The animal rights movement comes to Birmingham

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

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

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

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.

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

-Dennis Kucinich on President Bush

Oops. Listening... again.

"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

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

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.

"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.

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.

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

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!

The Decline

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?

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!

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?

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...

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

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

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...

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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!

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?

Who cares?

Dog Fighting Bad, Industrial Animals Worse

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

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

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

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

The Irony of Bush's "Torture Ban"

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.

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...

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

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

Impeachment: The Conservative choice

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"?

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

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

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

Top High School students oppose torture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

Bush's Greenhouse Gas Directive: Complete Crap

George Bush has universally opposed measures that would reduce CO2 emissions. His problem with such measures is simple: In order to reduce CO2, you must reduce fossil fuel consumption. But reducing fossil fuel consumption would, it seems, inherently reduce oil company profits, and that of course, simply won’t do.

But this week, Bush issued a directive instructing the EPA to draft rules that would reduce CO2 emissions. The EPA rules must be completed by the end of 2008, weeks before Bush leaves office.

Interesting. Has Bush seen the light? Become a new man? Decided to stand up to the Oil companies once and for all? Or has he simply admitted defeat?

None of the above, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Recently, the Bush administration argued before the Supreme Court, that the EPA did not have the authority to regulate CO2. Simultaneously, the EPA said that even if they did have that authority, they would not seek to exercise it. The Court found that the EPA must regulate CO2 if it is determined to be a threat to public health. (If it strikes you as bizarre that the administration was arguing that the EPA can not, and should not, address this environmental threat to public health, Congratulations on being at least half-conscious)

Thus, Bush’s greenhouse gas directive was a legal imperative. He had no choice. Unfortunately, the court failed to direct the President to abstain from grand-standing; taking full credit for being a forward thinking visionary who’s fulfilling his commitment to public health and the environment by doing what had to be done, my fellow Americans!

While the Supreme Court’s ruling is encouraging, the thing to remember is that the EPA (Bush’s EPA, mind you) has been directed to come up with a plan only. This is a plan of the Environmental Protection Agency. This is only a plan. If this had been a real action by the Bush Administration, you would have been directed to the nearest medical facility for pulmonary resuscitation.

There is nothing to see here. Please move along.

The EPA will not come up with a plan. They will come up with a ball of shit. Weeks thereafter, Bush will be out of office, and it will be the job of a new president to come up with, God help us, a meaningful course of action, and Bush’s stall tactic will have worked.

The Democrats are introducing several bills to expedite rules on CO2 emissions.

Toast!

Alberto Gonzalez
Julie MacDonald
Paul Wolfowitz

They're all Toast!

... and that's just off the top of my head. Who else is toast?

Wow!

Wow!

I mean, just, Wow!

If you haven't read about James Comey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the US Attorney firings, read it here. And even if you did hear about it, I'd recommend reading about it again. From NPR, "One senator called it some of the most dramatic testimony he's heard in 25 years as a legislator."

The most striking fact that came out in the testimony was that the domestic surveillance program was, in its original form, unacceptable to John Ashcroft and James Comey. THAT MEANS THAT BUSH WANTED THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROGRAM TO BE MORE INVASIVE AND MORE ILLEGAL THAN THEY BECAME IN THEIR FINAL FORM. The program that was found to be illegal by every court that has considered it is a HEAVILY SCALED-BACK version of what Bush wanted.

It was, therfore, perfectly clear to George Bush that what he wanted to do was completely and undeniably illegal. It took a legion of Federal lawyers threatening to resign to convince him to alter his plan.

John Ashcroft apparently told George Bush that he wasn't signing off on this illegal program. That means that John Fucking Ashcroft has some measure of respect for the law which is in significant excess of that which the President possesses. I can't decide if that makes me dislike Ashcroft less or dislike Bush more. Both seem impossible. Maybe my head will implode.

The testimony provoked Arlen Specter (R: PN) to remark, "The department really cannot function with the continued leadership, or lack of leadership, of Attorney General Gonzales".

I mean... wow.