and spiritual costs to the rest of us, is inconsistent with the soul of We the People. Where does such a trajectory ultimately lead us? We need to dismiss this culture of money-worship and introduce a new paradigm in which prosperity is not measured by the health of the corporate bottom line, but by the power of the people to determine their destiny and live better, and ultimately, to be better global citizens. Do we want to let Kraft© and Coca-cola© export the obesity problem that they have wrought here, to the rest of the world? Or are we a strong enough people to export an invigorated American brand of sustainable people-power to a world hungry for real leadership? What do we want to become? Fatter, stupider, lazier, more complacent, more dependent, more mentally oppressed? Or can we do better than that? Guess which path we will take if we remain tied to the corporate mission.

This is a struggle that will happen mainly in the minds of the People. What I am suggesting here is primarily that we collectively start believing in our ability to create a better future than the one being shoved down our collective throats by some very inept and misguided people. It is a complicated and seemingly elusive problem, but we humans have done some pretty amazing things so far in this world. We have also done some pretty terrible things. We must remember that, in each moment, we have choices. We are more powerful than we think.

The goals of the Occupy Movement are to preserve the integrity and strength of our democratic experiment. This is a struggle that must continue. The vigorous participation of an informed populous must be involved in this ongoing struggle if it is to be instrumental in maintaining the viability of our democracy.

So what can I do, as a concerned citizen?

1) Vote. Unless there are some serious shenanigans afoot of which I am unaware, votes still get politicians into power. The beauty of this whole problem is that we don't even have to take up the sword to fix it. We just have to be aware, active voters. Right now, the Green Party has among its policy goals, to more vigorously limit the damage large corporations are able to inflict on our society. They are rather non-existent in our current political landscape, but they need to be supported if only to apply pressure to the mainstream parties.

While, currently, meaningfully altering the corporate/social paradigm in America is not really on the radar of our Democratic party, at least they are in favor of regulations that mitigate the damage that corps can do, and they also seek to increase corporate taxes, both of which are steps in the right direction. It is possible that the Democrats, as they are currently configured in our political landscape, are too beholden to Corps to change meaningfully enough, but doing so would certainly be the most expedient pathway for the Occupy movement to affect change.

Generally (despite sporadic, and seemingly vacuous and bizarre proclamations to the contrary), the Republican party seems to essentially be in favor of maximizing corporate power and influence, at the expense of We the People, by whatever means necessary. I can't figure out why any Republicans should remain in power.

As far as I can comprehend, comparisons between the Occupy movement and the Tea party are utter nonsense. Seemingly, among the Tea Party's primary goals is to remove hindrances to corporate power. Sorry, where are the parallels?

2) Think. I have a moderate level of faith in the American people's ability to ascertain a reasonably good path for the nation, as long as they are free from corporate influence. Therein lies the problem. Before we can change the world, we have to change ourselves. We all have a role to play. We must stop thinking of ourselves as hopeless subjects of the action that is happening around us, and begin to think about taking advantage of our potential role in making a change for the better. Generally, better thinking makes for better citizens, and better citizens make better worlds.

A Modest Proposal for the Occupy Wall Street Protesters

2011-10-11T14:14:00.000-07:00

The Occupy Wall Street protests are gaining momentum, despite a glaring lack of cohesion or clarity to their message. If one were to try to boil down the root of all this angst to a cogent statement, it might sound something like this:

The American political system is increasingly serving the interests of corporations and the rich, at the expense of average Americans. The resultant increase in class income disparity is exacerbating this problem, as the rich use their increasing wealth to influence and subvert the democratic process to serve their own purposes.

Fair enough?

That power and wealth tend to concentrate upwards in a society is, and has always been, the way of the world. Maybe I’ve got it wrong, but I sort of thought that one of the primary objectives of our experiment in democracy was to thwart that universal tendency; that is, to disperse power among the populous as evenly as possible, and to foster the creation of a middle class which encompasses most of the citizenry. Such a goal is lofty, audacious even. It is contrary to the very nature of human civilization. But I think it is a goal worth pursuing.

But how can it be accomplished when the rich rule the media, and the media, for all practical purposes, dictate public sentiment? Public sentiment, and hence, political power, is available for a price. This has always been true. It is a problem, however, that was made much worse by the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which basically said that corporations have the same rights as private citizens to anonymously donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns.

Rightly, the Supreme Court decides what is constitutionally correct, not what is good public policy. Constitutionally, the decision may be appropriate, but it does perhaps constitute a mortal blow to our democratic process, as well as what might be called a failure of our Founders to imagine such a problem. Alas, the Founders weren’t gods, and hence, were capable of error and short-sightedness.

How can we fix this problem?

Fortunately, we are still a democracy. The real power still rests with the people in the form of votes. The problem, again, is that people often vote for whatever the noisiest thing in their environment tells them to vote for. Very rich people and corporations are capable of making a lot of noise. It is a capability that they exploit. How else does one explain why so many poor people are opposed to corporations and billionaires paying taxes, or opposed to “government regulations” that are designed to protect the very people who oppose them, from corporate misdeeds. These same people, if asked, probably can’t even site a single “government regulation” imposed on corporations, and yet they will rail against them with ferocious zeal. How else can we explain millions of poor people supporting the shrinkage of public programs designed to benefit them, in order to fund tax cuts for the rich?

How can we fix this problem?

There are myriad political and legal measures that would help mitigate the influence of money on policy, but there is one very simple one that would perhaps be the most effective, and, also importantly, be condensable to a neat media sound bite and/or bumper sticker. The bumper sticker I propose is as follows:

Publicly Financed Campaigns Now!

If anyone involved in the protests is saying this, it has certainly evaded my detection, as well as most media personnel, who seem genuinely puzzled by the lack of a coherent message.

There are many ideas about how publicly funded elections would work, but the goals of the various models is the same: Get dirty corporate money out of politics. Why are we not having this discussion in the public forum? Oh yeah, now I remember.

The only losers in such a system would be special corporate interests. It is difficult to imagine that removing misinformation and huge money interests from the sphere of public dialogue would be anything but positive, right? Are Republicans afraid that they won’t be able to form valid opinions based on impartially presented information, and instead, that they need to be bombarded with corporate propaganda to think right?

But what of the Constitutional questions concerning free speech? Surely there are ways to deal with those problems legislatively, if not judicially. What we have now is a system in which the free speech of almost everyone is diminished by the corporate (Wall Street) noise machine. This might be akin to the proverbial yelling of “fire!” in a theater. The voice of the people, the voice of public interests, the voice of reason, is drowned out to make room for the corporate message. Publicly funded elections would diminish the free speech of corporations, while elevating that of every other interest. The greater good would be served.

I hope to see you at the march on October 15th. I’ll be holding a sign that says

Publicly Financed Campaigns Now!

If the only lasting effect of the protests is to bring the idea of publicly funded elections to the discussion, I think they will have been worth it.

In Defense of Public Schools

2011-05-19T17:09:00.000-07:00

"For thousands of years, schooling (as we know it) didn't exist. People learned from their families and as apprentices." - anon

And, for thousands of years slavery, patriarchy and rigid class distinctions were the norm. Does that make those things good? For thousands of years, the poor have been taught by their fathers how to scrape by in the same profession, while the rich have been taught by hired tutors how to retain their position of prestige. Public schooling has been called the "great equalizer" for good reason. Many people have put their lives on the line for the chance to receive what you are so casually casting aside. For those who have grown up privileged, it is easy for them to say that public schooling has added little to their success, for it hasn't. Their birth and upbringing is what has led to that. But, for those who lacked the luck to be born into families that pass on the experience and means to achieve more than most are capable of, public schooling is their means and experience. You harken back to the day when one was born a lord and died a lord or born a peasant and died a peasant, with no chance of improving one's life. Our society, thankfully, has progressed beyond that, due to public schooling acting as leveling force. Is it perfect? No. Would I trade this imperfection to return to a time when birth played more a role in determining one's station in life than their ability? No. A thousand times, no.

Supreme Court Expands Corporate Power

2010-01-21T17:05:00.000-08:00

It is a dark day in the life of the American experiment in Democracy. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the government may not limit spending by corporations in public elections. This action effectively puts the governance of America up for sale to the highest bidder.

The decision is widely seen as an important tool by which corporations can broaden their already bloated influence on public policy.

Newt Gingrich says of the ruling, "It will help an average middle-class candidate find the resources he needs to stand up to the forces of the rich and powerful". I don't know what fucking planet that jackass is from, but I sure wish he'd go back there. Let me get this straight, Newt: rich corporations are going to give huge amounts of money to "average middle class candidates" so that they can stand up to rich corporations? Bizarre.

The ruling overturns a century-old law and two Supreme Court precedents. (So much for stare decisis, a supposed guiding principle of the "conservative" members of the court.) Predictably, the ruling was split along ideological lines, conservatives siding with corporations, and liberals siding with Democracy and the People. Justice Kennedy (previously thought to be a minimally rational human) casted the deciding vote with the majority.

This is the reason that it is absolutely essential to keep Republicans out of the Presidency. Conservative members of the Supreme Court are hard at work handing over control of the country to corporations. During the last Presidential campaign, McCain sited exactly the Justices responsible for this ruling as the kind of Justices he would nominate. It would have been an unimaginable disaster if he had been able to replace Justice Souter.

And I was worried about Roe v. Wade.

Oh yeah, the name of the case is "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission". Not surprisingly, Citizens United is a conservative organization flooded with corporate backing. Under their name on their website appears the phrase, "Dedicated to restoring the government to Citizen control". How incredibly ironic. Instead, they are dedicated to diminishing citizen control in favor of fostering corporate power. And that absurd, insipid eagle! Jesus! What is the deal with fucking conservatives and eagles? It is just emblematic of the tackiest brand of trailer park patriotism; as well as being another spectacular irony: the Bald Eagle was saved from near extinction by the Endangered Species Act, which was enacted by liberals and opposed by conservatives. On those grounds, I propose that conservative groups be legally prohibited from exploiting the image of eagles in the future.

Bill Mayer calls for an end to factory farming

2009-12-01T17:40:00.000-08:00

Ah yes, the factory farm, that cruelest of human inventions, is coming into the view of the mainstream American, however sleepy, apathetic, fat, stupid, and ignorant he may be.

In this video, Bill calls on IHOP to stop using eggs raised in battery cages, and to instead start using "cage free" (which aren't really cage free, but they're a big improvement) eggs instead. Way to go Bill.

If you happen to need a primmer on how the food you eat is produced (shouldn't we all kinda know that?), might I suggest the new movie, Food, Inc. You'll love it.

I invite you to be on the right side of history in this, one of the greatest ethical issues of our time.

It's worse than we thought

2009-08-18T21:59:00.000-07:00

.
.
Blackwater. (hint: you have to click the link to understand this post.)

So this is what W. meant when he said we're on a "crusade". He meant it in the most literal way possible. It wasn't just the most spectacularly stupid oratorical blunder of the century; it was exactly what he meant.

I mean, I deplore, and yet I am comfortable with, the Cheney brand of pure evil, because it is a rational evil. But the fact that in the modern age, our government really teamed up with a psychopathic, genocidal, "crusader", has my brain a bit scrambled. We gave the dude like a billion dollars, for crying out loud.

I wonder if history will record the true abysmal depth of the George W. Bush disaster. How did a nation like ours go so horribly astray? Certainly, it is a period that should distinguish itself in the annals of monumental screw-ups.

Ninjas

2009-08-11T06:17:00.000-07:00

I am, at heart, a peace-loving person. But sometimes, circumstances call for decisive action.

For example, yesterday, as I was doing some work near a sidewalk in Avondale, a man and his dog came walking by. The dog, startled by me, pulled out of his collar, and the man just started wailing on him. Totally involuntarily, I told the guy to stop what he was doing. He spun around and looked at me, dumbfounded, and then said, "It's called discipline". I said, "It is called animal cruelty and it is illegal, you fucking bastard!" He then told me to mind my own business, to which I responded, "The welfare of my canine bretheren IS my business!", at which point he threw a punch at me, which I deflected with ninja-like quickness, and then, in self-defense, I laid his sorry ass out on the pavement and took his dog which is now free to a good home.

Actually, that's what I wish had happened. What actually happened was after he said, "It's called discipline", I suggested he get a nice book on dog training (none of which would suggest ever hitting a dog), to which he responded, "I've raised several dogs", and turned to walk away. I meekly called after him, "I wish you would consider being kinder to your dog".

Hitting dogs is like hitting children: It is always wrong, and never helpful.

Since then, I can't help thinking about what an abysmal scumbag that guy was and how I could have handled the situation better. What I think is most important is that I did something. I didn't just stand there and countenance a blatant act of cruelty. But it occurs to me that I have. I can think of times in my life when I watched someone I knew mistreat a dog and didn't say anything. I have listened to racial jokes and gay jokes and laughed, though not in recent history. (Though I do still sometimes use the recently controversial phrase, "That's so gay", for which I am rightly admonished by a gay friend. But its just such a good phrase, and I don't use it to describe anything stereotypically homosexual. In fact, I often use it to describe things that are distinctly un-stereotypically homosexual, like auto racing or pro wrestling, for example. The best way I can describe my use of the phrase is to describe something that is actually pretty silly, but is taken way too seriously by a group of people. Isn't that how most people use the phrase? I'd gladly stop saying it if I could come up with a way to express an equivalent idea. Any ideas? My, but do I digress.)

I think we should all resolve to stand up a little more to address little things in our world that we want to change. I'm going to start by tracking down that guy and "disciplining" him a bit.

Waterboarding

2009-05-02T07:45:00.000-07:00

Everyone, but esp. Sean Hannity, should watch this. How can this not be torture?

Why I hate Saxby

2009-04-22T06:04:00.000-07:00

I received the following reply from Saxby Chambliss regarding my e-mail to him urging him to support federal legislation which would include the GLBT community under hate crime law:

Dear Mr. C:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts on hate crime legislation. I appreciate hearing your concerns on this matter.

There is little evidence that indicates that violent crimes motivated by "hate" go unpunished in the United States. Most states already have criminal laws that prohibit the anti-social behavior addressed by hate crime legislation - including laws against murder, rape, arson, assault, and battery.

I oppose the creation of Federal hate crime legislation for a variety of reasons. First, I do not believe the Federal government should interfere with the criminal laws already on the books in our states. Second, many hate crime bills attempt to establish a "protected class" of crime victims who would receive special protection under the law. And finally, we already have laws to prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes. Those people guilty of violent crimes against anyone should be prosecuted under existing law.

An open response to Saxby:

Why Saxby did you feel the need to put the word hate in quotations? Do actions based on prejudice, bigotry, or a misguided interpretation of ones holy scripture not count as hate to you? Do you not consider actions taken by Muslim extremists against women or Christians or Americans as directed by hate? Or, do you not want statements you have made to be considered provocations of hate crime that you could be prosecuted for? For example, your remarks made during a November 19, 2001 meeting with emergency responders in Valdosta, Georgia, where you said that they should "turn the sheriff loose and arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line". Or because, in 2002, Ralph Reed praised the Confederate flag in radio adds which helped you to defeat Max Clealand? Maybe you don't want "protected classes" because you don't want certain classes of people to have any protection from violence or words that incite violence.

Saxby, did you realise that crimes committed due to sexual orientation were double of those committed due to race in Georgia in 2007? If there are twice as many and you don't think there should be federal laws to reinforce and help pay to prosecute these crimes, are you also against the federal laws pertaining to hate crimes based on race? Should the federal government not enact ANY law that has already been addressed by any state? While we do have a federal system, that separates the duties and rights of the federal and state governments, your arguments are sounding more like those from a politician from GA in 1860, than those from a GA politician in 2009.

As I said in the previous paragraph, hate crime law does not only make hate crimes a federal offence, but it provides federal financial help in prosecuting these crimes. After Matthew Shepard's killing, the jurisdiction in Wyoming which prosecuted those responsible for his murder had to lay off 5 police officers after the trail concluded because the cost of the trail was more than they could afford. Saxby, are you saying that the state of GA should be forced to lower the police presence, making ALL Georgians more vulnerable to ALL crime because you do not want to allow federal money to be used to prosecute these kinds of crime? If so, then shame on you.

Oh yeah... Sarah Palin endorsed him too. That in itself should have been enough!

If you would like to contact Saxby about this, go here

If you are interested in these issues and would like to see more ways to help, please visit my site here

Michelle's garden irks mega agri-conglomerates

2009-04-16T14:53:00.000-07:00

I think it's just awesome that Michelle Obama has decided to implement a garden at the White House. Further, as it is the ultimate manifestation of a philosophy of local consumption, I think that everyone who has enough space and some sun should grow food. It's good for your carbon footprint and good for your tummy. But also, I think that the more people touch dirt the better. It is, after all, the stuff of which we are made, from whence we have come, and to which we shall return. We need to acquaint ourselves more intimately with it. It is a known fact that people who loose contact with the soil slowly go crazy and exhibit bizarre behaviors such as purchasing antibacterial soaps and becoming preoccupied with Brangolina. They also may begin to flatulate explosively.

Well of course, the Obama garden will be sans chemicals. Predictably, this fact has the panties of mega agribusiness all in a wad. The Mid America Croplife Association (MACA), which is basically a PR group for chemical producers like Dow, Monsanto, and DuPont, has circulated an open letter to the Obamas encouraging them to use "Crop Protection Products", otherwise known as pesticides, in their garden. In a preface circulated with the letter, the representative from MACA says, "While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made Janet Braun, CropLife Ambassador Coordinator and I shudder."

What sleazebags! There might be an argument to be made that, at least presently, chemicals need to play a legitimate role in food production, but their use is unsustainable. And to suggest that any home gardener should refrain from using non-chemical methods is ridiculous and deplorable.

Corporations strip individuals of morality, by design.

Salami

2009-03-25T08:42:00.000-07:00

The results of a massive new study of the health consequences of red meat consumption are making headlines right now. The study shows that those who eat an average of 4 ounces of red meat per day have an increased risk of "dying from all causes, and specifically from cancer or heart disease."

The study goes on to conclude that "The chance of men dying of cardiovascular disease would have decreased 11 per cent - and 21 per cent for women", and that there is a "much greater risk" of cancer deaths in men and women who consume red meat regularly.

The study also showed that those who eat more white meat had a decreased risk of death compared to those who eat more red meat. This lead the researchers to conclude that "people should not shun meat altogether because there are some nutritional benefits and its consumption has played an important role in the evolution of our species."

Why? It has been shown that those on a meatless diet have a 15% decreased rate of mortality compared to those who eat meat occasionally. Why then would the researchers not recommend a meatless diet? I guess maybe they just didn't want to freak everybody out, or draw the ire of the meat industry. I dunno.

But besides the health consequences, meat consumption, especially factory farm produced meat, is clearly not ethical, but the contribution of meat production to global climate change can't be overstated. If everyone stopped eating meat today, it would result in a greater reduction in greenhouse gases than if everyone stopped driving cars today. This fact was glaringly omitted from Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

I guess maybe Al didn't want to freak everybody out.

So far, so good...

2009-01-22T18:08:00.000-08:00

I couldn't be more pleased with Obama's first 48 hours. It could be argued that Obama did more in 48 hours to restore America's image in the world than Bush did in 8 years to destroy it.

In a sweeping repudiation of the worst human rights abuses of the Bush administration, Obama issued three executive orders and an executive directive yesterday. These actions accomplish a number of key objectives: 1) close the illegal detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, 2) limit interrogation methods to those described in the Army field manual, effectively banning torture, 3) halt extraordinary renditions of detainees to countries that torture.

Following the signing of the orders, Obama said at a press conference, “I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture”. This seems to be in accord with his assertion that, “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”.

What the Bush administration failed to understand is that there are security costs associated with becoming an international pariah by brazenly and rampantly committing the worst kinds of human rights abuses, and that there are security benefits associated with maintaining a legitimate moral standing in the world.

Regardless of how you feel about Obama’s economic policies, etc., the fact that he has so quickly and decisively acted to begin to dismantle the damage done by Bush is more than enough to warrant his election. That America’s moral standing has been so totally diminished was the most pressing issue facing the nation at this point. Obama’s priorities are correctly placed.

This was not an occasion that called for hesitancy. On the contrary, the most effective actions that Obama could take at this point are making a clear, decisive, broad, and immediate condemnation of the illegal practices that have drawn the ire and contempt of the international community. This was not an occasion for bi-partisan decorum.

Obama must now address the Bush administration's domestic Constitutional crimes: the dismantling of domestic civil rights enacted by the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. Doing so would certainly fall in line with his “False Choice” doctrine.

The sooner the better.

Michelle Obama's dress

2009-01-19T18:08:00.000-08:00

just shut the fuck up...

Vindication!

2009-01-15T09:51:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama has just selected retired General Eric Shinseki to head the Department of Veterans Affairs, an organization with quite a lot on its plate at this time.

Shinseki is most well-known for clashing with Rumsfeld over the number of troops that would be required to secure the peace in a post-war Iraq. The following is from his address to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about posthostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground-force presence.

Paul Wolfowitz called this assertion "wildly off the mark", and Rumfeld quietly forced the General from involvement in the Iraq war, eventually precipitating his retirement.

It is now generally accepted by Military officials that Shinseki was right.

Props to Obama for this not-so-subtle nod to Shinseki's Vindication. Let's hope he can do some much-needed good for Veterans.

A Christmas Poem

2008-12-25T18:18:00.000-08:00

I haven't attempted poetry in at least 10 years, but I was feeling inspired.

Untitled

It is a day of violence,
of hunger, thirst and chaos.
This is the day that the Lord hath made.
Let us kill and be killed.
Let us erect mountains of shit
and burn them in a blazing sacrifice to Love

The warriors were keeping watch in the fields
and lo, the angels came to them and said
"unto you a beast is born,
and it shall be unto you an abundance of wrath and blood.
And you shall call his name Human"
And they were filled with joy.

And so it was as they had said.
The beast throbbed and writhed
and heaved its raw stinking body on to the hearth of America.

This is the day that the Lord hath made.
Let us commit violence.
Let us eat flesh
and drink blood
and be glad that there is love.

This is the day that the Lord hath made.
Let us poison the ground,
the air and the sky
so the beast will find it to be
a suitable habitat.

I saw the best minds of my generation
consumed by vanity and bloodthirsty greed.

I saw the Christmas tree erupt in maniacal laughter
at the irony of itself

I saw America make wild tortured convulsions
as Chaos was crowned King

Twas the night before Christmas
and the beast was stirring
and waiting
in furious, glorious,
spectacular madness.

As he went once more
to worship at the alter of Love,
Jesus wept.

Bush delivers.

2008-12-06T17:27:00.000-08:00

From Charlie Gibson's interview with Dubya last week,

"GIBSON: What were you most unprepared for?

BUSH: Well, I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, "Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack." In other words, I didn't anticipate war. Presidents -- one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen."

Mind-blowing. I mean, shouldn't war be one of those things that you should definitely be prepared for if you seek the Presidency, kinda like, oh I don't know, natural disasters? What the hell is this sorry-I-screwed-it-up-but-I-never-claimed-I-could-handle-it bullshit? I mean, war is something that happens in some form during almost all Presidencies, right?

Just unbelievable.

And what's up with this implication that the "unexpected" is a "modern" phenomenon? Or that the "unexpected" isn't an intrinsic facet of anything in the entire world? Bush's capacity for inane, vacuous assertions may forever remain unmatched.

One more, "BUSH: ...took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President."

Wow.

It's starting to look good for Al Franken

2008-12-06T16:05:00.000-08:00

...by something like .001% of the vote in the recount. It's still far from over, but wow!

Election

2008-11-08T08:10:00.000-08:00

Grammar

So, was it “an historic”, or “a historic” election? A quick search of the internet yields that “a historic” is correct, but that, for unknown reasons, “an historic” is preferred by many orators and is therefore acceptable.

I’m not sure why the commonness of the phrase’s usage would impact its technical acceptability, but almost universally during and after this election, “an historic” was used in description, even by Barack himself. At any rate, the phrase is much less annoying than the multitude of linguistic abominations committed by Bush, so I’ll not complain.

Voting

The true gravity of this event did escape me until I actually marked the box next to “Barack Obama”. Unexpectedly, in the time it took me to fill in, very precisely, the entirety of the box, a powerful feeling came over me. It took me some moments to realize that this was the sensation of my pride in my country being restored, not because of Barack, per se, but because of what he represents, racially, symbolically, and politically.

In the past 2 elections, I was honestly voting against George Bush, more than for the democratic candidate. This time, there was a candidate I could believe in, and it felt great.

So was I caught up in the “celebrity” of Barack Obama? Perhaps. But that’s what makes him great: his capacity to inspire people to shed their cynicism and apathy and believe that the world can be better, that it matters what we do and how we treat each other, and that we are part of an international community of people to whom we bear a responsibility as the world’s most powerful nation.

Last night, I was watching coverage of reaction from around the world to this election. It would certainly be fair to say that, on the whole, the entire world was desperate for an Obama victory. In the span of a singular spectacular moment, America was completely transformed from being an object of suspicion, fear, and anger, to a symbol of hope for a better future.

That means something. I mean, that means a lot. And if that is due, at least in part, to some superficial ability of Obama to inspire the hope and confidence of people around the world, so be it. Restoring the image of America and repairing our international relations is perhaps singularly enough justification for his election.

The past eight years is a period for which Americans must feel some degree of shame, even if all of them don’t know it. It is time for America to atone, and this is a start.

So maybe (as Bush indicated in 2000) God did want Bush to be President. One thinks that surely there was a better way, but who am I to question?

Voting cont.

It is crazy and inexcusable that people stood in line for over 6 hours to vote. Such a wait constitutes an unreasonable impediment to voting and should not be tolerated by the voting population and must be remedied by the next election. Such a wait affects different voting demographics in a disparate way and therefore represents a failure of the system.

Voting fun facts

White voters slanted toward McCain, but white voters making over $250,000 went significantly for Obama. Obviously, these are the very people whose taxes he wants to raise. Spectacular.

White voters who are college educated went for Obama. In other words, the higher the education level of white voters, the more likely they were to vote for Obama.

In a national ranking of the best educated state populations, nine of the top ten states went for Obama. Seven of the ten lowest ranked states went for McCain.

Aardvarks slanted to McCain, while sloths went overwhelmingly for Obama.

Why did McCain loose?

The short answer is because he betrayed everything that any reasonable person ever liked about him. Even if you ignore the fact that McCain is shadowed by one of the most unpopular Presidents in history, and that his opponent is an unparalleled orator and inspirer, I think his campaign could have done much better.

What people have always liked about McCain is that he has an image of being an independent thinker, a “straight talker”, and someone who stood up for principle even when doing so went against his party or wasn’t popular. That he has legitimately earned this image is a dubious matter, but again, those are his historical strengths. Why then did he run such a typically sleazy and dishonest Republican campaign?

I mean, what were the most notable and memorable facets of his bid? Off the top of my head; Bill Ayers, Acorn, abortion, socialism nonsense, Sarah Palin, lowering taxes for rich people… uh, what else? Oh yeah, Joe the plumber, who wasn’t a licensed plumber, owed back taxes, and would receive a larger tax cut under Obama’s plan. All of those issues were fundamentally dishonest, and McCain knew it, and a big part of the electorate knew it. There perhaps has never been a better example of a person shooting himself in the foot (although there have probably been those who have literally shot themselves in the foot, like, with a gun, in which case, yeah, they might be a better example).

Far from being a “maverick”, he teamed up with elements whom he designated “agents of intolerance” in the 04 election, and signified his unbridled willingness to do so when he appeared in 2006 at Liberty University with Jerry Falwell. The apex of his alliance with these trolls was the tapping of Palin as his running-mate. This moment destroyed any credibility McCain had of being a reasonable guy, and sealed his fate.

Other Winners

California Proposition 2 passed, freeing millions of food animals from the worst kinds of treatment. This, of course, is wonderful news. But it is something of a hollow victory for two reasons: 1) The initiative does very little for most food animals who will still endure unconscionable conditions. Pardon the analogy, but it's kinda like passing a measure that would ban torturing some slaves, but does nothing about the condition of slaves in general; and 2) it’s a bit like the Presidential election popular vote: 52% Obama, 47% McCain. I mean, 47% of people still want to vote republican? How depressing. Prop 2 passed 63% to 37%. So 37% of Californians, given the choice, don’t want to improve conditions for the animals they eat? That is breath taking.

The Republican Party. Maybe this is the wake-up call they need. Maybe 2004 was the last time they can win Presidential elections by fear mongering and pandering to religious wing nuts. I’d love to see a legitimate party emerge from these ashes.

Anti-abortion initiatives were defeated in Colorado and South Dakota, due in part to the fact that they were both completely stupid. The SD provision would ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Insane. The Colorado initiative, the so-called “personhood amendment”, would define a fertilized egg as a legal human being, raising such questions as what to do with the millions of fertilized eggs in labs and fertility clinics, if one can sue a fetus, and various census complications. Absurd.

The US Supreme Court may see as many as three open slots during the next 4-8 years. Souter, Ginsberg, and Kennedy, all considered liberal justices, may soon vacate their positions. Were McCain to fill these positions, it would precipitate a dramatic and dangerous change on the most fundamental level of the way the Constitution is interpreted. Again, even if there is a bumbling buffoon under Obama’s slick exterior, the fact that he will at least nominate reasonable Justices is sufficient to warrant his election.

Loosers

Provisions banning gay marriage were passed in Florida, Arizona, and California. There is no shortage of bigots in America, but I think that the marginal vote that passed these measures has more to do with confusion on the part of voters than pure bigotry. Exhibit A: Same sex civil unions are still legal in California and carry with them virtually the same legal rights as heterosexual marriages. There doesn’t seem to be much traction behind efforts to revoke that right. So the controversy, at least in California, boils down to semantics, doesn’t it? In effect, voters said that same sex couples deserve the same legal rights as heterosexuals, but you can’t call it a “marriage”, because “marriage” is between heterosexuals. I think that some people worry that the state is redefining a religious institution, when in fact, there is nothing religious, in the eyes of the state, about a “marriage”. The easiest solution to all this confusion is for the state to stop granting “marriages” altogether, and instead, grant everyone civil unions. On what grounds could religious conservatives possibly oppose that? “Marriages” would then be recognized, or not recognized, by churches, rotary clubs, or football teams, for example. There, everybody happy?

That being said, failing to endorse equal rights for gay couples is not an excusable offense in my eyes. That gay people enjoy something less than full equality under the law is a travesty that must be erased from the national palette.

I would absolutely love to see Al Franken in the Senate, but I think that chances are slim. There is a recount underway in Minnesota that currently has Franken around 200 votes, or .011%, behind Norm Coleman.

I'm gonna miss him...

Propositions

2008-10-28T18:53:00.000-07:00

Next Tuesday, Californians will vote on Proposition 2, an amendment that would ban the cruelest practices involved in food animal production, specifically, those that “do not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.”

It has always seemed strange to me that we have rather stringent laws protecting our pets from cruelty, but virtually none designed to protect our food animals? Why such a profound disparity?

The answer, of course, is very simple. Most people just don’t know what an unconscionably cruel system produces their meat. They’ve never been to a meat factory. They don’t know anyone who works there. Never bothered to sit down and have a chat with a chicken raised in a battery cage, or a veal calf that spent its entire short life immobilized in a crate. They’d rather not think about it.

But most people are not wicked. They’re perfectly willing to pay about 1% more for their meat in order that the animals be raised in slightly more humane conditions.

The meat industry in California has unleashed a multi-million dollar campaign of misinformation opposing Amendment 2. I’d like you to consider helping fund the effort to counter this campaign. Doing so could mean an end to the cruelest kinds of treatment for millions of farm animals.

Even if the amendment passes, we’ve got a very long way to go to get to a point where our meat is produced in a way that can be countenanced with anything other than shame and horror. But this is a start.

While on the subject of California ballot initiatives, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Proposition 8. It's the one that would ban gay marriage. I refuse to link to any of this garbage, but there are prominent nut cases all over the place saying that if the proposition doesn't pass, it will certainly signal the Armageddon, and that life as we know it is over, and other such spectacularly over-blown hyperbole.

I'm sure that none of you need convincing, but allow me to frame the argument in my famously succinct way. Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is an agreement to jointly own property with another person, which carries with it various other legal provisions. The end.

Marriage in any other sense is a religious or spiritual institution that the state has no business in. For historical and unfortunate reasons, the state calls a civil union between two individuals a "marriage", and has no constitutional grounds to distinguish between by which parties such a union is entered into.

What so-inclined religious zealots perhaps should be arguing is that the state should not be involved in the sacred sacrament of "marriage" at all, since doing so moves the sacrament into the secular realm, certainly not a fit domain for a spiritual institution of such profound religious importance.

That certain individuals get so upset about the notion of two members of the same gender jointly owning property is yet another example of making God in one's own image; they don't like gay people and so obviously neither does God. And what an easy way to garner favor with the Almighty! Just speak vitriolically, eat your Wheaties, and click the "Yes" box next to Prop 8. Welcome to Heaven you fucking retard.

But I digress. Please support Proposition 2.

Vote for a better Republican Party

2008-10-16T17:19:00.000-07:00

I’ve been tempted to categorize Republican politicians and voters into a few basic groups: 1) Mean and/ or power-hungry, like Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, or Carl Rove; 2) Stupid, like Sarah Palin, or any other snake handling toothless inbred in America; 3) Religious zealot, like Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, or anyone who attends an Assembly of God church; 4) Deranged ideologue, like Sarah Palin, Grover Norquist, or Timothy McVeigh or; 5) Uninformed or Willfully ignorant, like Sarah Palin, or the 31% of Americans who can’t name the Vice president (not to imply that none of those people are Democrats, but ultimately, if you are that ignorant, do you really have a valid political identity?)

But I’ve met enough Republican voters who don’t fit neatly into any of those groups to think that perhaps I ought to rethink my thinking on that, or add at least one new category, or stop putting labels on people (perish the thought!). So here’s the latest entry into The Human Animal Republican Taxonomic Schematic:

6)Well-meaning-but-myopic-and-glassy-eyed-libertarian-leaning-government-mistrusting ideologues, like, well, maybe John McCain, and quite a number of other people I know. These are people who identify themselves as fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and tend to have libertarian ideas about the role of government in economics, business regulations, and tax policy. They are also generally concerned about the preservation of civil liberties and believe that laws should be based in Constitutional principle. They are concerned about the environment. Basically, they like the Republican Party platform.

I do too, kind of. Or at least, it’s not that bad; a valid political philosophy.

The problem is that when you vote for Republicans, you’re not voting for the platform, you’re voting for Republican politicians; you’re voting for what Republicans do, as exemplified by the past eight years of fiscal recklessness, socially regressive policies, disastrous economic policies, the shredding of civil protections and the rule of law, the expansion of culture wars, the ignoring of science and research in shaping environmental and educational policy, the shredding of environmental protections, the widening of the class gap, expanded power of corporations, expanded power of the executive branch, appointment of very dangerous Supreme Court Justices, and the total alienation of America from the rest of the world. If you think the Bush administration was okay, there’s probably nothing I can do for you.

“But McCain isn’t Bush”, you say, “He’s for “Change”, a real “Maverick”? Here’s the thing: we knew those were the sorts of things Bush would do, because we know what Republicans do. Moreover, Republicans knew who George Bush was, and they put him in office anyway, and supported his policies across the board. McCain, the “Maverick”, famously voted with him 95% of the time.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a well-known group of gay Republican supporters, have been roundly criticized for continuing to support a party whose unwritten platform includes keeping them socially repressed and disadvantaged. They, like the aforementioned Human Animal Group 6, want to remain loyal to the party in order to “change it from within”, or get it back to its foundational principles, or whatever. But clearly, such an approach is counterproductive. What these people are doing is enabling the party to pander to fringe elements while still maintaining their blind loyalty, in effect, moving the party away from having to confront the issue of gay equality.

This is what happens when you accept all that crap from the Republican Party, simply because you admire their foundational principles, to which they fail to adhere. You enable them to continue to promote policies with which you disagree and still get your vote.

But it gets much worse.

McCain has not shown any restraint when it comes to pandering to the extremist segments of his party.

Most notably, by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, McCain has squandered an opportunity to move his party away from the worst and most fundamentally un-American elements in our society. The religious and philosophical context which shaped her political and cultural identity, embodied by the Assembly of God church, represent the most intolerant, hateful, and, frankly, looniest agents of right-wing extremity.

But my point is not that a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin, but that in choosing Palin, McCain has spectacularly failed to address his party’s alliance with, and dependence upon, these extremist elements, and has instead embraced and emboldened them.

When the McCain campaign goes around making absurd claims that Obama associates with terrorists, in a post 9/11 environment, they are stirring up hornets and racists, or worse, assassins.

McCain has not been a “Maverick” in this campaign. To the contrary, like Bush, he has failed miserably to run an honest campaign and stand up for everything that is good about America, and instead has embraced the worst elements among us. He therefore does not deserve to be President.

McCain had a historic opportunity, after the failed, corrupt, and wearisome Bush administration, to take the high road and monumentally improve his party by moving it back toward its foundational principles. In a profoundly woeful lack of judgment, he relinquished this opportunity, and he should be held accountable by all reasonable Republican voters.

So a vote for Obama is a vote for a better Republican party. A vote for Obama sends a message that you, as a decent American, are no longer willing to compromise all of your core social, environmental, and cultural values to vote for a party whose platform has been historically, consistently, and systematically violated by the very people who purport to uphold it. A vote for Obama is a vote against the kind of Republicanism that has met with spectacular failure, and must change or come to an end.

Sarah Palin is just awful.

2008-10-10T20:57:00.000-07:00

By Cole Wakefield, Special to 365gay.com
10.08.2008 5:30pm EDT
Rev. Howard Bess is not gay. He was not raised by gay parents and does not have gay children. Bess did not grow up with a gay family next door and his best friend was not gay. Rev. Bess might not have had a horse in the GLBT rights race, but that did not stop him from becoming a trailblazer for the issue in the American Baptist church and Christian faith at large.

Rev. Bess has recently enjoyed some time in the spotlight thanks to vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s attempt to ban his book, Pastor, I Am Gay, from the Wasilla Public Library.
The book, published in 1995, was received somewhat coldly in Alaska’s Mat-Su Valley, home to Rev. Bess and the soon to be Mayor of Wasilla Palin.

In fact, for a long time, the only places you could buy the book in Mat-Su were a barber shop and beauty salon. The book was also available at the Wasilla Public Library, a “problem” Palin infamously sought to solve. Wasilla’s librarian stood up to Mayor Palin’s rash and uninformed demands. The librarian was then fired by Palin only to be reinstated after the community objected loudly to the dismissal.

Rev. Bess’ book was just one of at least three books that then-Mayor Palin tried to yank off the shelf.

There has been some confusion regarding exactly what titles Palin sought to ban, but Rev. Bess has been told that Pastor, I Am Gay was among them, and he would be “flabbergasted” to hear otherwise. Pastor, I Am Gay had been openly ridiculed by the pastor of Palin’s church and Rev. Bess was fired from the newspaper column he had written for seven years. The fundamentalist outcry against Bess in Mat-Su was loud and local bookstores were afraid to carry the book. Sarah Palin and her church friends thought the book was obscene and that the public needed to be protected from its contents.

Pastor, I Am Gay is not an obscene book by any stretch.

It is the open and honest story of how Rev. Bess came to the conclusion that GLBT folk are just as blessed as everyone else and deserve to be fully included in the life and traditions of the church.

Rev. Bess admits his ignorance of issues regarding sexuality for much of his life. He discusses the first time a parishioner came out to him and details the personal introspection and experiences that brought him to his current understanding of the gay community and its place in this world.

Finding a copy of Pastor, I Am Gay today can be a chore. Most of the major booksellers are out-of-stock and the popular used book service list astronomical prices. Fireside Books in Palmer, Alaska still had copies as of press time.

Rev. Bess is happy to talk about Pastor, I Am Gay, but he matter-of-factly states that “the book has run its course.” Rev. Bess is most concerned that people learn about the beliefs of Sarah Palin and that her election would be “bad, bad news for the gay population.”

Bess describes Palin as a religious duelist, someone who sees everything as good vs. evil. Bess says that Palin and the churches she attends are “as anti-gay as they come.” He even described Palin, to Salon.com, as “…Jerry Falwell with a pretty face.”

Reverend Bess has been a crusader for GLBT equality in Alaska and his warnings should be heeded. Rev. Bess knows Sarah Palin and has struggled against her on behalf of more than one progressive cause. He has also fought against Palin for the rights of Mat-Su woman to have access to an abortion provider. Rev. Bess knows the GLBT community and its struggles. He has served as a regional director on PFLAG’s national board and has led the pro-gay fight in the American Baptist Church.

Rev. Bess has struggled for years to promoted gay equality and worries that the election of Sarah Palin could erode much of the work he has done. Bess has also expressed frustration and confusion toward members of the GLBT community who continue to support the McCain/Palin ticket. He states he was astounded by the Log Cabin Republican’s endorsement of the pair and that they obviously have little understanding of Sarah Palin and her beliefs.

Bess summarized his feelings towards Sarah Palin while talking to Salon.com, “this person’s election would be a disaster for the country and the world.”

Top 2 Lies from McCain

2008-10-08T05:17:00.000-07:00

1) "Obama wants to raise your taxes!" No. If you make more than $250,000 per year, Obama will repeal the Bush tax cuts on your income. Otherwise, you will see no tax increase.

2) "Obama announces that he wants to invade Pakistan!" That McCain won't stop saying this is illustrative of his desperation. Obama said that he would attack top Al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to do it. That is definitely not the same as "invading Pakistan". Good grief.

Bonus: Sarah Palin accuses Obama of "palling around with terrorists". Here is the "terrorist" to whom she refers. Be very afraid. Ayer's association with Obama includes hosting an event during Obama's first senatorial run, and sharing a spot with him on the board of two non-profit organizations. According to the Associated Press, "No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago."

The McCain campaign is grasping at straws. One can not blame them as they slide in polls.

Missouri, by God!

Sarah Palin says "Nucular"

2008-10-08T05:16:00.000-07:00

Ugh.

Polls

2008-10-02T07:47:00.000-07:00

This makes me very happy.

Why did all the hotels and campgrounds within 50 Miles of Hampton, VA sell out for March 6,7,8 within hours this morning?

2008-10-01T20:03:00.000-07:00

What's up with that?

Obama wins round one

2008-09-27T05:30:00.000-07:00

Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought so.

The Spectacular Failure of "Conservative" Economic Policies

2008-09-18T05:44:00.000-07:00

It is awe inspiring to see McCain scrambling to modify his economic message in response to the market collapse which was caused, in large part, by the very policies that he champions. His response is a bizarre kind of schizophrenia characterized by touting "conservative" economic policies while railing against the "greed" of Wall Street, which he endorsed deregulating.

I don't think you can effect real change to the behavior of Wall Street by calling them names. But McCain has already said that he doesn't understand economics "as well as I should".

Why then does he consider himself capable of setting policy? Well, I guess because his primary economic advisor is Phil Gramm, a veritable wizard who claims that america is in a "mental reccession" and that we've become "a nation of whiners".

So let me get this straight: when financial institutions are doing well, there should be no government oversight, and limited taxation, but when financial institutions fail due to lack of regulation, there should be massive government bailouts funded by taxpayers?

What's wrong with Sarah Palin?

2008-09-11T18:48:00.000-07:00

Well, she's a deranged, sadistic lunatic for starters. But you probably already know that if you've been paying attention. Still, I thought it might be helpful to provide a semi-comprehensive compendium of the sheer awefulness of Palin for your convenience.

I really don't say this lightly, but I think she might be worse than George Bush. To his credit, at least Bush was a feckless, stupid, lazy, self-doubting, ineffectual stumblebum. Palin, on the other hand, is a not-very-stupid, politically savy, maniacal rinocerous on a rampage, who possesses wickedness similar in magnitude to Bush.

At least she's stopped claiming that she opposed the "bridge to nowhere" now that that claim has been roundly discredited. Hasn't she heard of the internet?

But Palin is a serial liar. The story she told about selling a jet on ebay that was purchased by the former Governor turned out to be untrue, as was the claim that she fired the Governor's chef. Neither of these minor fibs really matter, except that they demonstrate a troubling lack of judgement or forsight, a lack of a record substantial enough to stand on without embelishing, a proclivity to stretch the truth, and a base who will dumbly swallow that kind of crap without blinking. What if Obmama had committed such misrepresentations of fact? They wouldn't shut up about it from now until the election. (Instead, they have to completely invent controversies concerning pig lipstick, and the liberal media falls gleefully in step)

Then there's the abuse of power stuff. McCain's judgement must certainly be questioned after picking her in the midst of the troopergate
investigation in which Palin is credibly charged with firing her chief-of-police after he refused to fire her ex brother-in-law while he was involved in a fierce divorce and custody battle with her sister. Report coming in October... just in time.

And of course, there's the story about her trying to fire the Wasilla Librarian after she refused to ban books.

Book banning. It's 2008, folks.

Obviously, in keeping with her party's unwritten platform, she has an abysmal environmental record; opposing the protection of endangered species, and saying of global warming, "I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."
We really don't need another anti-science administration.

Of course, I'm not going to mention her pregnant teenage daughter. Oops... I just did. So since the subject has been broached, the fact doesn't bother me. The only teenagers I knew who didn't have sex were the ones who couldn't; it's hardly a parenting issue. (But what might represent a parental short-coming is raising a daughter whose baby-daddy's myspace page says (said), "I'm a fuckin' redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some shit and just fuckin' chillin' I guess. Ya fuck with me I'll kick ass,") But study after study has shown that abstinance-only sex ed programs, which Palin favors, don't work, and moreover, that abstinence-only programs may increase the spread of STDs and teen pregancy. So could it be possible that Sarah Palin is actually responsible for her daughter's pregnancy in that way? It's worth contemplating.

While we're on the subject, check out this gem from McCain, from salon.com:

Would he support taxpayer funding for contraception in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS? McCain initially replied that he preferred a program of abstinence education but would provide condoms in places where abstinence "was not being followed," that is, where sex is happening, which is everywhere. That was a stupid answer, which he credited to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., his ultraright mentor on issues of reproductive rights and health.

Moments later, he wanted to amend his answer. "Let me think about it a little bit ... I don't know if I would use taxpayers' money ... I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out ... I'm sure I have taken a position on it in the past ... I have to find out my position on it ... I am sure I am opposed to government funding. I am sure I support the president's policy on it." (Whatever! -- as his bottle-blond, Tupac-listening teenage daughter might crack on her campaign blog.)

A reporter followed up by inquiring whether McCain supports sex education that candidly discusses contraception and preventing the spread of AIDS and other disease, or whether he backs President Bush's abstinence-only education program. After a long pause, he said, "I think I support the president's policy." Does he believe that contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV? After another long pause, he replied, "You've stumped me."

That was too bizarre for the startled journalist. "I mean, I think you'd probably agree it probably does help stop it?" Realizing how foolish he sounded, the senator had a ready quip. "Are we on the Straight Talk Express?" Still, he stuck to his muddled answer: "I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I'm sure I've taken a position on it in the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception -- I'm sure I'm opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president's policies on it."

Wow! McCain's capacity to pander is just incredible. He doesn't know if condoms help prevent STDs? Of course he does. Liar.

But I digress.

Definitely, the most troubling thing about Palin is her kooky religious orientation. She is obviously entitled to her private religious beliefs, but I think that she crosses a line over which the country really needs to question how her religious beliefs would inform her governance. Palin spent most of her life at the Wasilla Church of God, a Pentacostal Church whose members engage in speaking-in-tounges and other such antics. That's fine, I guess. I do some strange things in my spare time too. But the troubling thing about the religious context which formed Palin's belief system is that they believe that the "End Times" are at hand: that a period of great calamity is imminent in which Jesus shows up and rescues all his "Chosen People" (read: white, American, Evangelical Christians) while relegating everyone else to Hell. Sarah Palin believes this will happen in her lifetime. Is it not fair, then, to question how that belief might inform her thinking on things like energy policy, global warming, environmental protection, or policy related to the, shall we say, "non-saved" citizenry? I mean, they're screwed anyway, right?

Then there are Palin's widely-circulated statements at the Wasilla Church of God when she spoke to a group of graduating students.

Video:

"I am do my part in doing things like working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline; about a 30 billion dollar project that's going to create a lot of jobs for Alaskans because it will have a lot of energy flowing through here. And pray about that also. I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies, so pray for that." -Sarah Palin

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies " ... to build a gas pipeline. Hmm. So God is working for the oil companies now? What that actually means is that Palin is one of those people who feels that what she wants is what God wants, a frightening trait she shares with George "I think God wants me to be President" Bush. I mean, if God is telling you what to do, you can't be wrong, right? This thinking leads to a kind of knee-jerk confidence in one's gut feelings at the expense of considering nuance, reading, or listening to experts. We've seen how such an approach worked out for Bush.

During the same speech, she said, "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Iraq was "God's plan"? Surely he could have come up with a better idea.

I just can't end this post without mentioning Palin's stance on abortion, saying that she would oppose it even if her own daughter was raped. She would force her daughter to carry a baby that was the result of a violent rape. If that doesn't make her a deranged idealogue, I'm not sure what would.

Finally, what's up with Palin and other Republicans at the RNC making fun of Obama for being a Community Organizer, as if it were shameful or deficient to want to help disadvantaged members of one's community in one's early 20's? Maybe, to Republicans, that is incomprehensible.

Impeachment

2008-09-01T20:36:00.000-07:00

I really have no idea why the Democrats don't want to initiate impeachment hearings for Bush and Cheney. As I've said before, it's not a political question, but one of constitutional imperative; if crimes were committed (and there were myriad), there is a course of action that is constitutionally prescribed. It is not optional. Please sign the petition.

Here's a fun video...

John McCain is a Schmuck

2008-08-27T18:03:00.000-07:00

John McCain is a schmuck. John McCain is a sniveling weenie. John McCain is a bumbling buffoon of a fuddleduck. John McCain is a sleazy, pandering, deranged, and insufferably vapid goon. John McCain is, let there be no doubt, a right-wing extremist. But lest I be accused of hyperbole, for a republican candidate, he’s not so bad. After all, he got tortured in Vietnam, which apparently imparts upon one a higher degree of wisdom or morality, or something. It probably tends to engender a diminished proclivity to torture other people, as in McCain’s case. I guess that explains why he is nearly unique among his extremist comrades in that regard.

Besides his opposition to torture, there are a couple of other ways in which McCain is not so bad. But I can’t think of any right now. Suffice it to say that McCain is no George W. I sincerely believe that he isn’t an evil bastard, as opposed to the shrub, though he obviously lacks the degree of integrity or personal fortitude which would be required to counterbalance the seething tide of wickedness promulgated by his cohorts, and indeed, he seems to keep blissfully in step with their sinister ploys, except when doing so gives him nightmares that make him pee his bed, apparently.

Let me make my case.

First, he hardly ever makes any sense. For example, one of his keystone issues is domestic drilling. He talks about it everywhere he goes and acts like it’s some kind of “magic bullet” that will solve all of our energy problems, saying that it would “be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis." Hmm. That puts him at odds with virtually every analyst in the country, including the Federal Energy Information Administration, whose 2007 study concluded that domestic drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030”. Other analysts put the return on investment even further out. The FEIA study also says that “Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” THAT MEANS THAT THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT ON DOMESTIC GAS PRICES FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS, and then, the impact on prices will be “insignificant”.

Shut up, already.

Why does he get away with spouting that nonsense all the time? The reason, of course, is that his followers either don’t bother to listen to objective analysis, or they get all their news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh. The effect in the mind of the uneducated voter becomes, “well, at least McCain is going to do something to make my gas cheaper”. The fact that the Republican party so uniformly supports domestic drilling in the face of it’s total purposelessness is, of course, simply an illustration of the extent to which they are in the pocket of the world’s largest and most powerful corporations. We might as well call them the Exxon-Mobilicans.

Another of my favorite inane statements from McCain came forward a couple of weeks ago in the form of a major policy statement, “What we need today is an economic surge. The surge has succeeded in Iraq militarily -- now we need an economic surge to keep jobs here at home and create new ones.”

Of course! A surge! It worked so well in Iraq, so obviously it’ll work in when implemented in a totally unrelated way, in a totally unrelated arena. The details of this “surge” remain undefined, except for massive tax breaks for the largest corporations, of course, as well as a continuation of Bush policies. But hey, who needs sound economic policy when you can just, “surge!”? Sounds good to me.

But perhaps the scariest thing about McCain is his apparent inclinations when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. When asked by Rick Warren, “What Supreme Court justices would you not have nominated?” McCain responded, “…Justice Ginsberg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter and Justice Stevens” accusing them of “legislating from the bench”, a charge I’ve never quite understood. Clearly then, he has no problem with Scalia the Evil, or Clarence “The Government derives it’s right to rule from God” Thomas the Stupid (or as Obama put it, “He’s not a strong enough legal thinker”). If McCain wins the presidency, we are headed for a true disaster in the Judicial branch.

Please don’t let anyone you know vote for that schmuck.

Happy 4th of July!

2008-07-04T11:24:00.000-07:00

New baby/ end of semester hiatus

2008-05-09T20:20:00.000-07:00

posting will resume on 6/1... or whenever I feel like it.

I had to. I couldn't help it!

2008-04-02T21:34:00.000-07:00

What can I say? I love Marx and I love Bama!

And yes, that is THE Red Army Choir, comrade.

Olympic boycott?

2008-03-30T20:23:00.000-07:00

Calls for a boycott of the 2008 Olympics have increased lately as a result of the humanitarian disaster occurring right now in Tibet.

I'm not sure I favor anything more than a Diplomatic boycott, and/or a boycott of Olympic sponsors. A full boycott would likely not accomplish much. Opponents of a boycott point to the fact that the Olympics have served to shine light on human rights abuses committed by China, and that China has vowed to improved its human rights record as a condition of hosting the games.

None of that has amounted to anything meaningful yet. Now that the inevitability of the Beijing Olympics has been solidified, China is certainly moderating its promises of improvement. On the contrary, China's behavior seems to have become even more brazenly anti-humanitarian, i.e., the brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters in Tibet, the arrest of political dissidents, and hyped-up rhetoric justifying its support of the genocidal government in Darfur, Sudan.

But what I'd like to know is, Why was China considered as a host in the first place? China's human rights abuses certainly don't seem to be in line with the IOC's official Charter stating, "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity." China continues to routinely torture its people, arrest and jail dissidents, and generally behave as autocratic dictatorships are inclined to.

And the situation in Tibet is particularly nasty. The Chinese Government is killing people for peacefully protesting, and the IOC is lending them prestige and international legitimacy. The USOC is complicit in this, of course.

But, all that aside, the over-riding reason that the Olympic games should NOT be hosted by China is their support of the Sudanese government. China is supporting the genocide in Sudan, the biggest humanitarian crisis of this century, with weapons and money. That fact led Steven Spielberg to resign as artistic advisor to the 2008 Olympics, saying, "At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur."

Way to go Steve! But I'd really like to see the International community step up and refuse to condone the legitimization of genocide. Is that too much to ask in 2008?

So no, there should not be a boycott of the 08 Olympics. The Olympics should be moved to another city. Or at least that threat should be firmly on the table. The leverage that could be exacted by such a threat should absolutely be exploited to its fullest potential. It is a moral imperative.

And let's be clear; the IOC, as one of the sleaziest organizations around, will do nothing on its own. The threat of a full pull-out must come from, oh, I don't know, maybe the U.N.? Why not? Using the threat of a pull-out to compell China to make human rights improvements, on several fronts, represents the easiest, least costly, and perhaps most effective means of effecting change in the world today.

It is an opportunity that must not be squandered. But, of course, it will be.

McCain: A man of principle

2008-03-13T06:03:00.000-07:00

In his 2000 campaign, McCain famously said that he would "openly condemn agents of intolerance", refering specifically to the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Recently though, he has been buddying-up with such unsavories as John Hagee who blamed Hurricane Katrina on gay parades in New Orleans.

I suppose that "condemning agents of intolerance" has become too much of a political liability for McCain. Though I wonder if that is wise on his part.

Principle indeed.

A Cowboy President I Could Handle

2008-03-08T15:36:00.000-08:00

"Thank ya ma'am. Much obliged."
Hellz yeah! Now, that is f-in' sharp!

The Rare Bush Veto

2008-03-08T14:48:00.000-08:00

Today, Bush has used one of the rare presidential powers he doesn't like to abuse, the veto. Unfortunately, the veto was used to keep the congress from limiting executive powers in other ways. This bill would have specifically, and by name, forbidden the Central Intelligence Agency from using waterboarding, along with other forms of tortu.....ahhhhum...excuse me......I mean interrogation. I believe that this is his fifth veto while president. Two of them, I can not recall, but let's look at the other three.

First, there is this one. He actually vetoed a bill that would say we can not torture people. It is bad enough that our Congress feels it necessary to pass this bill in the first place, but then the President goes and vetoes it. You know, this has actually gotten to me so much that I am out of snark. My snark has left the building. But, maybe this will help people to understand why hoodie wearing, anarchist bicyclers are blowing up military recruitment centers.

Next, Bush hates for poor children to be healthy. Yes, he vetoed a bill giving children health care. He apperently loves poor kids while they're in the womb, but could give a flying fuck about them once they've cleared the vagina.

The third one I can recall off the top of my head is his first. Yup, this is slut he popped his veto cherry on. This whore of ethics was none other than the evil that is stem cell research. In Bush's own word's stem cell research, "crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." So, let me get this straight; using an unwanted grouping of cells, that have not even attached themselves to a woman's uterus yet, for medical research that could save the lives and decrease the suffering of innumerable people, crosses a moral boundary that torture is safely behind. And, we have come full circle in the travels through Bush's logic.

I need a drink...

Another Bush assault on the Constitution

2008-02-28T18:52:00.000-08:00

"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 Fourth Ammendment to the Constitution (just a reminder)

After the House failed to pass the "Protect America Act" last Saturday, Bush had this to say, "House leaders are blocking this legislation, and the reason can be summed up in three words: class action lawsuits." That, of course, is complete bullshit. But there is at least a modicum of relevance to the statement. If telephone companies broke the law by cooperating with the government in illegal surveilance activities, shouldn't they be sued?

But that's really beside the point. The real reason the House declined to pass the bill might more accurately be summed in in these 6 words: IT EFFECTIVELY REPEALS THE FOURTH AMMENDMENT. It is crucial to understand that the Protect America Act does not allow the government to do anything they wouldn't be able to do under original FISA provisions. Again, the only effective thing the legislation accomplishes, other than allowing the Government to spy without judicial over-sight, is protecting phone companies from lawsuits. In the words of Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, "There should be no question in anyone's mind that the United States intelligence agencies have the legal ability to take all actions necessary to protect the security of the American people. For anyone to suggest otherwise is irresponsible and totally inaccurate." The administration's arguments to the contrary are just pathetic, and may be summed up as follows, "It's way too much of a hassle to get a warrant to spy on people, dude." How does Bush get away with spouting such utter garbage on a daily basis?

In this previous post, I implied that the reason Bush is so desperate to pass legislation which includes retroactive imunity from lawsuits for phone companies, is that he is trying to protect his corporate friends. I'm sure that's part of it. But perhaps more importantly, blocking lawsuits against phone companies would prevent details about the illegal spying program from coming out in legal proceedings. Details which are, no doubt, breath-taking in their breadth of illegality.

It really does appear to be quite that simple.

On another note, why did phone companies cooperate with the government in illegal spying activities, at their legal peril? That turns out to be pretty simple as well. Quest Communications is one company that declined to cooperate with the government. Shortly therafter, the Government withdrew pending lucrative contracts they made with Quest. No doubt the Government has other means of applying pressure.

Bonus post

2008-02-17T21:26:00.000-08:00

Obama took a break from his campaign activities last week to visit none other than John Edwards, for undisclosed reasons.

I like it.

Bush's Africa Aids Package... Uh, okay.

2008-02-17T19:32:00.000-08:00

Friday, in the latest example of increasingly, and spectacularly pathetic PR antics, Bush argued fervently before Congress in support of continuing financial aid for HIV relief in Africa.

It was a valiant and courageous message of hope and conviction.

I can't find a transcript, but in his address to Congress, Bush continually used language like, "We don't want people guessing on the continent of Africa whether the generosity of the American people will continue" in his standard idiotic, tough guy cowboy demeanor. By listening to the tone of the speech, one would have assumed that there was a vast controversy surrounding the aid package. Indeed, there are a few who have some quible with some of the provisions of the plan... Republicans who want more of the funds to go toward abstinance education, to be precise. However, there is near-unanimous support for the Africa/AIDS package among Democrats in the House.

I'll say that again: There is near-unanimous support for the Africa/AIDS package among Democrats in the House.

Over all, the aid package enjoys solid bi-partisan support.

What is wrong with that guy?

Stupid, absurd, baseless, and pathetic grandstanding on the part of the President. And nothing more.

But moreover, why is Bush pretending to be concerned with AIDS in Africa when he obviously doesn't give a shit about the health of his own citizens, for example?

Scoring political points is an obvious answer. And it doesn't hurt that much of the aid money goes directly into the pockets of American drug companies.

Double whammy.

Here's an example of the brilliant defense the President offered of the Aids package, "My attitude toward Congress is, see what works, PEPFAR [The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] is working. It is a balanced program. It is an ABC program abstinence, be faithful and condoms. It is a program that's been proven effective."

Besides the stunning incoherence of the statement, it should be noted that PEPFAR has, in fact, not been shown to be more effective than more comprehensive programs.

Kahones? Perhaps, but small.

2008-02-17T16:33:00.000-08:00

So let me get this straight: Bush says that it is essential that the House pass the Senate FISA bill (the dubiously titled, "Protect America Act"), which would allow the Government to continue to spy on Americans without a warrant. However, he says that he will veto any form of the bill that does not contain retroactive immunity for phone companies that have, in the past, cooperated with the government in eavesdropping activities.

Doesn't that mean that Bush thinks that its more important to protect phone companies from lawsuits than to, in his words, "protect the American people"?

Seems pretty clear to me. And that certainly shouldn't surprise anyone. Since day one of this Presidency, protecting and enriching corporations has been Job One.

Let's be clear, the government can, under original FISA provisions, listen to anyone they want to at any time, assuming they have even a minimally good reason to do so. Their sole complaint with the FISA rules is that it creates too much red tape. So in essence, what they are saying is that they want to be able to spy on people without telling any one about it, because, of course, they simply can't be bothered with going to a judge every single time. It would just be a huge hassle.

Isn't that just chillingly creepy? Basic civil rights are trumped by excess paper work?

But, in stark contrast to their performance in recent history, House members declined to pass the "Protect America Act" by the deadline on Saturday.

Bravo! Did Democratic members of the house finally grow some kahones?

Perhaps they did, albeit abysmally small ones.

Crucial to comprehensive interpretation of this matter is the fact that Bush did have the option of extending the provisions of the existing FISA ammendments, which he declined to do. In other words, the ONLY effective difference between the "Protect America Act" and a Presidential extention of the current FISA ammendments, is the controversial retroactive protection for phone companies included in the Senate FISA bill. Hence, if one may extrapolate from the administration's own analysis of the situation, they have made us less safe by refusing to enact provisions that did not offer protection for phone companies.

That isn't hard to figure out. WHERE IS THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA ON THIS ONE?

But the obvious question is, Why is the Bush administration so reticent to go the the FISA court (which has rejected a small handfull of warrant requests out of TENS OF THOUSANDS) to get a warrant? Several explanations come to mind, each more sinister than the last.

Kucinich, 2002:

Valentine's day

2008-02-14T19:55:00.000-08:00

The history is certainly murky and disputed. The most prominent theory concerning the origins of Valentine's day involves a 3rd century priest who continued to marry couples in defiance of a decree by Emporor Claudius II of Rome, outlawing marriage for the purpose of preserving his supply of willing soldiers. According to the legend, Claudius had Valentine killed when he learned of the defiance.

Charming.

Valentine would likely think odd what his martyrdom has inspired: hyper-commercialized commodification of the most sacred of human emotions, in the most perversely cheesy way possible, surpassed in tragic irony perhaps only by Christmas. I'm very fortunate that my wife shares my views on this holiday.

I heard a commercial on the radio that began, "Your loved one wants to know that you to put time and thought into your Valentine gift". The commercial was for a "Lobstergram", live lobsters sent through the mail. Fucking lobsters! Time and thought?? Jesus. "Hey honey, I love you so much that I got this arthropod that we can now kill via boiling alive!" Unbeleivably ridiculous.

If a lobster's not your thing, how about chocolate, or even better, a diamond? Yeah! Celebrate your love by supporting two of the most exploitative industries in the world. "Hey Honey, I love you so much that I financially supported genocide, child-labor, and brutal dictatorships in order to give you this useless shit!"

How about showing your love by doing something truley romantic, like writing a rambling, incoherent rant about how much Valentine's day sucks in your blog? That's what I did. Heather's gonna love it, I swear.

Leaves

2008-02-13T15:30:00.000-08:00

I have an article in The Western Tribune today, copied below. They don't let me write about anything exciting, but enjoy anyway.

It’s nearing the end of January, and piles of leaves, fallen months ago, are still appearing in plastic bags on the curb. As a Horticulturist and someone concerned about the environment, this has always bothered me a bit.

In an undisturbed forest, leaves fall from trees in autumn and gradually decay, releasing their nutrients back into the soil, and replenishing the soil’s organic matter content. In this process, the forest soil stays rich, fertile, and pliable.

The annual removal of leaves disrupts this natural process, and over time, renders the soil in our home landscapes dense, infertile, compacted, and less able to retain water during droughts.

Additionally, picking up leaves from the curbside usurps a considerable amount of our public financial resources. Organic refuse also occupies substantial space in our limited landfills. As large trucks drive around picking up piles of leaves, they release tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.

But are there alternatives to this? Won’t our landscapes turn into vast leaf piles if we don’t remove the leaves?

Consider the natural forest that I mention above. Do leaves build up to problematic proportions in forests? Thankfully, nature has ways of keeping things in balance.

All good gardeners recognize the water-conserving and weed-suppressing value of a good layer of organic mulch. While leaves make a perfectly good mulch, some home-owners may find their appearance a bit untidy. Try placing the leaves behind your landscape plants where they will be unseen or less noticeable. If your landscape contains natural areas under trees, put leaves removed from your lawn there, where they will appear quite natural. You may be a bit dismayed by the initial “puffiness” of the leaves, but they will settle to a small fraction of their original volume over the winter.

Another option is to establish a compost pile where leaves will rapidly degrade into a useful garden soil amendment. Composting is a simple science, but it pays to learn to do it right. Your County Extension Service has some good publications on composting. Also look for information in books on natural gardening at the library.

It may be true that the size of many modern properties necessitates the removal of some leaves. But even so, bagging them is unnecessary, and prevents the leaves from decaying naturally.

A leaf is an amazing invention of the natural world, representing the base of the food chain by transforming light, air and water into sugars. Let’s consider recognizing their importance by allowing them to remain a part of the natural cycle in our home landscapes.

Story: The birth of Stella

2008-02-07T18:18:00.000-08:00

So Heather has been after me for 2 and a half years now to write down my birth story. I remember very few details as it was 35 years ago and all my memory synapses had yet to fully form. Also, my mother had been drinking heavily that day so I kinda had a "contact buzz".

ha ha.

All kidding aside, writing down one's experience with childbirth is apparently something these new-agey baby-having types feel is useful. I figured my blog would be a fine forum for such a literary endeavor. In this case, the birth in question would be that of Stella, our 2.5 year old.

I suppose I'll start from the beginning. It was Halloween. Heather was dressed up as a roller skater girl, and I as some kind of goofball. That's what all my costumes turn out to be: I just find the goofiest clothes I have lying around, do something strange with my hair involving spray paint and crisco, and there you have it. But I digress. We were planning to go to a couple of parties that night and consume copious quantities of alcohol. I was aware that Heather had purchased a pregnancy test earlier that day. A few folks came over, and just as we were heading out the door, Heather says to me with a smile on her face, "By the way, I'm not drinking tonight." Her meaning was clear. Needless to say, I was in a funny mood that night: excited, but also acutely aware that life would never be the same.

Some period of time later, Heather informs me that she intends to have a natural childbirth.

"Uh, like without drugs?", I ask.
"Yeah."
"Why?"
"Because its safer for the baby."
"Whatever you say."

I didn't have an immediate aversion to the idea, but like most people, I thought of pain as something to be avoided if possible. I had also heard that, on the pain charts, childbirth was way up there too. But over time, I found myself intrigued by the idea, though I wasn't sure why at the time.

So we take a natural childbirth class, which, besides preparing us for the experience, made me realize how completely ignorant I was on the subject, not only biologically, but also on how screwed up the way our society deals with pregnancy and childbirth is. I'm not going to get into that here, but I would very strongly urge anyone considering downloading a kid to become as informed as possible on the matter. And while I'm on the subject, DO NOT read "She's Having a Baby and I'm Having a Breakdown" if you are a father-to-be. All that book did was freak me out. It treated the whole pregnancy/childbirth experience as some kind of horrible ordeal fraught with all kinds of pitfalls, disasters, hyper-emotional wives, etc. Thankfully, the actual experience was wholly positive.

Heather went into labor as we were watching the last DVD of "The Lord of the Rings". So we just finished the movie and started to get ready to go to the hospital. I didn't intend for this to be full of advice for expecting parents, but this one is pretty important: Don't go to the hospital until you are really not comfortable at home. This could be as short a time as an hour, to more than a day. Hospitals are boring, lame, uncomfortable places to be. They're a real drag compared to your home. Go too early and they'll send you home. Worse yet, they may get tired of you being there so long and start to invent reasons for you to have a C-section.

Heather had a strange ability to not have a contraction when someone was around. When she first went into labor, we called my mom to bring us a camera because ours was broken. We chatted with her for a while after she got here, and she seemed puzzled by Heather's calm demeanor. Just as she left, Heather had another big contraction. On a side note, the only time Heather ever snapped at me during the whole process was when I turned on the stereo and put in what was apparently the WRONG cd. That was quickly rectified.

We left for the hospital at about 2 AM or so. On the way, we stop to pick up our doula, Cynthia Mwenja. Having Cynthia at the birth was great. Her presence was unobtrusive, but she was very instrumental in keeping me focused and encouraging Heather. She hadn't answered our phone calls, so we just went to her house and banged on the door. Down she came in a few minutes. We drove to the hospital and walked in.

"Hi. We're here to have a baby."
"okay, first door on the left"
Or something like that.

Our first room was a small, typical doctor office-type room. A nurse came in right after Heather had a contraction. Heather was very calm. The nurse was obviously unconvinced that she was in labor (can't blame her since everybody comes in too early).

"Do you know what Braxton-Hicks contractions are?"
"Yes" says Heather, when what she probably wanted to say was, "Yes, I know at least as much about them as you do." (Heather was a voracious reader of literature on the subject of childbirth during her pregnancy)

They conduct a test to confirm that Heather was in labor, and decide that yes, she was. Ah, the wonders of modern medicine.

We were taken to a birthing room, which resembled a spacious hotel room, with low lights and decent decor: not what I was expecting at all. I was glad.

Heather began having strong contractions for the next two hours or so. My role was to support her body during the contractions so she could relax as much as possible. I don't remember when I first noticed it, but when I would hold Heather during a contraction, which she seemed to really need, I would feel an incredible rush of energy run through me that would make me almost hyperventilate. The sensation was unlike anything I've experienced. I felt like we were one thing, fused together by this powerful energy. I also remember feeling a kind of connectedness to mankind in general, and to my ancient ancestors or something. That's quite difficult to describe. I remember thinking, "Is this really happening?" And then, "Yeah... it is. Wow." That went on for some time. I'd have to say that it was the most intense thing I've experienced. It's one of those things that convinces me that there is much about the nature of our existence that we don't understand. Until science figures it out, I'll call it magic.

I suppose it may seem odd that I was having such a powerful, and indeed, profoundly positive experience while my wife was in considerable pain. I'll let her address that, HEATHER: "I had no idea at the time that what Trey was experiencing was so intense. I was vaguely aware through my laborland haze that Trey was very emotional in the late part of my labor (but what's new?). I did know that it was absolutely essential that he be there and hold me during each contraction so I could focus on relaxing and opening up. Although labor was painful, I think of my birth experience in a totally positive light and am glad that Trey was able to be there and get something positive out of it as well."

Since that time, I've read a little more about natural child birth. Apparently, its not that uncommon for fathers to have experiences similar to mine.

When Heather was in transition (the period just before pushing, as the baby is going through the cervix) someone said something funny and Heather laughed. Our doula commented that she had never seen anyone laugh during transition. At some point, a group of medical students came by outside our room. They wanted to come in to see what a natural birth was like. Heather forbade them entrance on the grounds that it would distract her and diminish her contractions. She said that next time, she'll consider it.

Then the hard part. Most women push for less than an hour. Stella was in a twisted position that made her difficult to get out. Heather pushed for a few hours. Our cool, telepathic rush thing stopped happening after she was lying on the table. It was amazing seeing someone exert so much energy for that long. I couldn't believe she could keep going. Our doctor, who was present at this point, kept saying things like, "Okay, we really need to get this baby out", which at the time, I didn't question. In retrospect, I think she was trying to make Heather work harder, which obviously wasn't possible. The comments served only to induce a level of despair. Whatever. Doctors aren't psychologists, or even necessarily very empathetic or insightful people. They should be left out of the process as much as possible. Anyway, eventually, out popped Stella. My brain ceased to function within the normal parameters of logic or cohesive thought. I honestly had to gather my concentration to remember where to look to determine the sex. I'm not kidding. She was immediately taken to an adjacent room to be weighed and cleaned. WHY??? Anyway, I go to Heather's side and smile and cry and kiss her. She makes a sharp motion for me to go to attend the baby, which I do, as I slowly regain my facilities.

I went outside for air and to make a couple of phone calls. There was another guy out there smoking a cigarette, and we started to chat a bit. He had just had a baby too. "I heard there was a lady in there having a natural birth!", he said to me.
"Yeah, that was my wife"
"Really? How was it?"
"Pretty cool."
I think we were kinda the talk of the maternity ward that day. Natural births are very rare in Alabama. When we first brought it up to our doctor, she said, "Yeah, I've heard of that" ...or something to that effect.

We were moved to another room. For reasons that are still entirely unclear to me, babies are kept away from the mother for a period after birth. It was then determined that Stella was a bit jaundiced, which was obvious from her yellowish skin. This is not uncommon in newborns. The treatment for this condition is to be placed under fluorescent lights, on a constant basis. I didn't understand it at the time, but Heather was very upset that she couldn't hold the baby all the time.

"It's cool," I said, "She's healthy. What's the problem?"

This did not earn me sensitivity points. Apparently, many women have a real physical need to touch and be close to their babies. Now I know.

Any day now, we'll go for round 2. I think that, the first time, we approached childbirth as something to get through. I think this time we're both better prepared to see the beauty in the experience. But I am consciously refraining from forming preconceptions or lofty expectations. I'm mainly looking foward to all the good food and having a few days off work.

Clinton and corporate lobbyists

2008-01-29T01:15:00.001-08:00

We'll miss you Dennis (America doesn't deserve you)

2008-01-29T00:39:00.001-08:00

Obama

2008-01-27T05:49:00.000-08:00

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=5983883c26e8eaf31f83a20eb693f255

We'll miss you Fred

2008-01-22T18:14:00.000-08:00

Fred Thomson is out. Before the primaries, I predicted he would win, based solely on his credentials as a TV actor. I still think he would have gotten the nomination if he pretended to give a rat's ass about it.

A historical occasion

2008-01-18T15:10:00.000-08:00

Mike Huckabee: "I have opponents in this race who do not want to
change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the
Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God.
And that's what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in
God's standards rather than trying to change God's standards so it
lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and
how we treat the family."

As far as I know, this is a historic occasion: our first openly theocratic candidate for president. Sure, there have been others who have advocated policies which clearly violate the church/state separation. But this is the first time we've had a candidate who advocates completely redefining the very philosophical and legal foundations of this country. Fortunately, Huckabee has no chance. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the strict constructionists?

I'm not surprised

2008-01-08T20:13:00.000-08:00

In this post, I wrote the following, " Trent Lott, Senator from Mississippi and notable scumbag racist, announced his resignation from the senate this week. It is widely speculated that Lott is resigning now to avoid the new law that bans senators from entering the lobbying business within 2 years of resigning. It is estimated that lobbying would secure a multi-million dollar income for Lott. When asked at a news conference yesterday whether the new law had anything to do with his decision, he replied that it "didn't have a big role". I call bullshit. We'll see."

In the news this week, Trent Lott is open for business.

I'm not claiming to have any sort of remarkable insight in this situation. I just think its amazing how greedy that guy is, and how willing he is to put forth such a shameless lie.

5 worst problems in America today

2008-01-03T19:46:00.000-08:00

I'm in a reflective mood, here at the beginning of 2008. I thought this would be an appropriate post. Here are the top 5 problems that I think face America today... other than the lack of sufficient tzatziki sauce on falafels, but that's obvious.

1. Corporate control of national policy.

Facilitated by a zombified, media-obsessed populous, American politics have become completely dominated by corporate interests. The reason for this is simple: Money wins elections, corporations have the most money, so politicians who are hostile to corporate interests are at a distinct disadvantage. In a sense, America can now be described as an entity whose purpose and goal is is make the rich richer, at whatever cost. We have achieved this state slowly since around the 1950s, but it has been dramatically accelerated as a result of the elections of 2000 and 2004. We have become a nation by the People, of the People, and for Corporate Interests. Our national policy is defined by the profit motive, rather than the common good. Subsequently, we've managed to alienate ourselves from the entire world. It would be nice to be able to blame this squarely on the Republicans, whose virtual platform has been to hand over control of America to corporations. Not only that, but somehow they have managed to convince people that it is in their own interests, or weirder, that it is somehow moral to promote such policies. But Democrats have been utterly complicit. Hillary Clinton has been defensive about her cozy relationship with corporations, saying recently, "Corporations are people too". No, Hillary, they are not. They are perhaps necessary, yet intrinsically evil, artificial entities. If I am forced to vote for her, it will be with nose held tight. Reducing corporate influence in politics has been the virtual cornerstone of John Edwards' campaign. Very cool. And very cool that that message apparently resonates with so many people. I'm just not sure I believe him (EDIT: From the latest email from the Kucinich campaign: "He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty" I thought I smelled a rat). Barach's anti-corporate message is a bit more toned down. But I doubt there would be that much difference between the two, policy-wise. The only reason I'd rather have Obama is because he's black. How's that for reverse racism? But also because he was Kucinich's 2nd choice in Iowa. If I can't have Kucinich, I'm hoping for Obama/ Edwards in 08.
Here and here are two books about American policies whose only purposes are to enrich the super-rich at the expense of the middle class.

2. Industrial meat animals

We can never call ourselves a moral people while factory farms exist in our country.

3. Environmental Destruction

All of the plastic we have ever manufactured is still here. All of the plastic we have ever manufactured will be here for about 100,000 years. Our water is full of plastic. There are entire species of sea birds that are threatened with extinction from eating plastic. Plastic does not degrade. It just disintegrates into smaller and smaller particles. In the Future, Earth will be coated in a film of it. It will pervade and infiltrate everything. I chose that example because few people even know about it. And it freaks me out. I mean, what are we doing? There are indigenous peoples whose way of life is threatened by mercury in the fish that they have eaten for centuries. The mercury is discharged from coal-fired electrical plants in America. We're still doing that. I have to get goofed out every time I decide to eat a fish because I know its full of metal? We need to stop. IN the news today: Naples Italy is out of places to put its trash. As a result, people are burning it, thereby releasing dioxins that end up in the grass, and therefore in the cows, and therefore in Naples' famed mozzarella cheese. The cheese is unsaleable, and is being trashed. We can't keep living like this. There are only so many places to put trash. Every facet of our lives is unsustainable. From brushing our teeth, to driving to work, to coming home for dinner, we leave a path of destruction.

4. Apathetic, TV obsessed populous

Every time I hear a seemingly intelligent adult talking about Brittney Spears as if she matters, I'm just blown away. I don't think this country can improve until people wake up a bit.

5. This one's a little harder to define. Let's call it: Alienation from our roots in nature, or from our spiritual foundations.

Regrettably, I'm teaching a high school class right now, and I'm trying to teach them something about native flora. So, the topic of native forests tends to come up frequently. It didn't take me long to realize that many of them had apparently never set foot in an unspoiled natural setting. I think that such a way of living is much more prevalent in their generation, but it pervades our culture in general. Most people spend their lives in a kind of virtual saran wrap, squeezing their food from plastic tubes while flopped down in front of the tube. They have no connection to their foundations. I think that makes people kinda crazy on a really fundamental level. Virtually everything we touch is synthetic. We don't see the plants or animals that our food comes from. We birth our children while drugged and separated from the experience of it. We have no time to reflect, to consider our existence and the meaning of it, and hence we are unable to fully realize our own humanity. I think most people in my generation or older at least began life with some kind of connection with the natural world. Kids today mostly lack that foundation. That worries me.

Not-So-Honorable-Mention: Rhythm clappers

The animal rights movement comes to Birmingham

2007-12-12T16:51:00.000-08:00

Two new businesses have recently located in Birmingham, Whole Foods Market and Chipotle Mexican Grill. These businesses are unique in B'ham in that they have both pledged to sell only "humanely raised" meat and animal products. Also, Burger King recently announced that it will adopt some meager measures to reduce its buying of inhumanely raised meat products. Among the three, Burger King is the only one that admits the decision had anything to do with public pressure. Chipotle and Whole Foods both insist that their policies are based purely on ideology and ethics. Fair enough.

But what is fueling the explosive growth of companies like Chipotle? According to Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold, they sold twice as many pork burritos after announcing they would only use humanely raised pork. Twice as many! While the animal rights movement in America is still rather marginal, there are some interesting statistics that reflect a growing concern among consumers.

According to a Gallup poll, seventy-one percent of respondents said that [meat] animals deserve some [legal] protection, while only 3 percent said that animals don't need protection. A whopping 25 percent of respondents said that animals deserve the same rights as people. Curiously, only 5-10 percent of Americans call themselves vegetarian. That, of course, would imply that around 15 percent of Americans both think animals deserve rights equal to humans, and eat animals raised in inhumane conditions.

That actually doesn't surprise me very much. Most people I know who eat meat are compassionate individuals who abhor cruelty and would probably describe themselves as concerned about animal welfare in general. They vigorously denounced the "unspeakable" evil of Michael Vick. They might even help a turtle to cross the road.

Yet they won't pay 50 cents more for "cage free" eggs? They won't go a step out of their way to patronize businesses that sell "humanely raised" meat? Abstaining from financially supporting inhumane meat production would be unthinkable, of course.

There is some serious cognitive dissonance afoot here. And it is poisonous. The dissonance arises from the following conflicting beliefs: 1) I don't want to cause pain and suffering to animals. 2) Meat production causes pain and suffering to animals, and 3) I eat meat. The theory of cognitive dissonance holds that when a person experiences dissonance, he will continue to commit the dissonant act to prove to himself that it is justifiable. In other words, if he stops, he'll in effect prove to himself that he should not have committed the act in the first place.

Yet Whole Foods and Chipotle thrive. I think that once someone purchases meat that is humanely produced, some of the dissonance is relieved, and they realize that it feels pretty good. And a habit is born. This is the same thing that happens when one stops eating meat altogether. Vegetarians rarely return to meat-eating.

I'm not especially impressed by supposed "humane" meat production, but no doubt its a big improvement. Both Whole Foods and Chipotle voice a vigorous commitment to improving their standards. From Chipotle's website, "Most pigs do not spend their lives on open pastures, but live in Concentrated Animal Feed Operations, or CAFOs. The conditions in a CAFO are bad, even horrendous." Whole Foods recently donated $550,000 to start an Animal Compassion Foundation. I'm sure that Chipotle and Whole foods realize the impact of these positions on their bottom lines.

If you must eat meat, please consider patronizing companies like Chipotle and Whole Foods. Or consider eating a meatless meal occasionally. You'll feel better.

And maybe, during this seasonal celebration of love and compassion, you could consider extending some of that love to animals who have kept your fat ass happy and fed thus far, by refraining from eating them. Celebrate love and compassion by exercising love and compassion. Does that not seem fitting?

Unbelievable

2007-12-05T19:03:00.000-08:00

Mike Huckabee doesn't know what the National Intelligence Estimate is. He also thinks the earth is 6000 years old. He is gaining popularity as a Republican presidential candidate.

Habeas in the Supreme Court

2007-12-05T18:31:00.000-08:00

The only thing more amazing to me than the fact that the Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding whether or not the President has the authority to detain someone indefinitely without bringing charges against them, is that few people seem to care. Will the death of America be silent? Legally, this case is perhaps as important as, I dunno, repealing the First Amendment.

Perhaps equally amazing is that four US Supreme Court justices will likely rule that the President does have that authority. Four will vote no. Justice Kennedy will cast the deciding vote. How did we come to this?

The arguments presented before the court are highly technical, and I suppose, they have to be. That's the way our legal system works. Unfortunately, there is little procedural room for everyone to step back and ask the question, "Are we really trying to say that people can be jailed forever at the sheer whim of the President?" But that's where we're at. And it makes my head spin.

Here is the report from NPR.

Bad news for the bad guys

2007-11-30T15:10:00.000-08:00

President Bush has a strong history of demonstrating his lack of proficiency with spoken language, but I think this takes the cake. While addressing the crowd at the Middle East Conference in Anapolis earlier this week, Bush fumbled over the names of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders who were standing RIGHT NEXT to him at the time. He didn't just mispronounce their names, he completely BUTCHERED both names. That's not just stupid, that's unbelievably incompetent. The incident occurs at 1:25 in the video below.

You may have heard about this recent story about Blackwater International, the mercenary army operating above civil or military law in Iraq. There have been some interesting developments in the past few days. First, the Blackwater agents were not protecting a principal, as first reported. Instead, in defiance of orders, after dropping off the official, the guards went to the area where the massacre took place, reportedly under a hunch that an insurgent with whom the guards had a grudge was present there. As it turns out, the Blackwater guards ended up killing 17 innocent civilians including women and children, precipitating their expulsion from Iraq. Last week, The Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against Blackwater over the incident. The suit also accuses Balckwater of knowingly allowing guards to work while taking steroids and other "judgement-altering" drugs.

The Blackwater story is especially poignant in light of the new best-selling book by Naomi Wolf, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, in which Wolf outlines, "Ten steps to fascism" which have historically occurred as nations transition to a fascist state. One of these steps is the creation of a para-military army. Another is the establishment of secret prisons. Yet another is the expansion of executive powers and erosion of traditional civil protections. Sound familiar?

As you have heard, Trent Lott, Senator from Mississippi and notable scumbag racist, announced his resignation from the senate this week. It is widely speculated that Lott is resigning now to avoid the new law that bans senators from entering the lobbying business within 2 years of resigning. It is estimated that lobbying would secure a multi-million dollar income for Lott. When asked at a news conference yesterday whether the new law had anything to do with his decision, he replied that it "didn't have a big role". I call bullshit. We'll see.
Interestingly, Lott voted against the senate ethics reform bill, which set forth the provision against lobbying by recently resigned senators, i.e., the law he is seeking to avoid now. Let it be noted that Lott is a big fan of lobbyists in general, earning a top spot on the Washington Post's list of Senators who accept the most favors from corporations. He also has a strong record of voting against legislation that would curtail the influence of lobbyists in Washington. From Barack Obama's website, "Sen. Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican who hopes to regain a Senate leadership job next year, warned against going too far in reaction to the Abramoff scandal. He singled out moves to end the practice of secretly inserting special projects into spending bills at the behest of lobbyists. While those "earmarks" have "gotten out of control," Lott said, they can be an effective way for Congress to address a problem or need back home."

Lott is one of six Republican senators, along with 17 Republicans in the House to announce their resignations recently. The lobbying reform law which takes effect on Jan. 1 may account for some of this mass exodus, which in itself says something about the motivating factors that lead many Republicans to public "service", but as described this week in the conservative vomit rag, The National Review, many Republicans fear "a coming cataclysm" of Democratic control in Washington. A recent Pew Center poll found that 50% of Americans now consider themselves Democrats, compared to 35% Republican. Self-described "independent" voters find themselves overwhelmingly leaning toward voting Democrat.

Encouraging, perhaps, but also depressing. 35% of Americans still lean Republican? How bad can those guys screw up and still retain considerable support? This is the party of Rumsfeld, Abramoff, Delay, the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, Alberto Gonzalez, torture, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, every snake-handling toothless racist inbred redneck troglodyte in America, and... AND, by God, George W. Bush. It is, after all, impossible to separate the man from his party. They put him in office, and they, albeit unenthusiastically, continue to support the imbecile.

2007-11-26T18:38:00.000-08:00

"I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health."

-Dennis Kucinich on President Bush

Oops. Listening... again.

2007-11-14T18:39:00.000-08:00

"The oil is here for a reason, folks. God put it here because he wants us to use it."
-Rush Limbaugh

Incredible. God gave us an energy source that gives children asthma? How good of him. Also, is the implication he's making that just because something is here, God meant for us to use it? Does that also apply to smallpox, tobacco, marijuana, and pond scum?

World Can't Wait... but unfortuately will probably have to anyway

2007-11-06T17:19:00.000-08:00

World Can't Wait is a rather charming organization whose premise is that the Bush administration does immeasurable harm every day that they remain in power, and therefore, should be forced from power. However, they do not advocate violence.

Let me get this straight: if we all just yell loud enough, Bush will simply give up and leave. The idea is quite attractive, but is also, of course, completely absurd for a number of reasons.

Despite the patheticness of their mission, they've got the right idea. I thought this was pretty cool. From Democracy Now...

Activists Stage Waterboarding Outside Justice Dept.
On the eve of the vote, activists with the group World Can't Wait gathered in front of the Justice Department Monday to demonstrate an actual waterboarding. Twenty-six year old Iranian-American Maboud Ebrahimzadeh volunteered as the mock terror suspect. Activists posing as interrogators poured several quarts of water into his mouth while a cloth was placed over his face. He was in visible pain as the waterboarding proceeded.

Maboud Ebrahimzadeh: "This is easily the most terrifying experience I've ever had, ever felt, and although it's a controlled environment when water goes into your lungs and you want to scream and you can't, cause you know as soon as you do, you are going to choke."
After the demonstration, anti-torture activist Clark Kissinger said waterboarding should only be seen as a form of torture.
Clark Kissinger: "Today we wanted to put together an actual demonstration of what waterboarding means when it is conducted by this government to people around the world. There seems to be some confusion in the media about this. Some people like to refer to this as an enhanced interrogation technique. It is not an enhanced interrogation technique. It is torture."
Meanwhile, twenty-four former U.S. intelligence officials are urging Senate Judiciary members not to back Mukasey's nomination until he declares his position on waterboarding. In a letter released Monday, the ex-officials write: "We are aware that the president warned last week that it will be either Mukasey as our attorney general or no one. So be it."

I really wish we would stop torturing people

2007-11-02T18:29:00.000-07:00

It now seems that Michael Mukasey is likely to be confirmed by the Senate judiciary committee amid controversy stemming from his refusal to say that the interrogation technique known as "waterboarding" was torture.

I kind of understand the reason he gave for not doing so: it is not the role of Judges to define specific acts as "torture", but merely to interpret law. He did say, "if waterboarding is torture, then it is illegal". Well that seems simple enough. According to the UN Convention on Torture, waterboarding is explicitly defined as torture. The convention also said, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The US is signatory to both agreements. If that's not enough for you, THE US HAS PROSECUTED PEOPLE IN THE PAST FOR WAR CRIMES BECAUSE THEY USED THE TECHNIQUE. So it seems pretty clear, based on Agreements that have been agreed upon by the US, that waterboarding is indeed torture. Simple enough? Well nothing surprises me anymore. It is indeed troubling that Mukasy refused to even state an opinion on the matter. After the catastrophe of Alberto Gonzalez, we need someone who will take a stand; neigh, we need someone who will simply enforce existing laws. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

But what bothers me most about this whole debate is that it centers so myopically on waterboarding. Some Democratic Senators have suggested a Congressional Act that would specifically ban waterboarding. Okay, but why stop there? I'm sure US agents are creative enough to devise ways to torture people without using that one technique, right? Personally, I'd much rather be waterboarded than to be stuck in a suitcase for days, or locked in solitary confinement for months on end while being randomly subjected to extremes of heat and cold. If we are serious about enforcing human rights standards, why focus on this one technique? True, laws haven't historically seemed to be very effective, but maybe a Congressional Act would do something. This is starting to look troublingly like grandstanding by certain Democrats.

Uhm, if you feel like banging your head against a wall, here ya go.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

2007-11-02T04:39:00.000-07:00

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." G.W. Bush

This was said in 2002, but I just came across it today. This is once again one of those times when I am beyond words. That the media did not pick up on this when it was said is appalling. I guess it is true that "Ignorance is Strength."

And, by the way, remember....

Oceania is at war with Iraq. Oceania has always been at war with Iraq.

I don't like nuclear power. Here's a couple of videos.

2007-10-23T20:18:00.000-07:00

Read my thoughts on nuclear energy here. I'm glad to see a movement (however incohesive) opposing the further expantion of it, especially when it is supported by tax dollars.

The secret...

In Jesus name...

Pink Elephants. A fun game! I call on everyone to join in.

2007-10-11T10:58:00.000-07:00

So, the republican National Committee has a new line of products at the RNC online Store. The line is called Pink Elephants and I assume is intended to be marketed towards women. Now, I thought it might be fun to get as many people as possible to write to the feedback for the RNC online store and thank them for finally coming out with a product line which allows one to show both your gay pride and your Republican pride at the same time. Let's try to flood them and see how long it takes to for them to make a disclaimer, place a "for women" statement somewhere, or just remove the line. Join me. I already sent my feedback to them.

Nice try, no cigar

2007-10-09T17:17:00.000-07:00

I went to the forum hosted by the Over the Mountain Democrats here in Birmingham last night. The topic was "Golden Rule Politics: Reclaiming the rightful role of Faith in Politics". The forum began with a film, created by the OTM Dems, in which a number of progressive-leaning clergy people and politicians discuss how religion has been mis-used by groups on the Right to garner political power.

One of the more interesting ideas in the film was put forth by Professor Susan Pace Hamill of the University of Alabama Law School. She described the religious issues that the the Right tends to focus on as "low-sacrifice" issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), and says that the Bible does not describe a "low-sacrifice faith". In other words, it's very easy to oppose something like gay marriage if you're not gay or you don't have any gay friends. And, if you can convince yourself that such a belief solidifies favor with the Almighty, then all the better. In contrast, Biblically-based values such as helping the poor, cultivating a egalitarian society, protecting the environment (in order to practice love for your neighbors of future generations), are comparatively "high-sacrifice" values.

That reminds me of a line in one of Al Franken's books: "From what I understand, if you cut out all the passages in the Bible where Jesus talks about the poor, about helping out the least among us, you'd have the perfect container to smuggle Rush Limbaugh's drugs in."

That's the gist of the film: the Republican party high-jacked Christianity to get power, make rich people richer, and that's wrong.

Here Here!

But, it occurred to me that the Question was never addressed: What is the rightful role of religion in politics?

Nobody came out and said it, but at several points, it seemed like the interviewees were coming dangerously close to saying, "the Republican brand of Christianity sucks, so what we need to do is inject our own interpretation of the Christian Faith into politics."

I don't like it. Political questions shouldn't be decided on religious grounds. Political behavior shouldn't be based on religious precepts. Period.

However, if, because of his adherence to Christian principles, a politician is inclined to want to help poor people, that's fine and good. My point is that the government shouldn't help poor people for religious reasons, for the same reason that it shouldn't prevent gay people from marrying for religious reasons. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for making religiously-based laws.

Ideology and dogma are dangerous political forces. Are laws that help the poor inherently good laws? Are they inherently Constitutional? Obviously not. But there is plenty of material in the Constitution to justify laws that "promote the common good".

I am aware that there is a kind of "Constitution dogma" at play in certain political circles today. It goes like this: "The Constitution is an infallible road-map to a Utopian Universe!" I don't believe that. I'm what you might call a "loose constructionist". But I don't think you can criticize Republicans for trying to inject their religious beliefs, however heinous, into politics and then propose that Democrats inject their beliefs, however righteous, right?

The question is, can Progressives win elections if their answer to the Question is: "There is no legitimate direct role of religion in politics."?

At one point last night, I felt like Artur Davis was talking in code. He talked about his vote in favor of The National Marriage Amendment, which would define marriage as (I hate to even type this) "between a man and a woman". He said that (wink/ nod) "If I had voted against it, I would probably be unelectable". Hmm.

The politics of compromise have gotten us nowhere. Compromise is a slow slide down the slippery slope to increasing power for Corporations, for Corporate Religion, for politicians who feed on the fear and greed and bigotry of the weak. The only way to a better future is to do what's right, for the right reason.

No more photo ops!

2007-10-05T20:19:00.001-07:00

The Decline

2007-10-04T06:12:00.000-07:00

There were several reasons for the decline and eventual end of the Roman Empire. Let's look at one of these reasons.

One reason was excessive military spending on an overstretched army, fighting on multiple fronts against "uncivilized barbarians." Due to the overstretching of the army and the lack of interest of the Roman citizenry to volunteer for the army, as they had in the past, the Romans were forced to more and more frequently rely upon mercenary soldiers to fight their battles. These mercenaries were both more expensive and less reliable than the professional, citizen soldiers had been.

Well, there you go. Sorry to bother you with some boring ancient history that has no relevance today. It's just Trey's post about blackwater made me think about mercenaries and I'm teaching Rome right now now, so my mind just kind of wandered in this direction.

What does it take to get a Congressional investigation around here?

2007-10-03T17:41:00.000-07:00

You've probably heard about the incident last week wherein mercenaries working for the security firm, Blackwater International, opened fire on unarmed civilians in Iraq, prompting the Iraqi government to suspend Blackwater's activities indefinitely and ask them to leave Iraq.

The State Department's inital report, detailed here in the Washington Post, describes a version of events that are considerably more favorable to Blackwater than initial reports from Iraqis at the scene.

That's probably not surprising. But yesterday, it was discovered that "The official [who wrote the State Department's official report], who declined to be identified because of the ongoing investigations into the shooting..." was an employee of... you guessed it... Blackwater International!

See if you can follow this: the Bureau of Diplomatic Security for the U.S. embassy in Iraq's Tactical Operations Center, has outsourced some of its responsibilities to outside agencies, including Blackwater. After the incident in which Blackwater killed eleven Iraqi civilians and wounded twelve, while sustaining no gunfire, injuries, or casualties, a Blackwater employee, Darren Hanner, was charged with writing the official initial account of the event. Curiously, the document makes no mention of civilian casualties, and sites extenuating circumstances which precipitated the massacre, which can't be corroborated by eye-witnesses.

So, is it by design, or by incredible oversight, that a Blackwater Employee was put in charge of initial investigations into atrocities committed by his own company? It seems right in line with the sort of media manipulation perpetrated by this Administration. Hmm.

Read the story on CNN here.

This news is likely to make the Congressional hearings on Blackwater all the more interesting. Blackwater has (finally) come under Congressional scrutiny for several reasons: 1) Blackwater employees aren't subject to any law. They can't be court marshalled by the military, or tried in American or Iraqi courts. While the latest incident is the most heinous, Blackwater employees have committed many acts, which, had they been committed by American soldiers, would have resulted in a court's marshall. 2) The company is owned by Erik Prince, who was an intern under George H.W Bush, and continues to be a major financial supporter of Republican candidates, including Bush Jr. Notably, he is Vice President of the Elsa and Edgar Prince Foundation, whose sole purpose is to fund right-wing Christian fundamentalist groups, such as Dobson's Focus on the Family. Blackwater has been the recipient of no-bid contracts for security contracts in Iraq, leading many to question why a for-profit private company is hiring mercenaries, at around $100,000 per year, for security purposes in Iraq, all on the tax payer dime, when the U.S. military is much better suited for the task. Hmm.

Listen to Daniel Schorr's always-insightful commentary on the matter here.

I'm so tired of living in Bizarro World!

2007-10-03T09:45:00.000-07:00

On Oct. 1, Pres. Bush declared it Child Health Day. From the proclamation: "My Administration supports programs that give parents, mentors, and teachers the resources they need to help and encourage children to maintain an active and healthy way of life." But, it seems that the Pres. doesn't think actual health coverage fits the deffinition of a program that does this. Because if he did, he wouldn't have vetoed the the Childrens' Health Insurance Plan, only the 4th veto of his presidency. Was the whole Child Health Day thing just a pre-emptive slap in the face cause he knew he was about to use the veto on this? Was it some kind of sick joke? Can I please wake up from the Twilight Zone episode my country has turned into?!?!

To add insult to injury, a recent defense bill, which was not vetoed by-the-way, is spending $2.4 billion on jets for the USAF, which are made in Texas. Of course, we can pay Texan defence contractors billions of dollars, but can't afford to provide health care to our children. And, to top it off (this is what really pisses me off), the Pentagon insists it has enough of these C-17 Globemaster jets. Are you kidding me?!?!?

Should you be a citizen?

2007-10-02T06:29:00.000-07:00

Go take part of the test and see how you did. I got a 92%. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21019797/

As I promised...

2007-10-01T20:14:00.000-07:00

I don't get it, but whatever floats your boat...

I can't believe I used to think of John McCain as a "Moderate"

2007-10-01T17:23:00.000-07:00

September 17 is "Constitution Day"! So happy belated...

John McCain, in his increasingly shameless pursuit of pandering to religious weirdos, had a couple of interesting things to say in an interview with Beliefnet.com recently. First, he says that he would not vote for a Muslim for President because "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles.... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith." The statement has drawn criticism from a number of American religious and secular groups. Ho hum. Then later in the interview, he says that, "I think that Governor Romney's religion should not, absolutely not, be a disqualifying factor when people consider his candidacy for President of the United States, absolutely not." Mit Romney is a Mormon. Mormons are not Christian, in the strict sense. So, let me get this straight, McCain thinks Romney's religion should "absolutely not" disqualify him, but if you are a Muslim, you should be disqualified? What gives?

When asked, "A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?", McCain responds, "I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Both the question and answer are stunning. Let's be clear, the Constitution never once mentions God, the Bible, or Christianity. In what way, then, does it "establish" Christianity? Furthermore, the First Amendment famously says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." How much more clear they could have been? Maybe "...no law respecting an establishment of religion... and we're fucking serious! NO OFFICIAL RELIGION PEOPLE!" would have been better? I dunno.

And then there's this gem from McCain, "We were founded as a nation on Judeo-Christian principles. There's very little debate about that." That is indeed a staggeringly common misconception, but "very little debate"?? I would say that such a contention is one of the more hotly debated questions of our time, though that fact is quite remarkable.

The statement "We were founded as a nation on Judeo-Christian principles" is abysmally vacuous, and depressingly ubiquitous. McCain sites the part of the Declaration of Independence (not a part of the Constitution) which says, "We hold these truths to be self evident, all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator" [sic] as evidence of the integral influence of Christianity on the founding of America. This is the only example he sites. It may be true that one's religion may lead one to embrace notions such as the the innate equality of human beings, but the Bible does not implicitly put forth such precepts, often implying that women should be subservient, and that slaves should endeavor to serve their masters faithfully, etc.

And what of the 10 Commandments, which are often lauded as "the basis for our legal system" (usually when someone is trying to place monuments to them in a courthouse or some such travesty)? It isn't difficult folks. Just read them. Exactly two have any relationship, whatsoever, to U.S. law, specifically, the 6th (murder), and the 8th (stealing). Is there any civilization on Earth, Christian or otherwise, wherein stealing and murder are not against the law? So in what sense do the Commandments form the basis for our laws? I don't even hear the most extreme domestic proponents of Theocracy pushing for laws banning the coveting of one's neighbor's ox, for example. Also, American "Idol" has somehow managed to evade legal scrutiny in spite of the second Commandment forbidding idolotry. Moreover, the Constitution explicitly condones acts that are expressly forbidden by The 10. In other words, 8 of the 10 acts that are forbidden by the 10 Commandments, are protected by the Constitution. How then are the Commandments the basis for our laws? How spectacularly stupid!

While I was researching this post, I happened upon this site , which contains some rather interesting statistics, some of which I'll copy below for your reading pleasure. Happy Constitution Day indeed.

Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation’s founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007″ national survey released today by the First Amendment Center. […]

Just 56% believe that the freedom to worship as one chooses extends to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme — down 16 points from 72% in 2000. […]

25% said “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,” well below the 49% recorded in the 2002 survey that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, but up from 18% in 2006.

One in four Americans believe the First Amendment “goes too far”? Really? Ouch.

Looking though the detailed survey tables (.pdf), a few other noteworthy results jumped out at me.

* Most Americans don’t know what’s in the First Amendment. There are five freedoms — freedom of speech was the only one named by a majority of respondents (64%), followed by religion (19%), press and assembly (each 16%), and petition (3%).

* Asked if newspapers “should be allowed to freely criticize the U.S military about its strategy and performance,” a combined 37% of Americans said they shouldn’t.

* Asked if musicians “should be allowed to sing songs with lyrics that others might find offensive,” a combined 42% of Americans said they shouldn’t.

* Asked if people “should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups,” a combined 39% of Americans said they shouldn’t.

* Asked if people “should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to racial groups,” a combined 56% of Americans said they shouldn’t.

Happy Constitution Day. We have a lot of work to do .

I don't know why this surprised me at all...

2007-09-28T04:31:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the US Senate had a vote on the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Kennedy Amdt. No. 3035. This deals with a Bill which has come to be known as the Matthew Sheppard Act, and would expand federal law to include sexual orientaion, amoung other things, under the definition of hate crime. Well guess how Ol' Wide Stance voted? That's right....against it. Go see which other Senators are using homophobia to keep themselves in the closet at the links above.

Red-Shirt Friday

2007-09-27T08:38:00.000-07:00

There is a campaign going on to try to get people to wear red on Friday in support of the pro-democracy demonstrators, led by Buddhist monks, in Burma (now called Myanmar by the ruling military junta). There have been 9 confirmed protesters killed by the military, but the number is probably higher. As well, hundreds of monks have been arrested and their monasteries ransacked in raids by the military. However, the protests continue.

I can't resist... A Post About Larry Craig... sigh

2007-09-26T19:39:00.000-07:00

So today, lawyers for Larry Craig are asking a Minesota judge to allow Craig to withdraw the guilty plea he submitted after being arrested in a sex sting at Minniapolis- St. Paul airport. Judges do not normally grant approval for such requests.

While I can't deny deriving a significant degree of pleasure, and indeed (dare I say?), blissful glee, at witnessing yet another conservative, anti-gay Republican turn out himself to be gay, the saga of Larry Craig is representative of a very sad, and common, phenomenon in America and the world today.

Growing up gay in America, especially in certain social circles and during particular eras, carries pressures and stresses unimaginable to those who don't themselves experience them. James McGreevey, former governor of New Jersey, who resigned after his extra-marital afair with a male employee became public, wrote a brief , but very illustrative and enlightening piece in the Washington Post, "A Prayer for Larry Craig", in which he attempts to describe the turmoil associated with growing up gay. It's definitely worth reading in its entirety. McGreevey's "Prayer" is that "Larry Craig and his loving family come to peace with his truth", and, "To those who judge him harshly, I ask that they fill their hearts with compassion and equanimity."

McGreevey is in a unique position to experience empathy with Craig. Personally, I have a difficult time forgiving gay politicians for actively participating in the persecution of gay people. Then again, I have difficulty forgiving conservative republicans at all.

However, I just can't feel that the prosecution of Larry Craig makes any legal sense. Foot tapping is not illegal. Indeed, soliciting sex in public is not illegal. Having sex in public is, and I suppose, should be, illegal. But nothing Larry Craig did constitutes a violation of any law that I am familiar with. The fact that the flimsy legal basis for the prosecution of Larry Craig is being ignored by the public, and the media, is the most significant and disturbing facet of this story.

I call it treason, but no one seems to care or even notice.

2007-09-20T05:37:00.000-07:00

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
-Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution

Yesterday, Sept. 19, 2007, the US Senate voted on a cloture motion, that in my opinion should not even be an issue. This should have been taken care of long ago by the courts, or by We the People! The statement of purpose of the amendment in question is, "To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States." I'm sorry, but does no one else get pissed off beyond belief that the Senate would even have to vote to RESTORE the right of Habeas Corpus? It is bad enough that people didn't care when this right was taken away, but now the Senate votes to NOT to restore it, and again there is silence. This is how democracy will be destroyed. Not with gunfire and bombs. Not with the police beating the shit out of protesters in the streets. No, democracy will not die kicking and screaming. It will not even die with a whimper. The death of democracy will be silent...

Oh the Irony

2007-09-19T19:17:00.000-07:00

The reason the Administration is now giving for staying in Iraq, i.e. "there will be a disasterous sectarian civil war if we leave", is the same reason many on the left gave for not going to Iraq in the first place. Aren't some I-told-you-so's in order?

Rhythm Clapper Manifesto

2007-09-16T18:45:00.000-07:00

So, I went to see Railroad Earth last night. It was fantastic: an extremely high energy show with everybody dancing around and loving it.

Some of you are aware of my extreme (psychotic?) aversion to people rhythm clapping during songs. Anyway, there’s this guy right next to us just trying to prove how loud he can clap. My usual strategy is to try to look them in the eye and give them a “that’s kind of obnoxious, man” kind of look. It works about a third of the time. The times it doesn’t work, it almost backfires. They seem to think, “Hey, that guy is looking at me. He must really think I can clap good!”… or something. Next thing I know, he stops clapping altogether. Heather informs me that she has asked him to stop. I couldn’t believe it. She is SO non-confrontational. The guy appeared to be kind of sulking now. I sorta felt bad at that point. Poor dude was dancing and having fun, and now he’s all bent outa shape.

But then I thought, “You know, that guy was the ONLY person clapping at that point, and he was clapping very loudly. And maybe he’s annoying me more than anyone else, but maybe not, and I’m sure that almost EVERYBODY near him would rather he not make so much racket. Maybe it’s time he learned a valuable lesson”. Right?

I mean, why is it not okay to make a bunch of noise in a movie theater, but it is okay at a concert? Isn’t it just extremely audacious to assume that everybody around you wants to hear your “contribution” to the music? And isn’t it kind of rude to the band, especially with that kind of music- with complex rhythms and abrupt changes. Isn’t the implication that YOU have something to “add” to the music with your clapping? Well maybe the musicians don’t think so. Also, many rhythm clappers don’t have very good rhythm. Those people are the worst. I’d rather have nails driven into my skull.

“Jeez” you say, “Get a life, relax, and try not to let it bother you. People are always gonna clap.” Believe me I’ve tried. I’ve tried really hard. But it’s like someone repetitively rapping their knuckles on my head. I’ve considered professional help. If I could pay an amount of money to guarantee that no one would clap around me ever again, it would be in the several thousands. No kidding.

Why don’t I just move, you ask? Well, I’m cursed, you see. If I move, someone will just start clapping at the area that I move to. I swear. I’ve tested this many times.

So, I’ve decided to take a stand. In life, one must stand up for that in which one believes, right? Truly I say to you, “Yes”, for that is what will define our strength of character! I shall be the voice for all those who sit quietly by meekly enduring their own private rhythm clapper Hell! Apathy, thou hast no place in my life from this day forward! The oppression that now enjoys tortured tolerance shall be relegated to oblivion!

Stand Up! Stand Up! Stand up on your heels and call from the hills! We can stop a runaway rhythm clapper marathon!

So anyway, I’m having a little trouble figuring out the best way to get started. Handing out fliers? A website? T-shirts? Weapons of mass destruction? And I need a catchy slogan.

Are you with me or against me? This may be the quintessential calling of our time, and the most important quest. Will our legacy be that of unrestrained clapping? Is that what you want for your children? I, for one, think that we can do better than that.

I have a dream- where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers and enjoy live music in blissful peace. You may say I’m a dreamer. Am I the only one?

EDIT: Someone pointed out a Mike Cooley (Drive By Truckers) quote: to a rhythm clapper in the audience "you don't have rhythm, don't do that." Fantastic.

Freedom's Watch

2007-09-12T20:52:00.000-07:00

I've heard a couple radio commercials by an organization called Freedom's Watch (okay, okay, I listen to some right-wing radio... keep your enemies close, as they say). They're an organization dedicated to increasing public support for the war and the current regime. The spot was just dripping with the worst brand of propaganda, you know, the kind even the President has begun to tone down, using phrases like "Victory can and must be achieved!", and "Some people have forgotten the sacrifices our soldiers have made", and "Congress must make an important and historic choice: Surrender to terrorist in Iraq or help that government defeat the terrorists". The ad also features an old lady fraily saying, "we've already had one 9/11, we don't need another one!"

Wow! A multi-million dollar nation-wide radio/ newspaper ad campaign whose only stated intent is to keep the war going? Hmmm. So, faster than you can say "military industrial complex", I was on a computer trying to figure out the angle on these guys. "Oh cool" I thought gleefully, "I'll be the first to expose these bastards!"

So much for that. Lot's of people beat me to it, obviously.

But it's actually a little less glamorous than the senario I was envisioning, with layers and layers of front groups covertly funnelling money from the likes of Haliburton and Lockheed Martin to finance all this propaganda by Freedom's Watch. No, no! Why so much sneaking around when nobody will even care except a bunch of liberal politicos, and they're already a lost cause?

No, the funding is right up front, and it reads like a list of who's who of American Mega-Industrialists, and Bush fundraisers. Surprise, surprise.

Freedom's Watch masquerades as some kind of grass-roots organization, calling themselves a "group of Americans who are concerned about freedom." But again, this is Bush's inner circle, exclusively.

This is remniscent of Bush's fake newscasts from a few years back, wherein, the administration produced fake taxpayer-funded newscasts on several issues he was trying to promote at the time.

Fake Grassroots movements? Fake news media? Dude, where's my country?

Kucinick Wins Democratic Debates!

2007-08-19T21:37:00.000-07:00

Apparently, I wasn't the only one who thought so. Click here and vote to see the results.

Is Barry Bond's new record tainted by drug allegations?

2007-08-15T20:32:00.000-07:00

Who cares?

Dog Fighting Bad, Industrial Animals Worse

2007-08-15T19:25:00.000-07:00

Frank Deford is a senior writer for Sports Illustrated, author, and commentator. NPR recently aired a commentary by Deford in which he discusses the much publicized dog fighting charges recently brought against Michael Vick of the Atlanta Falcons. He condemns Vick's actions, calling them "heinous", and then goes on to point out that Vick's is not a unique case in America. Animal fighting is rampant. Deford takes the opportunity to spotlight other examples of what he calls, "animal torture amusements". Language like that is usually reserved for use by proponents of animal rights of the "activist" variety. It is refreshing to hear a Sports Illustrated writer use those words. The "animal torture amusements" to which he refers include so-called "canned hunting", in which so-called "sportsmen" are taken to a "shooting preserve" in order to kill penned animals. Pathetic? Yes. Twisted? I think so. Illegal? In some states. "Canned hunting" is a favorite past time of a well-known public figure, Dick Cheney. The fact that a drunken Cheney shot his friend on that infamous "hunting trip" over-shadowed the also note-worthy fact that they were at an establishment in which they hand picked the birds that they wished to shoot, were driven, in the same vehicle as those birds, and then waited, guns at the ready, as the birds were released from their cages.

Dick Cheney kills things for fun. But we knew that already.

Deford's commentary went on to discuss "internet hunting ranges", in which perverted gargoyles can take on-line control of a real rifle, wait for an animal to walk by, and kill it. The animal's head will then be shipped to them.

One marvels at the evil of people like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc. But the truth is, that kind of evil is all around us. Fortunately, most people just aren't that powerful.

I like Frank Deford. While I don't follow sports, his writing is entertaining, and he usually manages to inject a fair amount of insightful social commentary when writing about sports. Remarkable. He'll even go as far as to say that Sports fans take things way too seriously and that there are more important things to be concerned with... and SI keeps him around!

But there is glaring hypocrisy in Deford's condemnation of Michael Vick, or at least glaring omission. Dog fighting, and unethical "hunting" practices account for such an infinitesimally small fraction of total "animal torture amusements", (to use Frank's words) in America today. Industrial meat production is much bigger, and much worse.

Given the choice, I would much rather live my life walking around a "shooting preserve" munching grass until, one day, a truck drives up sticks a gun out the window and then BAM-I'm -history, than to live in a miserable cage in which I can't even move until the very day that I'm fat enough to slaughter.

Bear in mind, meat is "amusement" in that it is not necessary for survival, and indeed, is less healthy than non-flesh-based foods.

Deford is to be commended for his stance against certain kinds of animal cruelty. Yet it is breath-taking that he chooses to over-look the biggest animal cruelty problem in the world, simply because he indulges in it.

Anit-gay, Gay Legislator Bob Allen says "blacks" made him do it

2007-08-06T20:39:00.000-07:00

Essentially, Allen says that there were a "large number of blacks" in the park in which he was arrested for soliciting sex from an undercover officer, and that's what made him do it. Yeah, I don't get it either.

If you haven't read the prior posts about Allen, he is a legislator from Florida who has a history of supporting anti-gay legislation, and recently got busted soliciting sex from a male undercover officer. Read about his latest pathetic claims of innocence here.

Allen's arrest marks yet another in a string of revelations in which anti-gay politicians and public figures turn out themselves to be gay. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

For the record, I think it's crazy that two consenting adults can't legally engage in a sex-for-money arrangement. Where is the constitutional basis for such laws? Marrying someone for money is not illegal, and, I would argue, is generally encouraged by society. I subscribe to the libertarian view that, with several important exceptions, nothing should be illegal unless it deprives another person of life, liberty, or property. Too bad Libertarians are usually such jerks or I might sign up.

Kucinich Wins Democratic Debates

2007-07-25T22:48:00.000-07:00

Now, America has an opportunity to elect a Great President for the first time in many decades.

Coming soon: Why the Democratic front-runners are not satisfactory candidates.

Bush's Colonoscopy

2007-07-21T08:02:00.000-07:00

...One of today's major headlines, apparently. WHY DO I NEED TO KNOW THIS?????

The Irony of Bush's "Torture Ban"

2007-07-20T18:07:00.000-07:00

Today, as you may have heard, the Bush administration released a new directive to CIA operatives that would ban "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" and "acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel and inhuman treatment."

Oddly, the declaration is being roundly criticized by human rights groups. Why?

Well, for a number of reasons. First, the directive does not represent a legal imperative. CIA operatives, for example, can't be prosecuted under it. Second, the statement is vague and could allow all sorts of abuse, depending on one's interpretation. The language certainly doesn't seem to include the kinds of abuse that are most commonly committed by US agents. It is clear that the Statement is not designed to prevent any act of detainee abuse, or to place restraints on interrogation techniques.

Why then, did the administration issue the directive?

The simplest explanation is that he is responding to public pressure, and that's probably part of it. I read some legal analysis that concluded that this directive may serve to protect CIA agents from prosecution for torturing detainees, though I'm not sure I get that. In any case, it's completely pathetic, and ultimately void of realistic effect.

It is, after all, clear that Bush has no humanitarian inclinations. If you'll remember, McCain tried to pass an anti-torture bill in 2005. It was on that bill that Bush made one of his famous "signing statements", in effect saying, "I'll sign this, but I don't have to abide by it."

Expanding the power to torture has been a cornerstone of this administration's policy, and that will be its legacy, along with a failed foreign policy.

The Congress shall not suspend the right of Habeas Corpus except during times of invasion or rebellion.

2007-07-17T11:39:00.000-07:00

So says the US Constitution. The Republican led Congress of 2006 enacted the Military Commissions Act, effectively suspending the right of Habeas, thus violating the US Constitution. Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)has introduced a Bill to restore Habeas in the United States. What a tragedy that the actions of the current administration neccessitated introducing such a Bill in America today.

Walnuts...

2007-07-17T11:01:00.000-07:00

I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I used to think of John McCain as a moderate, middle-of-the-road kinda guy. How wrong I was. The guy is a full-fledged whacko. Here's a funny post. A quote: "If McCain wants people to abstain from pre-marital sex -- and he opposes gay marriage -- does that mean McCain doesn't think gay people should ever have sex? Maybe one of the many gays working on his campaign can answer that question for us."

Indeed! We happen to know that at least one of them is, ahem... practicing.

Naugle should clean up his act

2007-07-17T10:55:00.000-07:00

Ft. Lauderdale's homophobic mayor gets flooded by rolls of toilet paper. Wanker.

Impeachment: The Conservative choice

2007-07-17T09:48:00.000-07:00

George Bush and Dick Cheney must be impeached.

As I have written before, this is not a political question, but a Constitutional imperative. Impeachment is not about "punishing" Bush, or even to prevent this administration from committing further violations of the law.

It is about preserving the framework of our democracy.

This administration has completely reconfigured the nature of the powers held by the executive branch. The constitution clearly defines and limits the powers held by the executive. Bush has claimed exemption from these limitations. The Constitution prescribes a course of action to be followed when an executive violates constraints on his power described therein. That prescription is Impeachment. It is not an option.

The powers that Bush has claimed for the executive set a precedent. Therefore, even if Bush himself did not abuse the right to torture, to spy on American citizens without a warrant, to detain anyone in the world indefinitely and without a trial, to susend the right of habeas corpus , and to conduct extraordinary renditions, a future President may now use those powers based on the precedent set by this administration.

Furthermore, these actions set an example internationally. Russia is now involved in a conflict with Chechan seperatists who have committed acts of terror. If Vladimir Putin claimed the same powers that Bush has claimed, Russian agents would be able to come to America, seize you from your home, take you to a secret detention facility, and torture you indefinitely, without ever giving you a trial, on mere suspicion that you may be supporting Chechan rebels. Is that the example that America should be setting for the world?

It is incredible to me that today many Americans have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles upon which this country was built, that they would say, "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about." Hundreds of detainees have been released from Guantanamo after the administration has failed to find any evidence against them. Many remain there in spite of a lack of evidence. There have been many tragic stories like that of Khaled El-masri. Without judicial oversight, nothing prevents the government from illegally abducting you from whatever reason it wants. That's fundamentally un-American. If you're not doing anything wrong, why don't you favor having a military squad search every home in America once a month? That would certainly lower the crime rate.

Bush and Cheney swore an oath to "support and defend the constitution of the United States". In this they have failed. Please contact your representatives and senators and urge them to support impeachment.

Yet another anti-gay, gay legislator... and since when is prostitution "pro-family"?

2007-07-12T19:16:00.000-07:00

That settles it. Any politician who supports an anti-gay agenda must immediately be suspect of being in the closet. Such is the case with Representative Bob Allen (R-FL) who was busted soliciting sex from a male undercover officer in a Florida bathroom today.

Ironically, Allen sponsored a bill that would have enhanced Florida's laws banning sex in public areas. He also supported an amendment to the Florida constitution that would ban gay marriage, and has opposed a bill to discorage bullying of gay students.

I've said it before: just being a gay politician doesn't make you deserving of being outed, but if you are an anti-gay, gay politician, you richly deserve to burn.

And this...

Senator David Vitter (R-LA), who campaigned on "Family Values" and against gay marriage, just got busted for soliciting prostitutes by none other than Larry Flynt (editor, Hustler magazine), who commented, "You have people that don't have an ounce of the character that I have who are running our government."

Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh... who's next?

Impeach Cheney... for crying out loud

2007-07-07T05:38:00.000-07:00

I honestly don't see why there is a stronger argument for impeaching Cheney rather than Bush, but it seems that Cheney impeachment has the momentum for now. There are at least several dozen actions committed by the administration that would Constitutionally require impeachment.

This is not a political question. The US Constitution prescribes a course of action to be followed when officials commit high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not optional.

Please register your support here.

Dale Jones

2007-06-29T21:43:00.000-07:00

Dale Jones is an idiot, and very likely, a homosexual.

Top High School students oppose torture

2007-06-27T16:18:00.000-07:00

President Bush invited the 2007 Presidential scholars class to the White House on Monday to supposedly congratulate them, and to have them participate in a promotional event for reauthorizing his "No Child Left Behind" program.

First of all, this is just a funny situation. The Presidential Scholars are a group of the smartest high school students in the country. This is like Forrest Gump addressing a gathering of astrophysicists. One can't expect Bush to understand what a bad idea this was, but you would think his handlers would.

At the conclusion of the event, one of the students handed Bush a hand-written letter, signed by 50 of the participants, urging the President to "do all in your power to stop violations of the human rights of detainees, to cease illegal renditions, and to apply the Geneva Convention to all detainees, including those designated enemy combatants", and that "We have been told that we represent the best and brightest of our nation. Therefore, we believe we have a responsibility to voice our convictions. We do not want American to represent torture.” Bush, feigning surprise, said that the US has never been engaged in any of those practices. Why on Earth would they think such a thing... other than its common knowledge to everyone in the world, except, apparently, George Bush. This is increasingly pathetic. The letter sent Whitehouse staff into full damage-control mode, issuing absurd statements rebuking the assertions made in the students' letter. Truly heart-warming, indeed.

The event was particularly poignant in the context of the White house press conference, earlier that same day, with Dana Perino, wherein Ms. Perino flatly denied that the US was involved in torture in any way. This assertion was met with amazed indignation by the press corps. When confronted with the argument that US agents routinely engage in methodologies that have been defined as torture since 1901, Perino said that she would not comment on specific practices used by US agents "to obtain information from terrorists".

But what about those methods used on people who aren't terrorists and have never been accused of any crime, Ms. Perino?

Anyway, I thought this was a beautiful story, and it gives me a minuscule morsel of faith in the next generation of leaders.

here is a video of 3 of the students talking about the letter on CNN.

Bong Hits for the First Ammendment

2007-06-26T12:20:00.000-07:00

On June 24, 2002, Joseph Frederick was one among several students who unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska. They were among a group of students gathered to watch the Olympic torch pass by that morning. The Principal of the High School, Deborah Morse, ran across the street (off school property), confiscated the sign, and suspended Frederick for 10 days. Frederick sued for violations of his First Amendment rights. The case wound its way through he system to the US Supreme court.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in Morse vs. Frederick in favor of Morse, the school principal, in a 5-4 decision along normal lines, reversing the lower court's decision.

Now, I feel a little strange calling attention to this case in light of everything else going on in the world, but we're talking about a Supreme Court decision concerning one of the most fundamental rights enshrined in the US Constitution. A right whose foundation is being dismantled before our eyes by the current executive branch and, it appears, the Supreme Court itself.

And it's not so much the decision, per se, that bothers me. It's the spectacular apathy among American citizens about a ruling that some legal scholars have called "the most important free-speech case in 20 years." Secondly, it's the fact that we now have a majority in the Supreme Court whose loyalty lies somewhere other than protecting the basic Constitutional rights of the fore mentioned apathetic populous. Third, it's a funny case. How often does that happen? Frederick is either a great champion of free-speech rights in America, or the most successful high-school prankster in the history of the world, or both.

Again, the details in this case are a bit fuzzy, so I don't have a very strong opinion about the ruling. The majority opinion hinges on the assumption that the gathering across from the school was a "school- sanctioned event". The validity of this assumption is disputed. It sounds to me like this was more of an informal gathering of school students. One piece of evidence supporting this is that Frederick was officially "Truant" at the time the event occurred. Frankly, I don't understand why this wasn't the central question: was it a school event or wasn't it? The majority opinion seems to ignore this question and is basically as follows: "Schools have a right to limit speech that seems, to a reasonable person, to encourage illegal drug use." Remarkably, the majority went on to say that if the banner contained serious political speech such as "Legalize Marijuana", it would have been protected.

The minority argued that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is not a serious endorsement of illegal drug use, but a joke, and that no student is more likely to use drugs as a result of seeing the banner.

I might argue that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" just might constitute serious speech in a satirical sense. Satire is, after all, recognized to be a serious form of political speech in America today. Admittedly, were this serious commentary, it would be quite cryptic. But I think there is indeed a very thin line between serious political commentary and nonsense. Who decides?

Also, when I heard about the ruling, the thought occurred to me that the burden should fall on the Limiter of speech (in this case, the school) to prove that the speech is harmful. That is, they need to prove that this particular drug, marijuana, is harmful, and not just illegal drugs in general, in order to demonstrate a compelling need to limit speech.

I certainly didn't think that any of the Justices would bring that up, but I was wrong. Justice Stevens: "Reaching back still further, the current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans' views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana,9 and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product,10 lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting--however inarticulately--that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely."

Also, from the 9th circuit court's written opinion, "The issue of "illegal" drug use is a little complicated under Alaska law. Alaska has an express constitutional right to privacy that the federal constitution does not have. The Alaska Supreme Court has held unanimously that the state had the burden of justifying its statute prohibiting marijuana use, and "no adequate justification for the state's intrusion into the citizen's right to privacy by its prohibition of possession of marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in the home has been shown." ... Frederick was an adult citizen of Alaska, not a minor, at the time he displayed the sign."

Hopefully that means I wasn't too off-base.

But again, I think the main question in this case is whether or not this was a school event. The 9th Circuit court, which ruled in favor of Frederick, wrote "Frederick's banner... was displayed outside the classroom, across the street from the school, during a non-curricular activity that was only partially supervised by school officials. It most certainly did not interfere with the school's basic educational mission. "

The last thing I'd like to point out about this case is that it represented yet another opportunity for Justice Clarence "The Government derives its right to rule from God" Thomas to demonstrate his breath-taking idiocy and total hostility toward the First amendment. Basically, Thomas said that students don't have any free speech rights, ever, and that this ruling is good only to the extent that it takes another step toward further limiting free-speech rights for students. This is the same dude who Universally opposes racial quotas in Colleges and Affirmative Action, even though he has personally benefited from both. He certainly couldn't have made it to the Supreme Court on his own merits.

Another Bush appointee exhibits incredible incompetence Part XXII

2007-06-11T22:50:00.000-07:00

Sure, there is probably a better title for this post, but I'm a lazy guy. That title would most likely work for most of the Newspaper headlines in America today, so hey, it works for me.

Bush just nominated James Holsinger to be the next Surgeon General of the United States. Now, if precedent serves a predictor of what kind of guy he is, one might suspect that he is inclined to ignore science and betray his responsibilities as America's primary health policy official, in favor of pursuing an ideological agenda, which might happen to closely mirror that of the President. Well, if one might suspect that, one would be correct.

Holsinger has a long history of bigotry against gay people, claiming that "gay activity is unnatural and unhealthy" and is a "lifestyle choice". The second assertion flies in the face of everything science now understands about homosexuality. He also founded a church whose mission included "curing" gay people of their "pathology".

As an individual who is alienated from modern medical and psychological science, Holsinger is not suitable to be the next Surgeon General. Please contact your senator and express your view that the Surgeon General of the United States must be someone who respects and recognizes medical science.

Another Bush Appointee exhibits incredible incompetence

2007-05-31T20:51:00.000-07:00

NPR aired an interview with NASA Senior Administrator, Michael Griffin, this morning. I was not paying attention at the time, but Heather was, and from the other room I heard her say, "What the hell is this guy talking about?"

"What was it?", I asked.

"Jesus! Just listen to it." she said. So earlier today, I streamed the interview from NPR.
Then I read a little about this Michael D. Griffin.

The first (and only?) thing you need to know about him is that he is a George W. Bush appointee, and bears the characteristics of such. We already know about Bush's inclination to reserve his political appointments for those on whom he can depend for tenacious loyalty to himself, and a spectacular lack of concern for seemingly anything else, including that for which their appointed position obligates them to have concern; i.e. Alberto Gonzalez, Julie McDonald, Phillip Cooney, etc. the Eight recently fired US attorneys know this all too well. I guess he also over-estimated John Ashcroft's capacity for mindless loyalty and corruption, amazingly enough.

Here is a quote from the Michael Griffin interview, "I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

He thinks it is arrogant for people to think that human beings shouldn't change the climate? That is mind-blowing. Is it not rather arrogant to express the opinion that one species (human beings) has the right to change the climate for all other species with whom we share this planet? Is it not arrogant to express an opinion that is starkly contrary to that of virtually all other climate and ecological scientists? Is it not arrogant, and tremendously reckless, to express the opinion that it is okay for us to dramatically change environmental conditions on Earth for our descendants for centuries to come? Also, nobody is saying that this "is the best climate". They are saying that if the climate continues changing on its current trajectory, environmental catastrophes are likely to occur. How grossly disingenuous of Griffin.

There's more, "First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown."

What a spectacularly inane statement. Griffin deserves to be dismissed for submitting such a ludicrous, and frankly, ignorant, statement to the public forum. Yes, the climate has been changing since the dawn of the Earth, but climate changes of this magnitude take place over millenia, not decades.

Secondly, the statement is just stupid. It implies that humans have been trying not to change the climate during human history, or that we've had the capacity to change the climate forever, or something?? I'm clueless. Also, human beings have been on this planet for about 250,000 years, not "millions of years". Hello?

This moron is the head of NASA??? He is par for the course for the kind of gross incompetence Bush has committed to public service and to recieve our tax dollars.

Darth Benedict XVI Addresses South America

2007-05-26T20:13:00.000-07:00

Well, he was a member of the Hitler Juengen (Hitler Youth), so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at most of what he does. I just wish the College of Cardinals would have voted in a Latin American or African Pope (since that is where the majority of catholics live) so I wouldn't have to get pissed off so often and then be worried that my protestant, little, self will be labeled anti-catholic for thinking (and saying, very loudly) that Darth Benedict XVI is piece of shit that I want to punch in the face!
So... What has he done other than interfere in my political process by saying catholic politicians should be excommunicated if they don't support catholic doctrine in their legislative voting?
See that BS here.
As an American, I feel that that in itself might just be enough for some "shock and awe" on Vatican City. Hey! Don't we want to fight theocracy and spread democracy? I don't want these extremists manipulating elected Representatives' votes with their threats! And womens' issues....don't get me started!
But, what is at hand is what Benny16 (the name he uses while chatting with young boys online) said about bringing Jesus to the heathen Injuns. And I quote, "For them, it meant knowing and welcoming Christ, the unknown God whom their ancestors were seeking, without realizing it, in their rich religious traditions. Christ is the Saviour for whom they were silently longing."
Unfortunately, they didn't know that their longing would bring disease, rape, slavery, the theft of their land, and the destruction of most of what they knew and held dear. But Cortez and Pizarro were really giving them what they silently longed for. I know that I silently long for a Spaniard raping my daughter in front of me before he kills me and steals my land, because my descendants (from the rape of my daughter) will get to go to heaven. Awesome! Thank you conquistador! You rock! DarthBenny16 says so.
Read the whole speach here.

Darth Cheney addresses West Point Grads

2007-05-26T19:13:00.000-07:00

Why am I surprised; at what he says or that most Americans have such a lack of education in basic history that they are willing to believe what he says? What appalls me most, is that the men and women who are going to be leading our military in the Middle East, are assumed to have such a lack of history education that the Vice President feels that he can make these remarks. I can understand him assuming that your average American is an idiot, but West Point grads?

A few quotes......
"America is fighting this enemy in Iraq because that is where they have gathered. We are there because, after 9/11, we decided to deny terrorists any safe haven."
"Their ultimate goal is to establish a totalitarian empire, a caliphate, with Baghdad as its capital."

If you are not exactly sure why these statements are inaccurate, reply and I will post more with details. Right now I am too beyond belief to even want to try.

Here is the whole transcript if you want these quotes in context.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070526-1.html

US Iraq study Group proposes measures to Insure iraq's oil reserves are exploited by International Oil Corporations

2007-05-24T19:39:00.000-07:00

The Iraq supplemental spending bill, expected to pass the House tomorrow, includes provisions which define, as benchmarks, the privatization by multi-national oil companies, of Iraq's oil reserves. This represents the first step in securing the real spoils of this war. As I recall, some have speculated that securing Iraq's oil was the whole reason we entered this tragic conflict. Am I mistaken?

Dennis Kucinich stands alone in opposing this criminal act. You'll be hearing more about him from me in the near future.

Guantanamo Bad; Patriot Act Worse

2007-05-24T18:44:00.001-07:00

I don't know much about Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). One thing I do know is that he is the first Senator to introduce legislation to set a time line for closing Guantanamo detention center.

What took so long? Why have Democrats had Congressional majorities for months now and nobody has gotten around to introducing a bill like this? Sure, they're busy folks, but jeez, what are aids for? Are they too busy trying to raise the minimum wage? A noble cause, for sure, but it pales a bit when compared to the fact that the US has operated the illegal facility in Guantanamo for years now. The facility casts deep shame on America by holding people without charge and torturing them. The shear existence of Guantanamo Bay has stripped the US of the its former stature int he world community. The justification for continuing to hold many of these individuals seems to be, "Well, they weren't terrorists to begin with, it seems, but now they're so pissed of at America, they probably will be now." Or even better, "We can't seem to figure out who this person is."

While I am delighted by Harkin's Bill, and I must assume it will pass, I would have been much more impressed with a Bill that repealed the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. Both acts, especially the latter, are opposed by almost all Democrats and many Republicans. What's the problem, guys? Too busy changing rules for Congressional lobbyists (again, a noble cause) to bother doing something about the dismantling of core Constitutional principles and International standards of Human rights?

In closing, I'm loosing my patience with Democrats in Congress.

Oh yeah, please contact your representatives urging them to support Senator Harkin's Bill.

Why complain about high gas prices?

2007-05-23T21:14:00.000-07:00

Personally, it is annoying to have a greater percentage of my family income going into my gas tank, but let's look at the bigger picture. I'll do this next bit in Don Rumsfeld mode...

Am I annoyed by high gas prices? Yes.
Is it goofy that I ask myself questions in public addresses? Maybe.
Does it bother me that oil companies are making record profits while the middle/lower class is getting squeezed and the administration enables and promotes this? Sure, but what else is new?
Is the middle/lower class consumer willing to purchase energy efficient vehicles or support investigation into alternative energy sources unless fossil fuel prices are astronomically high or the world experiences catastrophic environmental calamities? Apparently not.
Are petroleum companies shooting themselves in the foot by manipulating the market to inflate gas prices, as this will hopefully result in behavioral changes in the population? I hope so.

Is the unknown unknowable? I think so.
Are unknowables known to be potentially knowable in systems that promote universal knowing in heretofore unknowable capacities? Leave me alone!

I guess that, for now, I'm in favor of high gas prices. Humans, as a whole, seem incapable of the kind of thinking that proactively solves environmental problems. Birmingham has the fourth worst air quality in the nation. Our asthma rate is sky-rocketing. If that doesn't get people to buy efficient vehicles and support legislation to explore alternative, non-polluting energy, maybe high gas prices will.