The Radical Moderate

Moved from Blogger to WordPress, for control and features

2006-04-09T10:48:00.000-07:00

Blogger is great to get your feet wet, but when you want more control and features, you've gotta move on.

This is a quick update, perhaps the final post I will ever make on my old Blogger blog.

I moved to a the WordPress blogging system last year. BUT - WordPress is SO powerful as a content management system (supplemented by plugins) that I ALSO ended up converting my business website to WordPress!!!

Come visit me on my WordPress -based websites, and check out the WordPress-related articles on each site.

The business site that just got converted to WordPress (from old-fashioned HTML) is at TimsLaw.com.

My blog is now at RadMod.com.

Both sites run off the WordPress blogging and light content management system.

In particular, pay attention to TimsLaw.com. I use plugins better on TimsLaw, such as keyword tags and dynamic sitemaps. On RadMod, I don't use keywords yet - I use the WordPress "Category" feature to organize the info.

Radical Moderate has MOVED to www.RadMod.com

2005-04-25T04:59:00.000-07:00

GOOD NEWS for those who follow this blog.

Visit the NEW Radical Moderate blog site
.

The NEW Radical Moderate site uses different software that allows Categorization of posts, and has a nice search feature, and is much more customizeable and controllable by me.

So click this link and Visit the NEW Radical Moderate blog site.

Of course, you can stay here or Blogger if you want. All the old posts are still around. You just CAN'T FIND THEM CAUSE THERE ARE NO FREAKIN CATEGORIES ALLOWED. All the posts are organized only by DATE, not the very logical CATEGORY form of organization you will find at The Radical Moderate.

Come on over.

Transfer just about ready for prime time

2005-04-23T13:09:00.000-07:00

FINALLY! I finally figured out how to get posts out of Blogger and into Wordpress.

I just need to tweak the default Wordpress template a little, and I'll have new blogging 4U.

Thanks for patience.

Transfer Hell - Can't escape Blogger

2005-04-22T05:39:00.000-07:00

I've been spending some time lately trying to transfer my blog out of Blogger and into another format with more flexibility. Failing miserably.

I'm working with WordPress, Movable Type and Blosxom.

So far, I can't get the posts OUT of Blogger and INTO the other programs.

And there are other setup issues with each of those other programs.

I WISH Blogger would integrate CATEGORIES --- then I would NOT want to be moving my blog.

Sorry for few posts lately.

I really am trying to make the blog BETTER, though. Be patient for a little longer.

New Pope helped elect Bush -- Bush's pre-election appeal to Vatican for help

2005-04-21T04:44:00.000-07:00

When you read the details of Ratzinger's instructions about Catholics and pro-choice candidates, there is room for Catholics to vote Democratic.

There is not much room for politicians to be pro-choice and Catholic, but there is room to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Bush was unafraid of a potential backlash from Catholics offended by Ratzingers instructions. Why would Bush be unafraid? I guess he had done enough polling (Rove and company of course) and knew the backlash would not be as strong as the vote among the faithful, or that liberal Catholics might just stay home rather than vote pro-choice.

Anyway, Bush and Rove called it right, and Ratzinger helped out a bit at Bush's request, it appears.

Salon.com | Holy warriors: "President Bush treated his final visit with Pope John Paul II in Vatican City on June 4, 2004, as a campaign stop. After enduring a public rebuke from the pope about the Iraq war, Bush lobbied Vatican officials to help him win the election. 'Not all the American bishops are with me,' he complained, according to the National Catholic Reporter. He pleaded with the Vatican to pressure the bishops to step up their activism against abortion and gay marriage in the states during the campaign season.

About a week later, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to the U.S. bishops, pronouncing that those Catholics who were pro-choice on abortion were committing a 'grave sin' and must be denied Communion."

Tax hell - Estate tax repeal for the rich turns into a death tax INCREASE for the MIDDLE CLASS ---- SUPRISE!!!!

2005-04-20T12:45:00.000-07:00

An estate planner write over at DailyKOS (excerpted below) about how the repeal of the estate tax (the tax that only 2% of Americans ever had to pay), has morphed into a middle class inheritance tax increase because inherited stocks and investments will now be taxable.

Welcome to the REALITY of where the Republican loyalty lies.

Daily Kos :: Confessions of a Former Dittohead: The Death of an Otherwise Good Tax:

[snip]

"What's worse is that under the new tax law everyone will face a new form of the estate tax. Please enjoy another hypothetical. Let's say mom and dad owned $100,000 worth of Ford stock that they originally paid $1,000 for 30 years ago. If they were to sell the stock while they were alive, they'd pay capital gains on the $99,000 of growth, so let's say mom and dad never sell it. Mom and dad bite the bullet and leave everything to their kids. Their total estate is less than the federal exemption amount, so they don't owe any estate taxes.

So the kids inherit the $100,000 of Ford stock tax free. But mom and dad bought all the kids xr4ti's when they turned 16, and since that car was such a piece of crap none of them want to keep the Ford stock. (Despite claims on the Internet to the contrary, the xr4ti was a complete piece of crap) They all sell the stock as soon as they can, and pocket the $100,000.

So how much do the kids owe in taxes? Their parents only paid $1,000 for it back in the day, so conventional wisdom says they'll have to pay taxes on the $99,000 of growth. But in this case conventional wisdom would be wrong. Under the old estate tax rules, people inherited property with a `stepped-up basis,' meaning the cost basis to the inheritor was the value of the property when mom and dad died. That may sound confusing, but it really isn't. The bottom line is if the stock was worth $100,000 when mom and dad died, you inherit it as though you paid $100,000 for the stock.

Great rule, right? Well, bad news. When the estate tax dies, so does this rule. Whatever your parents paid for the stock--that's your cost basis. If you sell that Ford stock for a hundred grand, you'll pay capital gains on the $99,000 in growth (figure between $15,000-$20,000 in taxes).

Under the old system this typical middle-class scenario would generate no revenue for the federal government. Under the new law, the government's gonna get $15,000-$20,000. Oh, and guess what? Under the old system only 2% of estates were susceptible to the tax. But under the new system, anyone who owns stock and tries to pass it on to their kids will be affected. And here's the finisher--over 50% of Americans currently own stock.

So instead of having a completely avoidable tax that affects only 2% of Americans, we'll have an unavoidable tax that will affect over 50% of Americans! And many middle-class families are clamoring for this tax to be repealed. Sometimes you just have to stand back and marvel at how good the right-wing is at convincing people to act counter to their own best interest! It's like an Orwellian wet dream. Winston Smith is begging to have that rat cage slapped on his face. "Come on! It'll be good for me! Do it!"

[snip]

Bush's SocSec proposal a threat to working class members of his own evangelical supporter base

2005-04-20T04:16:00.000-07:00

Bloomberg interviews a couple of evangelical leaders, Wildmon and Bauer, who complain a little bit about how Bush is not making "Banning Gay Marriage" his number one priority.

And they are admitting that Bush's Social Security proposals are causing some concern among their working class flocks, and requesting that Bush place some benefit guarantees into his proposal.

I'm waiting to see what the religious leaders are going to say about the bankruptcy reform bill just passed, when their working class flock finds that it's much harder to get debt relief now.

Evangelicals Cool to Bush's Focus on Social Security Accounts

"Voters who identify themselves as conservative Christians were a crucial part of the coalition that gave Bush a second term and Republicans a bigger majority in Congress. Some evangelical leaders, though not all, now express dismay with both Bush's priorities and his Social Security proposal, which they say could hurt their predominantly working class constituency.

``We're wising up to the fact that we're very important nine months before an election and we're not very important nine days after that election,'' said Don Wildmon, 67, an ordained minister who is chairman of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Mississippi.

There is ``a lot of disappointment'' among those who voted for Bush expecting him to make his primary focus in a second term a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and other social values issues, Wildmon said."

Fillibuster rule is the last firebreak preventing a flood of theocratic legislation

2005-04-20T03:55:00.000-07:00

Here's a pice of fearmongering from the left, about the theocracy movement. I think it's overblown (I hope it is anyway), but I present it to show the fear that has developed in some quarters.

It would be nice if the all-powerful Republicans would at least try to appear more mainstream and respectful of our history of pluralism and tolerance.

But instead, the most vocal Republicans continue to harangue and preach in such a way that the scenario outlined in the excerpted piece does not seem so far fetched.

You would think we'd learn something from the experience of the Muslim nations, so that we'd be careful to avoid even the appearance of religious dominance of government.

t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt on The Theocrats and the Fillibuster Rule:
"If Frist and the Theocrats are able to do away with this last lingering firebreak, the Theocrats will have a wide-open highway on which to drive through the most terrifying aspects of their agenda. The despicable invasion of privacy that was the Schiavo mess will be a forgotten footnote compared to what will come if Frist and the Theocrats have their way with the filibuster.

Imagine this scenario: A bill is introduced in the House to require children to say the Lord's Prayer each morning in every American public school. Arguments in favor of American pluralism and freedom of (and from) religion fall on deaf ears. Thanks to the massive GOP majority in the House, the bill is passed and reaches the Senate, where outraged Democrats are powerless to stop it without the filibuster. It passes there, and is placed on the desk of Mr. Bush, who happily signs away yet another barrier separating the church and the state.

Crazy, right? Wrong. This is a benign hypothetical compared to the draconian legislation the Theocrats would like to see passed. Should they get their way, you will not be safe in person, thought or deed if any of these cut against the fundamentalist grain. America won't become a land of bourkas and beheadings, probably, but if you don't have a Bible in your hand at all times, you'll probably lose your job and credit rating. For starters.

Frist and the Theocrats do not have the destruction of the filibuster sewn up quite yet, however. The GOP has a 55-44 majority in the Senate, with Jeffords the Independent caucusing with the Democrats. 51 Senators are needed to kill the filibuster. The Democrats can count on all 44 of their Senators to oppose, and can likewise count on Jeffords to do the same. At this point, GOP Senators McCain and Chafee have also stated they will oppose the action.

Seven GOP Senators are on the fence: Collins and Snowe of Maine, Hagel of Nebraska, Lugar of Indiana, Murkowski of Alaska, Specter of Pennsylvania, and Warner of Virginia. Whoever convinces a majority of these undecided Senators will win the filibuster fight.

We have seen how ugly, bloody and dangerous things can get in other countries when religious extremists gain complete political supremacy. It can happen here. Unless it is stopped, right now, it will happen here."

Darkest Jungle of Conservatism - A paleo’s-eye view at the Star Trek convention of the American Right

2005-04-19T04:50:00.000-07:00

American Conservative Magazine reports the views of a conservative student who attended the 32nd annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

It's an interesting read, and shows a little more of the backlash developing against the narrow-minded crusaders who control the Republican Party.

He suggests that he is dismayed that so-called conservatives think you commit treason if you disagree with Bush.

He suggests that he is dismayed that so-called conservatives think you are Communist if you advocate peace.

He suggests that the modern "conservative movement" is actually a failure, because the movement seems only to be passionate about supporting Bush and his foreign policy, and in getting "Republicans" elected. Meanwhile, not much change occurs that could be called "conservative".

Party Crashing:

...

Neoconservative Marshall Wittmann derisively calls it the Star Trek convention for conservatives. While I have never been to a Star Trek convention (really!), from my second-hand impressions, this description is apt.

...

I walked into Miss Coulter’s speech halfway through and within 15 seconds I heard her utter “there’s a difference between free speech and treason” and promptly exited.

...

"Sam Francis, who died a few days before the conference, spent the last 15 years explaining why the conservative movement has been a failure. From the mood of most of the attendees at CPAC, you would not get that impression. Rather, they were exuberant, triumphalist. Republicans control both houses of Congress, the presidency, and the majority of the governorships across the country. Fox News and the Internet give the Right a voice alongside the traditionally liberal print and television media. But what very few would admit, or even care about, is that government is still getting bigger, abortion is no closer to being banned than it was 20 years ago, homosexual marriage seems to be inevitable, and immigration is inundating our country at unprecedented rates. If electing Republicans and waging wars is the gauge, then the movement has been a gleaming success. But if that becomes conservatism’s raison d’etre, we can pray for nothing more than its failure."

Theocracy talk - Dean attacks on Schiavo and the Theocrats, Republicans try to deny Schiavo was politics

2005-04-19T04:01:00.000-07:00

Republicans and their spinwits denied that Schiavo was a political issue, but then a staffer for Republican Senator Martinez admitted to circulating the infamous Schiavo Memo caliming that Schiavo was a great political issue.

Then when the general public backlashed against the Republilcans over Schiavo, the Republicans are running for cover.

Howard Dean is not pulling any punches, calling the Republicans Theocrats.

Republicans seem to know that the moderate voters do not like theocrats, yet they keep acting like theocrats as they exert their awesome power while in control of Congress and the White House.

Go get 'em Howie!

The excerpt below is from a DailyKOS thread, referencing an LaTimes article about Howie attacking over the Schiavo case, using the T-word.

Daily Kos :: When Democrats attack:

"Dean, a practicing physician until he became governor of Vermont in 1991, added: 'The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?'

And then there's this bonus zinger:

Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said Dean's 'outrageous remarks help underscore why Dean is the leader of the minority party.'

'Terri Schiavo was never about partisan politicking, but instead about a woman's life,' she said.

The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Florida) resigned this month after acknowledging he had written a memo calling the Schiavo case 'a great political issue' for Republicans.'

Science vs religion: Bird-like features in new Dinosaur discovery - Scientists find eggs in dinosaur mom

2005-04-18T07:03:00.000-07:00

New find in Therapod-type of dinosaur shows bird-like egg production features, not purely reptilian egg production features.

This is yet another clue that evolution occurs on the macro scale (species transformation).

And this is yet another challenge for the religious-science forces to have to deal with.

Remember that real science modified its theories to conform to real factual evidence.

Religious-science starts with a set of faith principles that are unalterable regardless of what real factual evidence is discovered. And religious-science then either disregards real factual evidence, or interprets those real facts so that those facts appear to fit within the unalterable religious principles.

Real scientists do not accept the scholarship of the religious scientists, generally speaking. Real scientists make progress in science by accepting the peer-reviewed and verifiable scholarship of other real scientists.

We advance real science by applying real scientific principles. We do not advance real science by subjecting facts to a religious test to see how those facts appear to fit within faith doctrines.

You are reading this text because of real science, including hundreds of years of mathematical advances. Those mathematical advances were anti-religion in the sense that the math suggested things about the universe that were a threat to faith, like the age of the universe, etc.

But the real mathematical scientists plodded ahead, despite the religious controversies, leading to the development of theories about electrons etc, leading to micro-circuitry and computers and television monitors and much more, and as a result you are reading this text.

CNN.com - Scientists find eggs in dinosaur mom - Apr 15, 2005: "Theropods, (which means 'fierce footed') were carnivorous, bipedal reptiles believed to be the ancestors of modern birds. The clues provided by the Chinese discovery suggest that the dinosaur had a reproductive system with some similarities to ancient reptiles and some to modern birds.

Like crocodiles and some other modern reptiles, this dinosaur had two ovaries and oviducts. But unlike crocodiles, which lay an average of 50 eggs at a time, the dinosaur had the birdlike characteristic of producing one larger, shelled egg at a time."

Understanding the "Constitution in Exile" movement, and the economic libertarian assault on the Commerce Clause

2005-04-17T05:28:00.000-07:00

I offer you today the chance to get down and dirty with a little legal theory for the masses. The NyTimes has a nine page magazine piece explaining in pretty good detail the Economic Libertarian movement, and its connections to the Republican Party, and its efforts to get sympathetic judges appointed. It's a great read, and will make you feel better informed, I promise.

Do you like Social Security?

Do you like the fact that there exists a set of labor laws that require at least a minimum wage, and mandate overtime pay?

Do you, in theory at least, accept that the Federal Government should have a Clean Water Act, and other environmental laws, and the power to enforce them?

Do you like it that we have a Securities and Exchange Commission to, in theory at least, keep an eye on the stockbrokers and stock markets?

Well, if you appreciate the value of those things (even if you disagree with some of their actions and specific policies), then you are not really on board yet with the "economic libertarian" wing of the Republican Party.

AND, you do not fully understand WHY the Republican Power Brokers are fighting so hard for the appointment of many controversial judges to the Federal courts.

A powerful wing of the Republican Party wants to revert our legal climate to where it was prior to the New Deal, and UNDO all the protective and regulatory legislation of the last 60 years, on constitutional theories.

If you were approaching the debate from a purely theoretical point of view, you might agree that our constitution does not REALLY give Congress the power to mandate clean water (for example).

BUT ----- Our environmental and social problems were SO SEVERE, and NOTHING was being done to fix them, so Congress stepped in under "Commerce Clause" of the US Constitution. The Commerce Clause give Congress the power to regulate Interstate Commerce. Huge legal battles were fought for 150 years over what "regulate" meant. The courts tended to forbid much regulation by Congress, until 1937.

In 1937 the Supreme Court kind of changed its tune (due to the massive social and economic problems that had developed due to no regulation), and permitted Congress to implement a lot of regulations in the name of "regulating interstate commerce".

A theoretical utopian Republican movement exists today, speculating that we could DO AWAY WITH much or all of the commerce clause regulations, and still be alright and prosperous. I call this movement "utopian" in the sense that they are delusional if they think they could create an heaven on earth. As the excerpted article points out, when Congress deregulated the Savings and Loan industry, the tycoons bilked many many billions out of the public in bailouts, while the tycoons got super-rich (that's just one example).

Remember that nature abhors a vacuum ---- when regulations end, greed and corruption enter. Greed and corruption CAUSED the regulations in the first place. Massive social problems stemming from unregulated greed and pollution and unfairness CAUSED Congress to keep trying to pass regulations in the early 20th Century.

The utopians want to TRY IT AGAIN --- They want to have the courts once again make it illegal for Congress to regulate things, TRUSTING BLINDLY that the good hearted tycoons will act appropriately for the good of mankind while being good capitalists. As we have seen with the deregulation of certain industries, it's hard to change human nature - human nature in the economic realm is worst than the utopians imagine.

The above (and the excerpted article) explains a bit about why I can call myself a "social libertarian" rather than a "libertarian". IF someone is socially and economically lilbertarian, they are out of touch with reality and are utopian in outlook.

But a social libertarian stands for individual liberty, despite supporting limits on economic liberty.

When the Republican Congress attacks government regulation, the Congress is espousing some form of economic libertarianism. I wonder why economic libertarianism and social libertarianism are mutually exclusive among Republicans? That's right --- IT sure seems like the MORE economically libertarian the Republicans become, the more anti-libertarian they become on the social side.

Here's how I've heard the Republicans explain the seeming incocnsistency between their economic libertarianism and their social anti-libertariansism: "We must have standards in society" (referring to regulation of social behavior).

But what about business standards? Shouldn't we have minimum standards for business behavior as well as minimum standards for social behavior? Standards for businesses are established under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

And so, I think the mainstream American agrees that some level of regulation of business is necessary to set minimum standards for business behavior. But the economic libertarian movement disagrees, and they are trying to pack the courts with like-minded judges, who they hope will strike down Federal laws.

For a discussion thread about the NyTimes piece, see Daily Kos :: Understanding the "Constitution in Exile" movement.

For the actual NyTimes piece, see The Unregulated Offensive.

The following is from the DailyKOS discussion thread:

Imagine that the interpretation of the Constitution was frozen in 1937. Imagine a country in which Social Security, job-safety laws and environmental protections were unconstitutional. Imagine judges longing for that. Imagine one of them as the next Supreme Court nominee.

As I've said in the past, the true ultra radicals want to destroy Congress's power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Should they ever realize such a dream, the consequences would be more dire than you could ever imagine. Rosen lays it out in full, chilling detail:

"Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago (and a longtime colleague of Epstein's), will soon publish a book on the Constitution in Exile movement called 'Fundamentally Wrong.' As Sunstein, who describes himself as a moderate, recently explained to me, success, as the movement defines it, would mean that 'many decisions of the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and possibly the National Labor Relations Board would be unconstitutional. It would mean that the Social Security Act would not only be under political but also constitutional stress."

"Many of the Constitution in Exile people think there can't be independent regulatory commissions, so the Security and Exchange Commission and maybe even the Federal Reserve would be in trouble. Some applications of the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act would be struck down as beyond Congress's commerce power.' In what Sunstein described as the 'extreme nightmare scenario,' the right of individuals to freedom of contract would be so vigorously interpreted that minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws would also be jeopardized."

Read the piece.

Dean: Do we want to live in a theocracy? Schiavo case to be used against GOP in elections

2005-04-16T16:48:00.000-07:00

Howard Dean was a good choice for chairman of the DNC - He's a Radical Moderate, just like yours truly (although he's more liberal on some issues - but that's acceptable to me).

Hees gonna come out swinging againt the theocrats, and yes - He isn't afraid to use the "T-word". See below.

I like it that the T-word is becoming mainstream. It truly highlights the key underlying difference between ordinary everyday Americans and the controlling force in the Republican Party.

The theocrats have become dominant in government, but they are not dominant in the hearts and minds of the people, and the common people who only picked up snippets of the right wing stuff (because of their busy lives) are now going to start being forced to confront the truth about the radical Republicans running our government. Howard Dean and the Democrats are going to harp on it incessantly, at least I hope so.

USATODAY.com - Dean: Schiavo case to be used against GOP elections: "WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has accused congressional Republicans of 'grandstanding' in the Terri Schiavo case, said his party will use it against the GOP in coming elections.

'This is going to be an issue in 2006, and its going to be an issue in 2008 because we're going to have an ad with a picture of (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?'' Dean said in West Hollywood, Calif.

... 'The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?''"

The "T" word: Bill Frist's Religious War - NyTimes uses the "T" (for Theocracy) word

2005-04-16T04:04:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry to see that even the NyTimes is referring to the Republican US Senate as trying to impose theocracy in one form or another.

Usually the NyTime does not use extreme rhetoric, even though they espouse liberal views on their editorial pages.

So I guess the NyTimes no longer considers it extreme to refer to the Republican Party as supporting theocracy, at least as regards to appointing judges who (the Republicans think) might uphold theocratic principles and laws.

The "T" word is entering common discourse.

The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: Bill Frist's Religious War: "EDITORIAL
Bill Frist's Religious War

Published: April 16, 2005

Right-wing Christian groups and the Republican politicians they bankroll have done much since the last election to impose their particular religious views on all Americans. But nothing comes close to the shameful declaration of religious war by Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, over the selection of judges for federal courts.

Senator Frist is to appear on a telecast sponsored by the Family Research Council, which styles itself a religious organization but is really just another Washington lobbying concern. The message is that the Democrats who oppose a tiny handful of President Bush's judicial nominations are conducting an assault 'against people of faith.' By that, Senator Frist and his allies do not mean people of all faiths, only those of their faith.

It is one thing when private groups foment this kind of intolerance. It is another thing entirely when it's done by the highest-ranking member of the United States Senate ...

[snip]

Senator Frist is determined to get judges on the federal bench who are loyal to the Republican fringe and, he hopes, would accept a theocratic test on decisions."

VLWC - KOS writes his observations of some wacky leftists at a VLWC conference

2005-04-15T00:48:00.000-07:00

Ah, there IS a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (VLWC) - a new book says so!

Actually I saw the author interviewed on The Daily Show a few nights ago.

The excerpt below, from DailyKOS, makes fun of some of the left wing wackos who were at a conference of activists. Turns out that the Left likes it that the Right thinks there is a VLWC.

Liberals are having fun embracing the idea of the VLWC.

"Mr. Kos" himself attended the VLWC conference and writes the article excerpted below, poking fun at unrealistic peace-leftists.

Among the wacky liberal groups, I don't think any of them are violent, although some call for civil disobedience.

Among the right wing, things are quite different. Not only do you have the groups who would like to kill other groups, you also have US Senators and major religious leaders making veiled threats of violence against judges. And you have talk show spinwits spouting dangerous words about how liberals and Democrats are "evil".

In sum, some wacky leftists are just too full of peace and love to be taken seriously - they are not too numerous. But wacky rightists are a real threat to the social order and must be taken seriously, because they are so numerous and vocal. When US Senators and major activists speak in violent tones, the wacky rightist crowd must be pretty damn big - not a fringe element at all.

Daily Kos :: Half-baked observations of a VLWC conference: "Last week I spent three days at a conference of various leaders of the budding VLWC, and it was, well, interesting. As happens at any such gathering, the networking was the greatest benefit. Met lots of good people. The sessions were too touchy-feely for me. I'm not a liberal who likes to talk about 'feelings'.

At one session, one participant told me 'we can achieve world peace if we just visualize it'. What the fuck? I jumped down the guy's throat -- 'When people were shooting it out in my front lawn in El Salvador, they didn't give a flying fuck about what you were visualizing. Neither do the warlords in Somalia, or in Darfur, or the insurgents in Iraq, or terrorists all over the world.'

Man, talk about idiots reinforcing the worst stereotypes about our side. Jeez. Fantasizing about eliminating the Defense Department isn't being part of the Reality Based Community. If that's the sort of thing you like to do, and are offended by my bluntness, then deal with it. Being a part of the reality based community means we must operate in -- you guessed it -- reality.

So there were the crazies, some of them in leadership positions of fairly prominent organizations. Fucking obnoxious, and clearly a reason why our side can seem out of touch."

Illinois gov enacts emergency order to stop crusading pharmacists from refusing to fill RXs for birth control

2005-04-15T00:33:00.000-07:00

I've written about the theocrats and their skirmish in our pharmacies, where pharmacists are refusing suddenly to fill scripts fro things like birth control pills to unmarried women, etc.

The new item excerpted below is 2 weeks old - I heard of the story but just now saw the news item.

I'll ask again: Will those crusading pharmacists be refusing to fill Viagra scripts for unmarried men? AND How will the crusaders verify marital status?

AND What warnings will be posted outside the building, so the general public knows that they entering a less-than-full-service pharmacy?

The public must be warned of course, otherwise crusading pharmacists are deceiving the public into thinking that the pharmacy is full service.

The main reason I get POd about stories like this is that the pharmacists seem to be rogue religious crusaders, imposing their religion on unsuspecting customers who are inconvenienced and insulted.

If I see a religious symbol on the outside sign of a pharmacy, I think I can expect a certain kind of experience inside, and so I can go somewhere else if I choose. But if you lure me on on false pretenses of being a full service retail pharmacy, I'm gonna get real upset when I learn the truth about you.

This kinda reminds me of my military days, when I was young recruit newly out of boot camp, and was on liberty in Chicago with buddies. After a night of drinking and stuff, we got hungry and entered a little restaurant that "welcomed" the military. We sat down in the intimate little quiet place, and then the truth came out - Turned out the "restaurant" was really a church of some sort. A couple of evangelicals scooted onto the ends of the booth, and made us sit through their religious lectures. We got out of there pretty fast, and didn't eat anything. I was 18, and too polite to cuss them out.

CNN.com - Illinois governor: No delays in birth control� prescriptions - Apr 1, 2005: "U.S.
Illinois governor: No delays in birth control prescriptions

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions quickly after a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill an order because of moral opposition to the drug.

The emergency rule takes effect immediately for 150 days while the administration seeks a permanent rule.

'Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to,' Blagojevich said. 'No delays. No hassles. No lectures.'"

No. 2 Intelligence Nominee Testifies on Privacy Rules - Says he will push right up to the line

2005-04-14T21:20:00.000-07:00

In a rare burst of almost candor, a spy chief nearly admits that he'll trample all over our privacy rights if confirmed.

When a government spy chief admits he'll "push right up to the line" you can rest assured he'll approve going way OVER the line that you and I might establish under the same laws.

His opinion of where "the line" is drawn will differ radically from our opinion as citizens.

When someone like the ACLU challenges his opinion of where the line is, and a court agrees with the challenge, the spy chief will explain that he just made a good faith mistake. That dog won't hunt, except among the extremist talk show spinwits.

The spy chief and his team already know pretty well where courts will end up drawing the line, and the spy team will go FAR OVER that line until the ACLU beats them in court.

That's been the history of all spying organizations.

In my book, he's telling us that we don't really have any meaningful privacy from government snooping anymore.

The New York Times > Washington > No. 2 Intelligence Nominee Testifies on Privacy Rules: "ASHINGTON, April 14 - The Air Force general nominated as the country's No. 2 intelligence official said Thursday that American intelligence agencies needed to push 'right up to that line,' established under privacy laws, in using eavesdropping, surveillance and other tools to gather information.

The nominee, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he was committed to ensuring that all American intelligence activities fell within the bounds defined by the law and the Constitution.

But after six years spent heading American eavesdropping, as director of the National Security Agency, General Hayden also made the case that agencies needed to be aggressive in employing their powers."

Bushs' poor legacy - How will history spin it?

2005-04-14T08:28:00.000-07:00

The Louisville Courier Journal has an interesting editorial about how Bush's legacy will appear in the history books.

I think it's too early to judge how long-term history will regard Bush. In the short term, he has been somewhat of a failure overall, I think. But long term, who knows? Due to Bush's warmongering ways, we might have excited a few Democratic revolutions in the Middle East, and might have dissuaded some rogue nations from offering much support for terrorist activity.

It's hard to know for sure, but our warmongering may have lessened the risk that terrorists could deploy true weapons of mass destruction, by denying terrorists any safe haven nation.

I think that no nation on earth wants to become known to Bush as a safe haven for terrorists, because every nation knows that Bush (even though a good Christian) will not hesitate to blow them all to hell.

I don't support warmongering, by the way. But aggression does have its upside.

If the rogue nations become less rogue, the history books (longer term anyway) may be more favorable toward Bush than current sentiments would anticipate.

However, if we have a huge economic catastrophe on Bush's watch, then that might overshadow anything positive on the international relations front. For more about the threat of an economic meltdown, you might want to read Paul Volcker's Warning - from www.LewRockwell.com. Volcker was the Chairman of the Fed for a long time, before Greenspan. Volcker thinks we in some trouble. Here's a quote from Volcker: "... So I think we are skating on increasingly thin ice. On the present trajectory, the deficits and imbalances will increase. At some point, the sense of confidence in capital markets that today so benignly supports the flow of funds to the United States and the growing world economy could fade. Then some event, or combination of events, could come along to disturb markets, with damaging volatility in both exchange markets and interest rates."

The excerpt below is from the Courier-Journal, about how Bush will be remembered.

Ill-equipped for war: "George W. Bush will go down in the history books, for having led the country into war on false premises, jeopardized individual liberties, made America an international bully in the eyes of long-time allies, wrecked the federal budget, deserted conservative principles of governance, savaged the regulatory system, set back environmental progress and polarized the country even further."

Autopsy of a Funeral by Lawrence M. Ludlow (LewRockwell.com)

2005-04-14T04:28:00.000-07:00

LewRockwell.com is a great site. A lot of very good writers contribute columns regularly. The theme is mostly libertarian. But they run the spectrum, from left-libertarian to right-libertarian, and even to right-wingers. Except for the right-wingers, who apologize for Bush and the Republicans at every turn, there is a strong undercurrent of disenchantment with Bush and the Republicans. Here's another one -------

I've excerpted below from a scathing description of President Bush's trip to Rome to mourn the Pope. The writer essentially argues that Bush was not worthy to be in the same room as the Pope.

It's interested reading, because of the critique of Bush's behavior in light of the Ten Commandments, and also because of the comparison between the USA's war against Iraq and the Soviet Union's domination of Poland.

Autopsy of a Funeral by Lawrence M. Ludlow

[snip]

Out with the Ten Commandments, In with Regime Change

To make things worse, the president was the leader of a faux-religious pro-war gang that unilaterally had taken upon itself the mantle of an unrecognizably twisted version of Christianity. In so doing, it had violated six of the Ten Commandments in a very short time. In addition to substituting a nationalistic worship of the all-powerful state in place of the deity, they repeatedly took God’s name in vain with bumper stickers touting slogans such as "God bless America." Furthermore, in their quest to overturn the warning, "Thou shalt not kill," they laid waste to an entire nation and snuffed out the lives of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians – which have been trivialized as "collateral damage" by the American press. In addition, the war has cost the lives of 1,500-plus American soldiers who sought to honor their uniforms by taking part in a dishonorable mission at the behest of a representative of one of America’s least-respected professions: a politician. Of course, the pretext for launching this war was a hallmark case of bearing false witness, and the prospect of rich rewards in the form of cheap oil was a source of covetousness whose ultimate end would amount to confiscating the Iraqi oil fields, otherwise known as theft. Six, count 'em six violated commandments.

[snip]

Poland after World War II; Iraq Today

But the list of papal-presidential ironies goes far beyond the U.S. decision to go to war against Iraq. In the aftermath of World War II, which the U.S. and its allies waged in response to Hitler’s war of aggression against Poland, the homeland of the pope was never freed. Instead, that overwhelmingly Catholic country was handed over to the Soviet Union – beginning a 45-year span of Soviet domination that was countenanced by the very allies that claimed to have sought Polish freedom by entering the war in the first place. Under the domination of Stalin, events in Poland took on a character that bears an eerie resemblance to what has been happening in Iraq. Here are a few highlights:

[snip]

Pope opposed Iraq war, Repubs called him enemy - Pope was about Theology not politics

2005-04-13T03:15:00.000-07:00

A Republican Representative write an interesting note about how the Republicans forget that the Pope was consistent in his anti-killing agenda, unlike the Republican Party.

Also, he points out the change from history: Historically, governments and religion have been at odds, due to mutual fear. But not any more, in the USA at least. We have so much intermixing of religion and government that the official government of the USA no longer sees religion as a threat.

Theology, Not Politics by Rep. Ron Paul

Just two years ago conservatives were busy scolding the Pope for his refusal to back our invasion of Iraq. One conservative media favorite even made the sickening suggestion that the Pope was the enemy of the United States because he would not support our aggression in the Middle East. The Pontiff would not ignore the inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-war, nor distort just war doctrine to endorse attacking a nation that clearly posed no threat to America – and conservatives resented it. September 11th did not change everything, and the Pope understood that killing is still killing. The hypocritical pro-war conservatives lauding him today have very short memories.

[snip]

Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion – it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.

My Battle With the Thought Police by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

2005-04-13T03:10:00.000-07:00

A right-libertarian professor got caught up in a political correctness controversy, and talks about how the ACLU helped him resolve it.

From the professor's version, it appears he went out of his way to show that he is not too sensitive to gay people, and this led to some complaints. Then, rather than smooth anything over, he threw a little gas on the fire.

Whatever, we're a bit too sensitive these days in many settings. I point out this story because it shows what happens when the "system" gets triggered.

In the case excerpted, the student may have been too sensitive first, but then the professor got his dander up and became too sensitive in return and inflamed the situation.

No one wins this kind of fight. The student's "cause" gets bad press and he hurts his own movement. The professor's reputation gets damaged.

Who's more to blame? The professor, I think. He knew he was playing with fire by illustrating an economic principle using the lifestyle of homosexuals.

Is it political correctness to add sexaul preference to the list of things that we'd better be diplomatic about in private discussion? For example, we are usually careful before, face to face, ridiculing each others' religion, or income, or family, etc. When a teach teashes, he is having what amounts to a private conversation with his class, and he should be diplomatic.

Then, when he writes his articles and books, or give a lecture that is by invitation or admission fee only, he can "let it all hang out."

My Battle With the Thought Police by Hans-Hermann Hoppe: "I have long regarded the political correctness movement as a threat to all independent thought, and I am deeply concerned about the level of self-censorship in academia. To counteract this tendency, I have left no political taboo untouched in my teaching. I believed that America was still free enough for this to be possible, and I assumed that my relative prominence offered me some extra protection.

When I became a victim of the thought police, I was genuinely surprised, and now I am afraid that my case has had a chilling effect on less established academics. Still, it is my hope that my fight and ultimate victory, even if they can not make a timid man brave, do encourage those with a fighting spirit to take up the cudgels.

If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive."

High Court Justices Seek Security Boost, due to increased risks and threats

2005-04-13T03:05:00.000-07:00

If you've been following my blog, you might recall several recent posts about the Republicans and their verbal attacks on our judicial system, to try to whip up religious fervor to support some kind of theocratic test for judicial office, I think.

anyway, all this friendliness with the forces of extremism has caused our judges to fear for their safety. And so two Republican Supreme Court Justices, Kennedy and Thomas, appeared at a Congressional hearing to plead for more more for court security.

Now, if you were a Republican Justice feeling threatened by the religious extremist rhetoric from your own party, wouldn't you be just a teensy bit less likely to vote for even more church-state mixing? I think so. I think the extremist Republicans are risking driving away their Republican allies on the bench.

Yahoo! News - High Court Justices Seek Security Boost: "High Court Justices Seek Security Boost

Tue Apr 12, 5:40 PM ET

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Two Supreme Court justices urged Congress on Tuesday to provide more money to boost security at their building, saying recent attacks on federal judges underscore the need."

Dominionist movement and it's influence - a Rolling Stone Report

2005-04-12T02:46:00.000-07:00

Here's a bit of background about the most hard-core of the theocrats, called "Dominionists".

They are quite influential, and seem to have a direct line to the White House, and their talking points are repeated ad nauseum by Limbaugh-Hannity-Coulter and their ilk.

Their current point of most aggressive attack is judges.

They want only theocratic judges to be appointed.

They want to impeach judges who issue rulings contrary to the theocracy movement's wishes.

RollingStone.com: The Crusaders : Politics: "The godfather of the Dominionists is D. James Kennedy, the most influential evangelical you've never heard of. A former Arthur Murray dance instructor, he launched his Florida ministry in 1959, when most evangelicals still followed Billy Graham's gospel of nonpartisan soul-saving. Kennedy built Coral Ridge Ministries into a $37-million-a-year empire, with a TV-and-radio audience of 3 million, by preaching that it was time to save America -- not soul by soul but election by election. After helping found the Moral Majority in 1979, Kennedy became a five-star general in the Christian army. Bush sought his blessing before running for president -- and continues to consult top Dominionists on matters of federal policy.

'Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost,' Kennedy says. 'As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.'"

Dobson compared Supreme Court to KKK - Does he want One Party Rule?

2005-04-12T02:32:00.000-07:00

So the famous and influential revenend James Dobson is calling the Supreme Court the moral equivalent of the KKK.

Why do you suppose Dobson wants to whip up hatred for judges and for our Constitutional system of checks and balances?

Extremist talk like this has always gone in in the USA to some extent, but the scary thing is how OPEN it is now, and how POWERFUL are the voices of those who espouse extremism.

The more educated we are, the less likely we are to succumb to extremism and follow demagogues. That's why authoritarian and totalitarian governments demonize the educated - they can't win our hearts and minds with bullshit propaganda, because we have been trained to think critically.

But extremists in the media are preaching mostly to people of typical modest education, people more likely to succumb to the influence of the extremist propaganda.

Ignoramous US Senators, Republican political activists, famous talk show hosts, religious leaders --- all these people spouting anti-constitutional rhetoric to inflame the masses into rejecting our system of checks and balances.

What do they really want?

Is it One Party Rule? A totalitarian state?

James Dobson compared Supreme Court justices to ... [Media Matters for America]: "James Dobson compared Supreme Court justices to the KKK

On his April 11 radio broadcast, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson continued his tirade against what he has termed 'judicial tyranny.' With Mark Levin, author of Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America (foreword by Rush Limbaugh), as his guest, Dobson likened Supreme Court justices to the Ku Klux Klan:

DOBSON: I heard a minister the other day talking about the great injustice and evil of the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan, that roamed the country in the South, and they did great wrong to civil rights and to morality. And now we have black-robed men, and that's what you're talking about."

Suburban Planning - Without it, communities rot and we all pay more

2005-04-11T04:29:00.000-07:00

There's a big freedom and culture issue out there that needs to be talked about. I'll touch on it for a few minutes, but as time goes on I intend to write more about it - suburban planning.

Those like me who live in large metro areas see very day the devastation wrought by the shift of money to the suburbs. Those of us, like me, who live in the suburbs, contribute to some bad effects:

We leave behind a decaying urban core of decreasing property values.

We require increased taxes for new roads and bridges to link our suburbs to the metro area.

We require new businesses and stores near our new homes, hurting the old businesses in the urban core.

We require new government funded fire and police services, paid for with new taxes.

We need more gas to commute, making oil a scarcer commodity, driving up prices for everyone - including driving up prices for businesses, causing inflation.

We are so overtaxed now that we refuse to pay to fix the urban core of rot and decay we helped cause. And so the rot expands and gets worse, just like rust on a car.

Again, I am a suburbanite too, just as guilty as anyone else.

Many people have become sensitive to the issue of how the growth of suburbia has actually resulted in a huge shift of tax spending toward the wealthy, away from the needy. All those new roads cost a great deal of money, and all those new civic facilities cost money.

Every time the government builds or improves a suburban road, it's like welfare to the rich, in a sense, subsidizing the flight to suburbia.

Some metro communities, particularly in the Northwest, have tried to provide by zoning laws some incentives to encourage people to rebuild the urban core.

Imagine something: What if, 40 years ago, the government had provided tax incentives to encourage developers to tear down old urban run down neighborhoods and create new suburban style homes?

Then we would have "recycled" urban land.

There would be far fewer new roads and bridges to build now, and billions fewer miles to commute, holding down oil demand and oil prices.

Taxes would be lower due less need for complete new community facilities far outside the core.

There would not be a huge urban rusting effect.

The poverty pocket would have been contained in relatively small are of the urban core, rather than spread throughout the borders of the old cities.

Just imagine - if we had used true urban planning and foresight 40 years ago, we might have a much more vibrant and alive urban core in our old cities today.

Things are improving somewhat here in St. Louis over the last few years. But one thing we don't see: We don't see the suburbanites willing to pay to help improve the decayed urban core.

I wonder what we could have done with all that Iraq money, and what we could be doing if the 50% gas price increase had instead been a special tax paid to the government for civic projects, rather than paid (in effect) to OPEC?

I'm not a proponent of huge tax increases, but we are paying the Iraq tax at the pump already, and we are not seeing any benefit from it ---- just the detrimental effects on our pocketbooks and our businesses.

So, suburban planning has its merits for improving our living conditions and economic conditions.

Keep in mind that without suburban planning, we are in a situation where the wealthy suburbanites are requiring subsidies for roads and bridges and civic facilities, and are causing all of us to pay higher oil prices.

And so, it's not a freedom issue (as in "I'll live where I want to") --- we are free to live anywhere we want to. The issue is whether we as a community want to encourage people to recycle the urban core, or whether we want to encourage people to build new cores far away (with all the attendant problems and expenses).

By the way: For those who live in urban areas, have you noticed that the earliest suburban neighborhoods, from 40 years ago, are rotting and becoming their own blighted areas, just like the old urban core has rotted? ---- Just pointing that out.

The writer below is OPPOSED to suburban planning.

City planning by Those Who Know Best: "Many readers may be unfamiliar with New Urbanism and Smart Growth, two planning ideologies that are the hippest thing in the world of urban design. While the fixations of trendy planners might not register on the list of things that average Americans think about, these new utopian land-use ideals are filtering down into government agencies and city councils, and might eventually impact the way we all live.

It's time for more of us to get concerned, and to pay attention to what the planners are thinking, especially as O.C. seems to be at a planning transition point - continuing to spread out southward (i.e.: Rancho Mission Viejo) even as it rises upward with new high-rise proposals in more densely populated areas of Anaheim, Santa Ana and Irvine.

Recent history, in fact, shows that crucial debates in Orange County are to some degree an outgrowth of that new way of thinking about land-use planning. The attempts to build the CenterLine light-rail system despite the Orange County Transportation Authority's own data proving that the system would not move more than a fraction of a percent of county commuters is just one example of it.

It was never about transportation, but about planning, about implementing the transportation system that is at the core of the New Urbanist thinking, which emphasizes high-density urban living and eschews the supposed wastefulness of the car culture."

[snip]

Creeping Censorship by Tibor R. Machan from www.LewRockwell.com

2005-04-11T03:59:00.000-07:00

Interesting read from a libertarian professor about how the government is advancing censorship, and we are letting it happen, and even the ACLU is off track in its defense of free speech.

Creeping Censorship by Tibor R. Machan

[snip]

Next, once the idea of individual rights has been gradually eroded this way, it no longer needs to be a public sphere for it to come under government supervision. Thus we see the push for the ugly creeping censorship that now faces us.

Sadly, the one organization that is alert to it, the American Civil Liberties Union, is mounting a resistance with bad arguments – the ACLU is talking about how "indecency" cannot be defined, as if that were the main reason against the proposed policy. Yet even if "indecency" were perfectly definable – just as if "pornography" were – it would not authorize anyone at all to ban it. Free men and women must self-regulate these matters. Parents must deal with such hazards vis-à-vis their children, let alone themselves, not a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats who have no basic right to tell us what to watch, what to say, what to read or anything.

Let me tell you, this is really scary. And there isn’t even any allusion to terrorism here, so the folks pushing for this censorship are evidently very confident that they have worn us all down in our resistance to the creeping expansion of government power. I wish we could prove them wrong.

Gasoline price hits new record - Is this payback to OPEC for keeping quiet?

2005-04-11T03:32:00.000-07:00

It's just a thought of mine: Is Bush allowing OPEC to make windfall profits on oil now, as payback for letting us invade Iraq without raising too much stink?

Dealmaking is part of politics. I think we're seeing a deal.

Would the American people have wanted to invade Iraq, if we had known Bush made a deal with OPEC, and we were going to have to tolerate huge oil price increases, resulting in a 50% increase in gas prices, and such increases would last years?

I think we would have been against the invasion, if we had know of this outrageous cost. Gas prices are dragging down the economy, and deeply harming the pocketbooks of low income citizens.

Gasoline price hits new record - Apr. 10, 2005: "NEW YORK (Reuters) - The average U.S. retail gasoline price rose 19 cents over the past three weeks to a fresh record high just below $2.29 a gallon, an industry analyst said Sunday.

But the price that U.S. motorists pay for gasoline at the pump may be peaking, Lundberg survey editor Trilby Lundberg said, because gas prices have caught up with recently skyrocketing crude oil prices, which slid in the past week.

The national average for self-serve regular unleaded gasoline was nearly $2.29 a gallon on April 8, up about 19 cents per gallon in the past three weeks, according to the nationwide Lundberg survey of about 7,000 gas stations."

Patients' Rights Pharmacies - Buy your Viagra and condoms here, as well as your birth control pills

2005-04-10T05:31:00.000-07:00

Back to the theocratics for a minute, and their push to have states permit pharmacists to refuse to fill legal prescriptions on morals grounds.

DailyKOS has a thread about how non-judgmental pharmacies can capitalize on the moral exhibitionist pharmacy movement, by advertising that they are a "Patients' Rights Pharmacy", which fills all legal prescriptions. Good idea.

The excerpt below is merely one comment in the thread. It's about a related issue: Will the "moral" phamacists also refuse to fill Viagra prescriptions for unmarried men? Will they refuse to sell condoms at all, or just refuse to sell them to unmarried men and women?

And, I wonder how in the world the moral pharmacists will attempt to establish whether someone is married or not? Will they take the word of the customer? In determining whether to accept the word of the customer, the pharmacist will have to judge credibility. That means the pharmacist will be refusing to take the word of some customers based on how they appear or act. This will lead to legal action for illegal discrimination, if the pharmacist has a pattern of not taking the word of persons of color or ethnicity.

Anyway, if the moral pharmacy movement wants to really take off, get Walgreens on board. Since the Mormons took over Walgreens some years ago, Walgreens eliminated its liquor section, and I think they are doing fine. If Walgreens got rid of birth control pills and Viagra and condoms, the public would still shop there. Womens' groups would raise hell, to no effect. Men would get their Viagra and condoms at Walmart, and women would get their birth control pills at Walmart or at the grocery store pharmacies. And American life would continue pretty much the same as before.

If a new pharmacy chain called "Patients Rights Pharmacies" sprang up, it would fail most likely, because Walgreens is just too darn big.

Daily Kos :: "We Are a Patients' Rights Pharmacy": "'Pharmacists for Ramming-our-pretend-morals-down-women's-throats' are only, and I mean only, interested in controlling drugs women can have; they are not even talking about objecting to giving unmarried men pecker-enlarging drugs. That is the part of this that is so very revealing. This is an attempt by the RW to control not only the sexual behavior of women, but all their behavior. If we are pregnant against our will, doesn't that control more than who with, where, how, and why we have sex? It controls everything about us, except what we think. Maybe they will have figured out a way to control that by the time we can no longer control our sex lives. It's funny, but the only women who won't be controlled will be our lesbian sisters, when all this enforced fertility comes to pass. I wonder if they've thought of that?"

Conservative Opines on Judicial Assassination, yet again - A DailyKOS thread

2005-04-10T04:15:00.000-07:00

Today I blogged about GOP activists' call for Stalinist purges of judges at a recent conference, as reported in the Washington Post.

Now I am pointing out what they are saying about this the call for purges over at DailyKOS.

The folks at DailyKOS are not pulling many punches in their critique of the conference and the participants.

For those of you sympathetic to the right wingers' call for purges, you might find it entertaining to see how Democratic activists are reacting.

Daily Kos :: Yet Another Conservative Opines on Judicial Assassination

by Hunter
Sat Apr 9th, 2005 at 19:04:22 PDT

From The Washington Post:

Lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that [Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.] Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, 'upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.'

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his 'bottom line' for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. 'He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' ' Vieira said.

[...] The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's 'Ten Commandments' judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.

As Milbank brightly points out, the full Stalin quote is 'Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.'

Edwin Vieira has made a name for himself decrying the unconstitutionality of paper money, among other things. So ya know he's not f---ing nuts or anything.

At this point, it seems prominent batshit-crazy conservatives are running to outdo themselves in just how suggestively they can muse over the murder of federal judges they don't like. Seriously, WTF? Is this a contest I don't know about? Reading up on the guest list for this conference, I am for no apparent reason reminded of a particular South Park episode depicting hooded members of a Klan rally playing 'what's the funniest thing you've got on under your robe?'

Does the conservative who can get closest to openly endorsing judicial assassinations without getting dragged off in handcuffs get to take home a pie or something?

(Via Atrios)

Update [2005-4-9 22:42:53 by Hunter]: Point of note, I am sorry if the 'pie' reference detracted from the seriousness of this post, but piteous humor is the only thing keeping me from throwing furniture through my front window. Here's a guy who stood up in the middle of a conference and approvingly cited Stalin's executions as a good 'bottom line' for dealing with troublesome Supreme Court judges. Spare me the sanctimonious, prissy crap, conservative apologists. These guys know what they're saying. And God help you if one of these murders actually takes place."

GOP activists hint at Stalinist purges of judges - Cite Justice Kennedy as their enemy

2005-04-10T04:07:00.000-07:00

The GOP's hard core supporters on the Christian Right are coming out into the open with their most radical positions these days, since they are riding high on the wave of the 2004 elections.

This Washington Post story (excerpted below) is chilling. Famous Christian Right activists are getting very close to calling for Stalinist purges of judges with whom they disagree. Violence is hinted at, yet again. I blogged about a Senator's violence-related comments a couple days ago.

There are three very positive side effects of the public suggestions of violence and purges emanating from the Christian Right:

Democrats' fears of the Christian Right are being well confirmed, making Democrats more loyal to the party, and causing Democrats to speak out in private and in public.

Moderate Republicans are offended and embarassed at being associated with such radicals.

Conservative judges are becoming quite concerned, and maybe they will begin to rethink the appropriateness of allowing so much religious influence in government. The Supreme Court in particular has been a friend of the GOP, but that friendship is being severely tested.

And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty (washingtonpost.com)

By Dana Milbank
Saturday, April 9, 2005; Page A03

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.

Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."

Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

Right winger accuses GOP of insincerity on abortion, in order to keep a hot potato alive

2005-04-09T09:05:00.000-07:00

A minister and Christian right political activist writes an open letter to a Congressman accusing the GOP of using the abortion issue to keep inflaming its base, rather than affecting real reform.

It's interesting to watch the development of rips in the fabric of the GOP coalition.

Republicans and Abortion

by William Reid Dalton III

[TO]
Hon. Jo Ann Emerson
Member of Congress
United States House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Emerson,

I wonder, sometimes, if I still belong in the Republican Party. The Party and I go back more years than I care to remember. When we were debating abortion in College Republican meetings in the 1970's, there was only one question: Would we ban all abortions, except to save the life of the mother? Or would we also make exception for cases of rape and incest? I was on the "hard" right. It seemed to me logical consistency required it. If the principle was to protect the lives of the innocent, the children of rape and incest were no more guilty than any others. And if that wasn't the principle, then the only purpose of abortion laws would be to punish women guilty of misconduct. Which of course was what triggered feminist ire at that time – punishing women alone for what both men and women bore guilt. So we stuck to the hard line. We wouldn't be vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy. But it was always assumed that after we succeeded in overturning Roe that the campaign against abortion would be undertaken in the States, just as it had been before Roe.

The problem was that this logically consistent position did not have public support. If there was any hope of passing a repeal of Roe v. Wade, compromise would be necessary. This, incidentally, marked the line of division between supporters of Gerald Ford and supporters of Ronald Reagan, the pragmatists and the idealists.

[snip]

I was part of that 1980 campaign, a candidate for the General Assembly, endorsed by Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority.

[snip]

Today the Republican Party is involved in a debate that was inconceivable in the 70's and 80's. Instead of overturning Roe v. Wade, the talk, such as your own H. J. Res. 4, is to create its mirror image. By proposing a Constitutional Amendment to extend the protection of that body of courtmade law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments "to all human beings irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, including their unborn offspring at every state of their biological development," you would join the Roe justices in robbing the States of their constitutionally reserved authority to legislate standards of medical practice, of the degrees of homicide, and defining appropriate protection at each of stage of human gestation. I would give it back to them.

[snip]

You have staked out a position that is not achievable. My position, while more likely to be achieved, is not, as was the "moderate" position of the 70's, pragmatic. It is, in fact, principled – based upon the very constitutional principles in which our nation's government has its origin.

[snip]

Consider, if you will, what I have heard reported, that the Bush Administration, and Republican strategists in general, are interested not in resolving the abortion issue, but in keeping it alive as a motive for continued campaign contributions and voter mobilization.

Real Science modifies its theories to meet the facts - unlike religious science - Example: Reborn star surprises astronomers

2005-04-09T04:49:00.000-07:00

I've recently blogged a couple of times about Real Science vs. Religious Science, as part of the debate about the GOP's embracing of the theocratic anti-science movement.

In religion, if the real facts do not correspond to some articles of faith, the articles of faith are unaffected. In "creation science" when the facts contradict the faith, the religious scientists reinterpret the facts, or keep digging for more facts, but they DO NOT abandon or modify the articles of faith. The articles of faith in creation science are that the earth is about 6,000 years old and that evolution through natural selection does not occur.

Now let's see how Real Science handles the problem of facts contradicting doctrine.

Below is an excerpt from a news item, showing a very fresh quick and dirty example of how "Real Science" works.

In astronomy, scientists had developed a theory to explain how some kinds of old stars can re-ignite in a superhuge flash. The theory predicted a timeline for the re-ignition. According to theory, the re-ignition should take several hundred years.

Well, a recent observation of a star showed that the timeline was wrong. A star re-ignited in a huge flash in a very short period of time (a few years), about 100 times sooner than the theory predicted.

In other words, the theory failed to predict an event accurately - the theory failed, it was inadequate - Facts proved that the theory was not able to explain as observed event.

Notice the quote from a scientist in the article: " 'Sakurai's object went through the first phases of this sequence in just a few years -- 100 times faster than we expected,' Zijlstra said. So we had to revise our models.".

"So we had to revise our models." ---- In other words, when the theory is wrong then "real scientists" revise the theory. This is exactly the opposite of what "religious scientists" do.

I understand the emotional need of the religiously faithful to see their beliefs confirmed with real facts, hence the need to have religious science accepted (and even mandated by law). It's the old problem of faith, and how to maintain it - Philosophers have written about it for thousands of years. It's hard to maintain strong faith. And so the faithful want real factual confirmation of their faith, hence "creation science". Creation science is not science - but it makes the faithful feel good.

CNN.com - Reborn star surprises astronomers - Apr 8, 2005: "Computer simulations indicated that heat-spurred convection would bring hydrogen from the star's outer envelope down into the helium shell, driving a brief flash of new nuclear fusion. This would cause a sudden increase in brightness. The original computer models suggested a sequence of observable events that would occur over a few hundred years.

'Sakurai's object went through the first phases of this sequence in just a few years -- 100 times faster than we expected,' Zijlstra said. 'So we had to revise our models.'

The new scheme predicted the star should rapidly reheat and begin to ionize gases in its surrounding region. 'This is what we now see in our latest VLA observations,' Zijlstra said."

Use Science as wedge issue to force GOP to reject nutty anti-science base

2005-04-08T11:30:00.000-07:00

The thread from DailyKOS excerpted below is a lesson in political strategy, from the reality based community.

I hesitate to call the thread "liberal" or "Democrat", because in the 21st Century we should not be having to mount a major political campaign just to get people to believe in basic fundamental science.

But the right wingers and the GOP are SO anti-science that they are almost threatening to turn the clock back 1000 years to the dark ages.

The reality based community, whatever their political persuasion, has a great interest in stopping this ridiculous public campaign to stamp out science (at least any science that might possibly suggest that the earth is older than 6,000 years or that evolution occurs).

The talking points below point out that Bush's monied corporate supporters all make their living off of the true hard sciences, those same sciences that maintain that the earth is billions of years old, and that evolution occurs, etc, etc.

Yet these corporations support the anti-science GOP.

So, Does George W. Bush REALLY believe that science is BS, like his most hardcore supporters seem to believe?

We say "NO", that Bush does NOT believe science is BS. And we'd like to force him to say so.

That's what the thread is all about. Enjoy.

Use Science as wedge issue to force GOP to reject nutty anti-science base (from DailyKOS)

Young Earthers form the bulk of support for Intelligent Design Creationism, despite the fact that most of the Discovery Institute's top shills will profess being old earthers if you corner them and berate them long enough. Young Earthers deny pretty much every field of natural science. That means geology (Energy), astronomy (Space), biology (Pharmaceutical, biotech, and health care workers), and physics (Defense technology). Yes, BushCo will use them without shame, but the industry captains and senior managers understand quite well that science is their breath of life. Make it a big enough stink so that the Neo-Christain right flips out and starts raving against science, and you force the BushCos to either loudly denounce creationism, or loudly support it. And believe me, they absolutely do not want to do either, because they understand the danger. And besides, you sideline them with a non-issue for once.

Everyone in this nation knows that in one form or another, science impacts their lives positively. Whatever else one thinks or says about science, it delivers the goods. If your children has virulent appendicitis, you can pray to Buddha, cast horoscopes, go to psychics, try acupuncture, whatever, and that child will die a painful, septic death. Or you can go to the hospital for a routine operation and medications, and the child will recover as if nothing happened. Yet we let them, the Bushistas, get away with hijacking a good chunk of the Christian community based, in part, on discrediting science, despite the life-saving gifts it has bestowed.

"People often seem to forget that Christian doesn't equal Fundamentalist. Just as the politicaly conservative have high-jacked terms like pro-life they have also hijacked the term "Christian." I am a born-again evangelical. What that means literally is that I have had a spiritual experience and I'm willing to talk about it, it doesn't mean that I hate science, gays, or anyone else. Except maybe fundamentalists who have hijacked the terms I used to use to describe my beliefs, they suck."-NamelessSoldier

I believe that science is a potential wedge issue for democrats, because BushCo and key members of Congress have hitched their star to the Theocratic Conservatives who almost to a man reject evolutionary biology, looming oil shortages, climate issues, environmental pollution issues, and so forth. To defeat Bush and Co. you only need to cleave off a few percentage points of their theocon base and a few points of their secular base. You do that, they're dead in the water. I'd send up a trial balloon by hanging the antiscience moniker on DeLay, Santorum, or Frist, and see if it has any effect.

It may be useful because by pushing it, you force BushCo to publicly side with the Theocratic Conservatives. At least, I don't think they really can come out strongly in favor of science/evolution and survive politically. Although I should note that the WH Science Advisor, Richard Marburger, has stated quietly but openly that Intelligent Design Creationism is nonsense. So, even if they do the right thing, science wins. But by forcing their hand, I'm guessing they will be far more likely to come out strongly for what has morphed into an entire anti-science genre of fringe nutballs, and by highlighting that issue you drive away several groups of support for the Bushistas without losing votes.

Hard-nosed, pragmatic Defense Hawks fully understand that our ability to project military power is utterly contingent on our scientific prowess. Both educated Christians and atheist GOP supporters (Oh yes, there are plenty), who are waffling already, especially science types, are repulsed by Intelligent Design Creationism and the whole anti-intellectualism of the Neo-right.

Schiavo memo written by GOP Senator's counsel - it wasn't a fake, nor a Dem dirty trick

2005-04-08T04:20:00.000-07:00

The Schiavo memo is that nasty political action memo circulated to Republican Senators, which encouraged them to speak out for action to save Schiavo, because the issue would hurt Democrats.

The Republican spin machine then lied and said that the memo was a Democrat forgery, like the Dan Rather CBS memogate fiasco.

Well, a staffer for Republican Senator Mel Martinez has admitted writing the memo:

The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.

Ok, now that the Republicans have admitted the memo was authentic, what to do about all those demonizing spinwits who put out the smug self-assured BS that the memo was absolutely a fake. See below for excerpts.

Will all those spinwits apologize or issue corrections? Listen carefully to them.

Here are some examples of the Right Wing spin universe, proudly declaring with utter assurance that the Schiavo memo was fake:
All excerpts from:
So much crow, so little time - Waiting on mea culpas (from DailyKOS)
and/or from

Love it when conservatives make assess of themselves (from AmericaBlog).

Rush Limbaugh:
"Truth Detector: Supposed GOP Schiavo Memo Forged by Democrats."

Tucker Carlson:
"Last week a memo surfaced, reportedly written by the Republican members of Congress explaining how to make hay with the Terri Schiavo case, the Talking Points Memo, Ah, I think within a week or two it will become clear that that memo was a forgery, possibly written by Democrats on the hill in an effort to discredit Republicans. Bloggers are saying that now and it sounds like they may be right."

Fred Barnes:
"So rather than an example of aggressive reporting, the memo story turns out to be yet another instance of crude liberal bias, in this case against both Republicans and those who fought to have Schiavo's feeding tube restored. Naturally, the memo had a second life when the story was picked up by other news outlets, pundits, and columnists. How did ABC and others get wind of the memo in the first place? It came from 'Democratic aides,' according to the New York Times, who 'said it had been distributed to Senate Republicans.' Not exactly a disinterested source."

Newsmax:
There was just one problem: Closer examination by The American Spectator, talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, The Weekly Standard, and Accuracy in Media (AIM) indicates that the memo is a fraud - a political dirty trick, if you will, specifically aimed at causing public revulsion at Republicans.

Michelle Malkin:
I suspect that no one at the Post or ABC News still believes the amateurish, unsigned, misspelled memo was circulated by Republican Party leaders.

Accuracy in Media:
Accuracy in Media today questioned the authenticity of the much-publicized "GOP Talking Points" memo on the Terri Schiavo case.

In the Agora:
On Friday four staffers accused a renegade aide to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) of distributing forged "talking points" to members of the media and claiming Republican authorship. In the Agora's extensive investigations in the alleged "GOP" Schiavo talking points memo reveal possible tricks from low level Democratic aides. Two of the four GOP staffers tell ITA they were eyewitnesses to the exchange.

Sen. Bennet:
Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican, said the issue "stinks" of a news fabrication similar to the one that engulfed CBS anchorman Dan Rather during the 2004 presidential campaign, after he reported that President Bush did not fulfill his duties while in the National Guard, citing documents that CBS later admitted could not be authenticated.

Since the Schiavo memo was SO high profile, we should reasonably expect retractions and corrections. Please watch for those to occur. I expect you will see some. I wonder how much prominence will be given to the correction. The blowhards are SO smug when running down Democrats, that it's hard to imagine they will give reasonable prominence to admitting being completely wrong.

Demonizing the educated - part of the unAmerican authoritarian movement

2005-04-07T05:11:00.000-07:00

In the piece excerpted below, Media Matters for America takes on the Republican spin machine with regard to the alleged liberal bias among professors.

In the article, there is a quote from Bush's political guru Karl Rove, where he is asked how to identify a Democrat, and he says "Someone with a doctorate."

I can well recall many times hearing Rush Limbaugh demonize the educated by referring to "pointy headed academics".

Whenever I heard Limbaugh demonize the educated, I recalled history lessons. Historically, authoritarian politicians appeal to the uneducated masses by demonizing the "elite".

Educated people, like journalists and professors, and even lawyers, are accustomed to viewing things skeptically. We read, we criticize, we DO NOT accept the preaching of our politicians at face value. We have become accustomed and comfortable with thinking critically.

The educated will SPEAK OUT AGAINST the authoritarians, until it becomes dangerous to do so.

And so, the authoritarian movement must DISCREDIT the voices of the educated.

If you want to mobilize the uneducated populace toward authoritarianism, one way is to demonize the educated.

Do a little studying, and you will see that the great authoritarian regimes on the last hundred years demonized the educated in almost exactly the same way as the Republicans do today.

And while you are thinking about these things, you might ask yourself why it is that the higher the level of education, the more likely you are to be left-leaning.

Part of education is to respectfully and responsibly address differing viewpoints. In order to justify your thesis, you have to show that you understand the opposing viewpoint in good detail, and then show why your viewpoint is better. You have to prove your case, not just scream that you are right.

And so the educational system teaches the value of marshalling facts to support your viewpoint, and teaches respect for opposing viewpoints, and gets you accustomed to a more reasoned form of debate.

Authoritarian regimes cannot withstand the scrutiny of reasoned debate and study, and cannot justify their authoritarianism using true facts and reasoned argument - they must propagandize, demonize, and lie. That's why they must trash the educated, who stand in the way of the propaganda movement. Propaganda --- That's been going on blatantly for quite a while, as I've been blogging about.

Our own authoritarian movement her in the USA has a religious flavor to it, and I'll keep blogging about the growth of Theocracy.

Wash. Times news, opinion pieces peddled flawed ... [Media Matters for America]: "Moreover, available data suggest that highly educated Americans may be more left-leaning than the general population. Exit polls from the November 2004 presidential election indicate that 55 percent of voters who have postgraduate study experience voted for Democrat John Kerry, compared to 44 percent for Republican George W. Bush. (Interestingly, when New Yorker staff writer Nicholas Lemann asked Bush adviser Karl Rove how to identify 'who's a Democrat' as opposed to a Republican for a 2003 profile, Rove answered: 'Somebody with a doctorate.')"

Frist in damage control mode - Says Courts in Schiavo Case Acted Fairly

2005-04-07T04:43:00.000-07:00

Well well, some moderation from Senator Frist --- He says judges acted fairly in the Schiavo case.

Why the moderation? Just a couple of weeks ago Frist propelled the Save Schiavo bill through the Senate. The Save Schiavo bill was anti-conservative in the worst way, treading upon the US Constitution and States' Rights. The Save Schiavo bill was accompanied by the entire Republican universe, pretty much, claiming that "liberal activist judges" were forcing their culture of death on Schiavo.

For the past week, I have been seeing references in the media to how "polls" are showing that about 70% of the general public disapproved the Republican Save Schiavo bill. I don't have links to the polls yet.

Then, as I blogged about a couple of days ago, a Republican Senator, Cornyn, said he "understood" why people are so very upset at judges that they might resort to violence (ang he didn't mention that it was ignorant demonizing by the right wing that whipped people into a frenzy).

So, we can speculate about Frist's motives in backtracking. Maybe he understands that the American People as a whole are not as extremist as his own party has become, and he wants to stop the bad press and the bleeding. That's the most likely reason, pure politics.

The Republican leadership has not shown any signs that it intends to stop demonizing those with who it disagrees --- because whipping the faithful into a feeding frenzy has been great electoral politics.

However, the Schiavo case has backfired on the Republicans (at least a lot of moderate Republicans are pissed at them), and so they have to cool it for awhile, hence the words of respect and peace from Frist. We'll see how long Frist is willing to be "reasonable". Not long I bet.

Yahoo! News - Frist Says Courts in Schiavo Case Acted Fairly: "Reuters
Frist Says Courts in Schiavo Case Acted Fairly

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republican leader Bill Frist said on Tuesday that courts had acted fairly in the Terri Schiavo 'right-to-die' case, differing sharply from a vow of retribution by his House of Representatives counterpart, Tom DeLay.

'I believe we have a fair and independent judiciary today,' said Frist, now trying to resolve a battle with Democrats over judicial nominations that threatens to tie his chamber into knots. 'I respect that.'

Frist and DeLay, as the Senate and House majority leaders, had led a charge for emergency legislation calling on the federal courts to review the Schiavo case.

President Bush flew back from a Texas vacation to sign the bill into law.

But federal courts refused to intervene and let stand a Florida state court order to remove a feeding tube from the brain-damaged woman. Schiavo's husband had said she would not have wanted to live in her condition, but her parents fought against the tube's removal.

Schiavo died last week after spending 15 years in what courts had ruled was a persistent vegetative state.

DeLay, a Texas Republican, said afterward: 'We will look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at the Congress and president when given jurisdiction to hear this case anew.'

In a written statement, DeLay said: 'The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.'

'FAIR AND INDEPENDENT'

Frist, asked about the furor over the case, told reporters, 'I will let members (of Congress) ... speak for themselves.'

But the Tennessee Republican said he believed the courts 'acted in a fair and independent way.'"

Abraham Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus

2005-04-06T04:18:00.000-07:00

The following is a short excerpt from a nice history lesson about Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the civil right of having a judge review the legality of one's imprisonment.

This civil right is called "Habeus Corpus" or "Produce the body [in the courtroom]". It's mentioned in the Constitution, by the way.

George W. Bush has in effect suspended the writ of habeus corpus for anyone the military or intelligence community chooses to round up. That's why there have been so many legal actions filed against the indefinate imprisonments wihtout trial.

Habeus Corpus is a civil right with long pre-Revolution roots. It's a fundamental freedom of civilized peoples.

And it's thoroughly Patriotic to raise holy hell about any government action that threatens the writ of habeus corpus, or seems to be a backdoor method of violating the writ.

Remember to old maxim about how power corrupts? So we have to keep an eye on our government, whether they be of our favorite party or another party.

Abraham Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus
President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus lacked both moral and constitutional justification. It confined thousands in military prisons for opposing war and voided years of jurisprudence. The Constitution never gives the president the right to suspend habeas corpus, nor can that right be inferred from the commander-in-chief clause or the president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws. Lincoln’s suspension was not only illegal; it was also dangerous, threatening the separation of powers that prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Moreover, his actions inspired future presidents to ignore the Constitution during times of crisis. Especially today, with the post-9/11 crackdown on civil liberties, Americans would be wise to reread Ex parte Merryman.

The Theocratic Right

2005-04-06T02:54:00.000-07:00

The following is the introductory passage on the website called "Theocracy Watch". It's a fascinating website, that makes the case that the religious extremists are in control of the Federal Government, and shows their ties to the major factions of religious extremism in the USA.

If you are one of the religious extremists, then you will ready Thoecracy Watch with some joy in your heart.

Read the introduction, below, and you will get a pretty good feel for how far we've down the path toward theocracy we have come. People of importance are talking about the threat of theocracy openly. It's kinda scary.

Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party: "'This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy.' U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT, (New York Times, March 23, 2005)

Theocracy is derived from the two Greek words Qeo/j(Theos) meaning 'God' and kra/tein (cratein) meaning 'to rule.' Theocracy is the civil rule of God, or the belief in government by divine guidance.

The powerful Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, Tom DeLay (R-TX) embodies government by divine guidance:

He [God] is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for a biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me.

Tom DeLay represents an ultraconservative religious movement seeking to impose a narrow theological agenda on secular society. Chip Berlet and Margaret Quigley, senior analysts at Political Research Associates, have named this movement the theocratic right:

The predominantly Christian leadership envisions a religiously-based authoritarian society; therefore we prefer to describe this movement as the 'theocratic right.'

Television preacher Pat Robertson sent out a memo to his political organization in 1986 calling on his followers to 'Rule the world for God.' That call to arms sums up the goals of the theocratic right, and explains their Congressional leadership which suspends the basic rules of Democracy: all that matters is winning, because it is for God. The ends justify the means.

This web site explores the narrow theological agenda that the theocratic right is imposing on secular society. Twenty-five years ago it targeted the Republican Party as the vehicle through which it could advance its agenda. Today it has extraordinary power in the U.S. government, with two branches solidly in its pocket and the third, the judiciary, just a couple of retirements away. It is also making great strides in schools, in the media, and in State Legislatures.

This movement values guns and the death penalty. It values the rich at the expense of the poor. It favors corporations at the expense of individuals. It seeks to eliminate virtually all regulations that protect the environment, worker safety, and public health.

It opposes international treaties and the United Nations. In his book The New World Order, Pat Robertson accused Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and the first President George Bush of being agents for Satan because they supported international groups of nations such as the United Nations.

In an effort to fulfill the dominionist belief in the manifest destiny of 'Christian' nations, the theocratic right values an aggressive foreign policy. And It claims that the principle of separation of church and state is 'a myth.'

It is possessed of absolute moral righteousness. It tolerates no dissent.

The theocratic right is not a conservative movement. It is striving to radically change the status quo. From a training manual of the theocratic right:

We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them."

Rude Pundit on the gathering of theocrats in Washington

2005-04-06T02:53:00.000-07:00

The Rude Pundit is over the top but entertaining. He's a Rant and Rave commentator who scores points. He's kinda like a drunk and disorderly loudmouth, preaching politics in crude terms.

And he does not take himself too seriously.

However, he does make good points. In the excerpt below, the Rude Pundit tears into the upcoming gathering of theocrats in D.C. For each group of theocrats, he has some choice rude words.

His best point is this: (to paraphrase) For those who support Judge Roy Moore (of Ten Commandments fame) ---- Why is that when the judge ordered the installation of a clearly illegal religious monument in a court building, the judge was NOT being an activist, yet when a more powerful judge ordered the removal of the illegal religious monument, the more powerful judge was being "activist"?

The Rude Pundit

The Rude Pundit wishes he could attend the hatefest this week in D.C. called "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith."

He wishes he could attend the many and sundry sessions, [snip]

Like Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America, which seeks to create a network of "Patriot Pastors" who get their flock out to vote like the good sheep they are. Scarborough has finely tuned his demented paranoia. Said Scarborough in his "book" Enough is Enough: "Those who are anti-God and anti-Christian in America have infiltrated the highest levels of the educational establishment. They have a philosophical commitment to eliminating any vestige of biblical Christianity from American thought and life. They are well-positioned, well-funded and well-connected. They are a very small minority in America, yet their level of commitment is rarely matched among Christians."

He wishes he could attend the Judge Roy Moore hookah party, where all the participants will get to suck down that sweet intoxicating smoke which says that putting a huge goddamn monument in a public building is not activism, but saying get rid of the fucking thing is.
[snip]

And why? Why would the Rude Pundit miss such a gathering of blithering, dithering, dangerous idiots, assholes, and charlatans? Such chicanery is manna from heaven, material for bloggery for weeks.

Because the Rude Pundit despises traitors. And anyone who believes that the judiciary of this nation has run amok and must be reined in through legislation, impeachment threats, and/or violence is a traitor, an anti-American Christian extremist who wishes to transform this country into something it is not. A revolutionary in the worst sense, a terrorism-enabler, if you will, but terrorism from white people, 'cause, you know, it's different. And they deserve contempt, derision, and prosecution.

Conyers rips Senator Cornyn for justifying violence against judges

2005-04-04T18:26:00.000-07:00

Excerpt speaks for itself.

See also the previous post below.

Republicans are in effect encouraging violence against judges by speaking with incredible disdain and disrespect whenever they disagree with a court's ruling.

"Congressman Conyers rips Senator Cornyn for justifying violence against judges

During the protracted coverage and debate of the Schiavo matter, I was struck by the disrespectful and reckless language being used against judges. One by one, my Republican colleagues took the House floor to attack judges as 'unconscionable,' lacking 'human compassion,' needing to be held in 'contempt,' and having 'answering to do.' I remember thinking that such dehumanizing rhetoric is especially dangerous in these times towards anyone, let alone judges.

[snip]

But there is no excuse, no excuse, for a Member of Congress to take our discourse to this ugly and dangerous extreme.

My message is not subtle today. It is simple. To my Republican colleagues: you are playing with fire, you are playing with lives, and you must stop.

Senator Cornyn and Congressman DeLay should immediately retract these ill considered statements."

Republican Senator: Violence against judges understandable due to public perceptions

2005-04-04T18:18:00.000-07:00

All the disrespectful talk by Hannity-Coulter-Limbaugh about activist judges who hate life and liberty, and the evil Democrats who hate America, is having its logical effect of apparently driving the nutcases to take such crazy sentiments to the extreme.

A Republican Senator understands, it appears. Does he condemn the disrespectful rants by Hannity-Coulter-Limbaugh? - not that I can see.

Excerpt below from a DailyKOS thread ----

Daily Kos :: Cornyn: Violence against judges understandable: "Remarks by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on the Senate floor today:
I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence.
Violence against judges is nothing short of domestic terrorism. And Cornyn (along with DeLay and their ilk) are nothing more than apologists for such violence.

The GOP's war on the judiciary is now entering dangerous territory."

How Germans Fell for the 'Feel-Good' Fuehrer - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE

2005-04-04T15:39:00.000-07:00

Fascism and theocracy do NOT have to come roaring in flamboyantly on a gilded white horse, with swords swinging.

Fascism and theocracy can actually make the people SMILE, all the while undermining their freedoms.

Seet he excerpt below for a look at a new scholarly book in Germany regarding the Nazi takeover, and how Hitler obtained and maintained power by being seemingly GOOD to the people of Germany.

Of course the USA is not Germany, and Bush is not like Hilter. However, Bush's bullhorns (Hannity-Coulter-Limbaugh-Foxnews) call liberals nad Democrats "evil" and other Hitler-like rantings. They stop just short of saying that liberals and Democrats don't deserve to live.

And so a fascist-like mentality is present in the USA, and getting worst all the time. But just like the Germans, the Republicans are ok with it, because it isn't the Republicans who are the targets of the dark side of the Republicans and their supporters. In fact the Republicans are the ones receiving a lot of the benefits of the emerging fascist-theocratic movement.

New Holocaust Book, New Theory: How Germans Fell for the 'Feel-Good' Fuehrer - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE: "How Germans Fell for the 'Feel-Good' Fuehrer

By Jody K. Biehl in Berlin

Hitler not only fattened his adoring 'Volk' with jobs and low taxes, he also fed his war machine through robbery and murder, says a German historian in a stunning new book. Far from considering Nazism oppressive, most Germans thought of it as warm-hearted, asserts Goetz Aly. The book is generating significant buzz in Germany and it may mark the beginning of a new level of Holocaust discourse.

Hitler took great care to pamper and coddle his people and they loved him -- and the Nazi regime -- for it.

A well-respected German historian has a radical new theory to explain a nagging question: Why did average Germans so heartily support the Nazis and Third Reich? Hitler, says Goetz Aly, was a 'feel good dictator,' a leader who not only made Germans feel important, but also made sure they were well cared-for by the state.

To do so, he gave them huge tax breaks and introduced social benefits that even today anchor the society."

Lurching Toward Theocracy - History says a form of fascism is creeping up on us

2005-04-04T10:46:00.000-07:00

Theocracy, Fascism. Those are very tough words to utter in connection with the USA. But see the article excerpted below for a history lesson about creeping fascism.

Thankfully, we are not a theocracy (yet) but millions are trying to make us a theocracy of the kinder gentler US Variety (with freedom of political speech mostly intact probably).

Governments around the nation are trying to promote Christrian doctrine in many ways. They are writing laws and taking other acts that codify Christian doctrine or endorse Christian doctrine or promote Christian doctrine, or indoctrinate people into the Christian faith. In summary:

Official Christian decision making is to be protected: The US Congress is trying to pass a law that would provide that Christian government officials can make official decisions based on their religion, and no court will be permitted to hear challenges to such faith-based offical acts. (I blogged about this a few days ago)

Denying health care based on religious belief: And state legislatures are trying to pass laws that allow Christian health care practitioners to withhold treatment based on their Christian religious beliefs. (I blogged about this recently)

Christian faith to be taught as actual science: State legislatures and local school boards have already decided in many places that the schools must elevate Christian religious doctrine to equal footing with actual scientific doctrine, and lie to the students about how the religious doctrine is a legitimate form of actual science. (This textbook-based dispute is a generation old, and and just continues on)

Government money to promote Christian theology and indoctrination: George W. Bush and his "Faith-Based Initiative" have resulted in many millions in direct funding of Christian groups. Groups of other faiths have had great difficulty obtaining a fair share of this windfall for the promotion of religion. After all, those in charge of the White House and Congress are not Jews, they are evangelical Christians, and they know who they really want the money to go to.

Bush and the Government are in God's hands, doing God's Will: George W. Bush has sent out MANY SIGNALS that his decisions are faith-based, that God is with the USA, that it's US vs. THEM. Bush said in an interview that he felt chosen by God to become President. Bush wants people to feel that the USA is run by God not man, and that the elected representatives are doing "God's Will".

Those examples are enough for now. If I weren't so lazy today I would find the links to flesh out the above examples. Maybe I'll do that later and submit and edited version.

The article that follows is a history lesson in the rise of forms of fascism, and contains excerpts from books that discuss how difficult it is to BECOME AWARE of the growth of the fascist tendencies, and how difficult it is to TAKE ACTION in time to affect the process.

By "action", it can be as simple as letting our legislators know that they are going a bit too far, and it's time to slow down now. We've gone far enough in endorsing religion through official government action.

(DV) Berkowitz: Lurching Toward Theocracy

Lurching Toward Theocracy
by Bill Berkowitz
www.dissidentvoice.org
April 1, 2005

“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. ... When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say ‘Heil’ to him, nor will they call him ‘Fuhrer’ or ‘Duce’. But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of ‘O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!’”

-- Dorothy Thompson, 1935

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.…”

-- They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer, 1955

[snip]

“... STOP groups like the ACLU from removing all mentions of Christmas from the public square!”

-- Christian Response e-Alert, December 2004

[snip]

“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it... unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic Germans’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

[snip]

“You see,” Mayer's colleague went on, “one doesn't see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' Why not? -- Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

[snip]

Christmas Bells and Frazzled Nerves

Right wing Christian leaders concoct campaigns to “convince people that there is a 'them' out there -- liberals in this case -- who are out to destroy America's moral fiber and are thus responsible for working-class misery,” Thom Hartmann wrote.

[snip]

Don't expect the jackboots to march around the corner tomorrow. Don't expect homes to be indiscriminately raided. Don't expect citizens to be hauled off in the dead of night -- although that has been the case with indiscriminate arrests of many Muslim immigrants since 9/11.

Consider, however, the anti-democratic warning signs: the Patriot Act and subsequent civil liberties-busting legislation; election snafus seamlessly fading into history; a war carried out on the basis of misinformation and disinformation; secret prisons where captives are tortured.

Think about how things change slowly, yet dramatically, while good people either aren't paying attention or are too satisfied to raise their voices.

“As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.” -- Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75).

Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate (washingtonpost.com)

2005-04-04T04:26:00.000-07:00

I've blogged a little in the past about the nationwide religious crusade to get pharmacists to push their religious beliefs on customers through refusing to fill certain lawful prescriptions.

The moralistic pharmacy movement is an interesting skirmish in the struggle of the religious right to bring a Christian theocracy to America.

Legislatures around the country are considering laws that would permit pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, for example. The article linked below recounts some stories about such things as religious lectures by pharmacists.

The article talks a little about how some big chains try to balance the pharmacists' desires. For example, the pharmacist who objects to a prescription can have another pharmacist on duty fill it. Well, THAT approach will work only if there are multiple pharmacists on duty.

Small towns might not have a multiple-pharmacist store available.

Another issue is whether the objecting pharmacist should refer the patient to a different phamracy that WILL fill the prescription. The objecting pharmacists argue that by referring the patient somewhere else, they are acting immorally.

Pharmacists hold licenses issued by the State, to serve the health needs of the citizens.

The State must establish controls over this movement toward pharmacist-refusal-to-fill. Patients have trusted that their local pharmacy will fill their lawful prescriptions without question.

But nowadays, patients cannot be sure that their pharmacists will fill their lawful prescriptions. Patients might be subjected to a religious lecture about their immoral ways, by a pharmacists who refuses to fill their prescription for birth control pills. (I can imagine this kind of stuff happening in Iran or Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country, but I did not think I'd see the day when it would be happening here in the USA).

So we need laws that set standards for how and when fundamentalist pharmacists can exercise their faith to the detriment of a patient's rights.

A Pharmacy license is a public trust. The license is to make sure that the pharmacist is capable and professional so that the health of the patient is well-protected. Religious beliefs can be accommodated, but religious pharmacists (holding a public trust) cannot be permitted to limit another citizen's right to receive lawful health care. Here are a few suggestions:

A state-licensed pharmacist, if the only one on duty, MUST fill all lawful prescriptions - otherwise, the pharmacist CANNOT be assigned duty as the only licensed pharmacist in a pharmacy.

A state-licensed pharmacist CANNOT refuse to transfer a prescription to another licensed pharmacy where the patient can get a lawful prescription filled. A pharmacist who attempts to refuse such transfer is violating the civil rights of the patient and his license should be disciplined.

A state-licensed pharmacist should be forbidden to set a "condition" on the filling of a lawful prescription (other than payment of course), where the condition is that the patient must tolerate a religious or moral lecture in order to complete the transaction.

The State should consider issuing "limited practice" licenses for objecting pharmacists, to prevent those pharmacists from being able to serve as the ONLY pharmacist in a pharmacy. In the same way, the military will not assign conscientious objectors to combat duty.

Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate (washingtonpost.com)

Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate
Because of Beliefs, Some Refuse To Fill Birth Control Prescriptions

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 28, 2005; Page A01

Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.

The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.

Karen L. Brauer, Pharmacists for Life president, defends the right of pharmacists to refuse medicine. (Courtesy of Karen L. Bauer)

"This is a very big issue that's just beginning to surface," said Steven H. Aden of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom in Annandale, which defends pharmacists. "More and more pharmacists are becoming aware of their right to conscientiously refuse to pass objectionable medications across the counter. We are on the very front edge of a wave that's going to break not too far down the line."

[snip]

"There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."

Theocracy - friendly court system: Bill would create theocracy-friendly court system, by removing judges who hear religious challenges

2005-04-03T09:20:00.000-07:00

The Republicans are trying their hardest to take a giant step toward theocracy. They have proposed a new law which almost ensures a major move toward theocracy.

The step is to create a completely safe harbor for the open government acknowledgment that Go'd law is the supreme law of the land. Any government official is free to proclaim such religious tenets, it seems, at any time even in connection with official acts.

Any judge who exercises jurisdiction (ie. hears a case about crossing the line of separation of church and state) can be REMOVED FROM OFFICE for violating the standards of good behavior.

Why is this frightening? It's frightening because it tries to prevent judicial review of the degree of theocratic involvement in government.

Judicial review of government actions is the LAST RESORT to correct the excesses or misdeeds of a rogue government official or rogue government agency.

By removing the LAST RESORT, there are no meaningful brakes on religious-directed government action.

Those who do not fear the right wing Republicans will interpret this law in a benign fashion, for they will convince themselves that "surely the Republicans do not want a theocracy or anything close to it".

Well, with this new bill, the Republicans are in effect encouraging all government officials to acknowledge "God" (What type of God, though, is unspecified) as the true soveriegn, not the US Government or other government elected by the people. And, the courts are not allowed to hear challenges to the officials' actions when the official declares he is doing God's will.

I think we could all agree that this new bill moves us closer to a (kinder gentler?) theocracy, by mandating a theocracy-friendly legal system.

Daily Kos :: New Law to go after Non-God fearing judges:

"The following is a summary of the Constitutional Restoration Act proposed by Republicans in the 109th congress that makes it possible for the Congress to charge any judge with a crime who disagrees with the concept that all law, liberty, and government comes only from God. 'The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.

Four co-sponsors:
Sen Brownback, Sam - 3/3/2005
Sen Burr, Richard - 3/3/2005
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 3/8/2005
Sen Lott, Trent - 3/8/2005

(Notice the Sponsors include Sen. Sam Brownback-R who has just declaired that he will be running for President in 2008.)

Sandrover

Source of summary of bill (according to DailyKOS)

New McCarthyism - From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister in National Catholic Reporter

2005-04-03T07:04:00.000-07:00

Interesting opinion piece in the National Catholic Reporter, pointing out the fierce forces that stand arrayed to crush debate, within the Church and within the Congress and within Society.

To disagree with the ruling power is to risk being branded as something evil.

And the ruling power seems to want to stifle disagreement.

I say "ruling power" because our rulers in Washington (of the Republican Party) are not the majority in the country, just the majority of the elected officials. I doubt that the Republicans would have a majority of the nation as a whole if all eligible voters actually voted.

Most of the sentiments expressed in this opinion piece below are similar to my own sentiments. But rather than ME say them, I often think it's appropriate to point out when OTHERS say the same thing. A lot of people are feeling the same way.

From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, March 24, 2005: "In the church these days, too, anyone who wants to talk about the nature of life, the stem-cell question, the definition of marriage, the human rights of homosexual citizens or the ordination of women is targeted for ecclesiastical sanction, accused of being a 'bad Catholic,' silenced on church property, threatened with excommunication, and made the target of right-wing pressure groups designed to save the world from the possibility of examining other ideas. Like curing paralytics on the Sabbath or raising women from the dead, I'm sure.

In the Senate of the United States, that supposed guardian of U.S. civil rights, almost no one raised a voice against the invasion of Iraq for fear of being accused of being un-American. It was 'a time of a war' -- though that 'war' hadn't declared yet -- and the expectation was that at the first whiff of administration intent everybody had to 'get behind the President.' Lawmakers who questioned the idea, who did what lawmakers are supposed to do, were scorned in public, scoffed at on the floor of the House and Senate. Or, even more pointedly, were accused in election campaigns of being unpatriotic for thinking differently.

No doubt about it: We have entered a new phase of history. In the name of freedom and goodness, thought suppression is in the air. Now discussion has become dissent.

It is intimidation time in the United States of America. Everybody is expected to follow the flag bearer rather than the Bill of Rights.

It is inquisition time in the church. Everybody is expected to accept clerical answers rather than pursue Christian questions of conscience.

It is the period of the new McCarthyism, the rush to purify the soul of the nation by those who would do anything, however democratically impure, to achieve it."

Pope's Chance of Surviving Septic Shock Slim

2005-04-02T14:18:00.000-08:00

Looks like the Pope is just about to pass on.

I remember very well all those years ago when the last papal election took place. First we had Pope John Paul I, who was loved immediately for his pastoral ways.

Then John Paul I died suddenly (was it only a month or so after election?). And another election occurred.

Maybe due to the great outpouring of support for the pastoral ways of John Paul I, the new Pope called himself John Paul II.

Or maybe both John Paul I and John Paul II were "products" of the same culture in that, as cardinals, they both were longing for a more pastoral papacy.

I've never read a biography of John Paul II, but I'd like to one day.

I am not Catholic, but I have always respected and liked John Paul II for the good he has tried to do in the world.

The next Pope will have giant shoes to fill.

ABC News: Chance of Surviving Septic Shock Slim: "The Vatican announced a further deterioration in the 84-year-old pontiff's condition, saying he had slipped into heart and kidney failure, with a further drop in blood pressure and shallow breathing.

'The shallow breathing is totally consistent with severe failure of the blood vessels to provide blood to all the key organs,' Dr. Peter Salgo, associate director of the intensive care unit at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview."

The RM plays judge

2005-04-02T06:08:00.000-08:00

Today, April 2, 2005 your friendly neighborhood RM gets to play judge in a mock trial competition for high school students.

I wonder if I should be a nice judge or a crusty old world weary judge?

Should I sugar coat things and make it easy for the students, or give them a dose of the real world of the courtroom?

I am leaning toward real world. These mock trial students are probably among the brightest, and they might learn more from a dose fo reality than from a dose of artificial gentleness.

Dr. Cranford/A powerful antidote to religious extremism and to media ignorance and laziness

2005-04-01T14:35:00.000-08:00

The below linked newspaper editorial calls for moderate minded people to stand up against the wave of religious extremism in the USA. He goes on to talk about a confrontation between a doctor and Joe Scarborough, and calls for more such confrontations. He says the extremists and the media propagate ignorance, and must be confronted.

In the excerpt below, the author draws a comparison between what the religious extremists are trying to do to the USA, and to Iran.

I think the comparison to Iran is still over the top. I prefer to think (is it wishful thinking?) that our "religious extremists" in government and the judiciary are NOT trying to impose Iranian-style theocracy - they just want a few more key religious doctrines made into the law of the land.

Oops - What happens AFTER we outlaw abortion and birth control by constitutional amendment, and make the Ten Commandments the law? Do the religious extremists then push for a constitutional amendment to require the equal teaching of religious creationism along with real science? Etc, Etc, Etc.

If the extremists can get those constitutional amendments passed, then I expect they would keep going, in order to try to keep molding our society according the the dominant theological viewpoint.

In other words, we would become a kind of Christian Iran, a kinder gentler theocracy. I'm sure many religious conservatives would like to see just such a thing.

Even under a kinder gentler Christian theocracy, we might still have a powerful liberty with regard to freedom of political speech, however, and so we would still be way more free than Iranians.

I think if we come to a compromise on abortion, the religious conservatives would then be more comfortable with the separation of church and state. If stop inflamming people about abortion, though, the Republicans lose about 30% of their base, so I don't expect the top political thinkers in the Republican Party to do ANYTHING to bring the sides together and make peace on the abortion issue.

Did I say "compromise" on abortion? Yes. Those of you opposed to abortion rights currently compromise somewhat from the most extreme position, at least most of you do - you permit exceptions for rape and incest and life of mother. Only a very few of you, percentage wise, are so extreme that you would require that BOTH the mother AND the baby die, rather than allow an abortion to save mother's life.

Another compromise most of you will make: You will permit a near-viable baby to be c-sectioned out of the womb (at high risk of death) if vital to mother's health, even though you know that the fetus might not be strong enough to survive the stress, or might die soon, or might die early from being so premature, or might suffer permanent debilitating handicaps. If the severely premature baby dies, has an abortion (in effect) occurred?

Can we come to some compromise? For just one example, maybe we could pay for good comprehensive health care for all pregnant women, and provide a guaranteed income during pregnancy, and a stipend to replace their income when they have to stop working due to having the baby, and then pay for their child care so they can work again. But that's too "liberal" and "tax and spend" and "big government".

So rather than get too liberal, we invest some money but direct it at programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies (ok so far) ---- but then we don't focus on effective forms of birth control, or alternatives ot sexual intercourse, because that offends the conservative Catholics and the non-Catholic religious conservatives, who think the availability of birth control encourages pre-marital sex (a step backward in our goal of preventing unwanted pregnancies, seems to me).

We could pay fertile women to get sterilized. But no politicians will back such a policy. Social libertarians like me find that idea tolerable, but acknowledge that opponents raise valid concerns.

And a constitutional amendment banning abortion is a non-starter ---- the states won't vote for it, and it wouldn't stop abortions anyway - it would just drive abortion underground where it was a couple of generations ago.

But if we COULD make peace on the abortion issue, then I think we could have a better society because the Republicans and Democrats could stop behaving so much like enemies and start behaving more like people of one nation having civil and reasonable debate about the issues.

Editorial: Dr. Cranford/A powerful antidote to lunacy: "In a column this week, the New York Times' Paul Krugman mused about the dangers inherent in the rise of religious extremism in the United States. Increasingly, he said, the Christian right wing is willing to bend the law, ignore the spirit of the law, rewrite the law and ultimately reinterpret the law by packing the court with fellow travelers. All this in order to impose upon the nation an extremist religious ethic that looks more Iranian than American.

You've seen this play out over the past few weeks in lurid, 24/7 coverage of federal meddling in the Terri Schiavo case. It's also affecting the classroom as more teachers come under pressure to teach 'intelligent design' as a counter to evolution science. And it is coming soon to the U.S. Senate in the form of a Republican effort to prohibit filibusters against the most radical of President Bush's federal court nominees."

Demystify the Ninth Amendment

2005-04-01T04:44:00.000-08:00

Food for thought: The right wingers like to proclaim "judicial activism" a lot when the Supreme Court upholds a right to privacy (which, according to right wingers, isn't mentioned in their copy of the Constitution).

What about the 9th Amendment? Thats the one which declares that the people retain other rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. But the 9th does not list all those other rights. So what can they be?

Religious conservatives like to say we only have those rights that we had in about 1783 or so when the Constitution was drafted.

I know why they say that: Those were times before birth control and pornography and vulgar mass media. And so, obviously, we should be able to prohibit or severely restrict new modern things, because our constitution does not cover new modern things, since those things didn't exist in 1983.

Religious conservatives have this huge problem, I think, in explaining the meaning of the 9th Amendment. Even under an "original intent" analysis, the religious conservatives still have a problem: Do you mean to say that our Constitution did NOT envision a right to privacy existing in 1783?

The Constitution is a brief summary of our governing principles, not a comprehensive and detailed code of explicitly allowed, or disallowed, things.

Since the Constitution is a brief summary, there will be argument about whether some specific things "fit" within the summary terms. Who is tasked in our society with resolving those arguments? Our legal system is tasked with resolving those arguments. Judges are not "activists" just because they are playing their Constitutionally mandated role of resolving civil arguments about the meaning of the summary terms in the Constitution.

The editorial below raises similar issues surrounding the 9th Amendment.

Demystify the Ninth Amendment: "Demystify the Ninth Amendment
A 'living' Constitution might well be dangerous, but so can a frozen one

Tibor R. Machan
Ethics professor at Chapman University & adviser to Freedom Communications

In a recent talk, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his fellow justices for making law, a role he believes belongs to the legislature or the people themselves. Justices, he argued, are there to interpret the U.S. Constitution and this they must do by reading it as it was intended back when it was framed and when it was later amended.

In his dissent Scalia wrote of his concern that the high court is proclaiming itself the sole arbiter of the nation's moral standards.

The charge Scalia has leveled at his colleagues - five of them, the majority who ruled for abolition of the death penalty for juveniles and the mentally impaired - is the substance of the general criticism usually labeled 'judicial activism.'

This view decries it when the court rules as if there exist rights that are not explicitly mentioned or enumerated within the U.S. Constitution.

One of the most famous of these unenumerated rights is the right to privacy, and the majority of the court has ruled in several recent cases that various state laws violate this right and are, therefore, unconstitutional and invalid laws.

In his recent public talk, Justice Scalia argued that the idea of a living constitution is essentially wrongheaded because it leaves the country without a firm basis of law by which it can be governed. Instead of a stable set of constitutional principles, justices have come to make laws based on their 'personal policy preferences,' thus undermining the classic doctrine of the rule of law (as opposed to that of arbitrary governors).

The case Scalia makes has a good deal going for it because it is indeed part of the theory of politics in the USA that the role justices play does not include making laws, only interpreting the Constitution.

Yet, there is a problem here because Justice Scalia ignores the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the one that states unequivocally that aside from rights enumerated in that document, the people have others as well.

The Ninth reads: 'The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'"

Schiavo Legal Battle May Be Over - Supreme Court Rejects appeal

2005-03-31T04:05:00.000-08:00

The Republican dominated US Supreme Court rejected the latest Schiavo appeal.

For all the criticizm out there in radioland about liberals and activist judges, at some point reality must set in: These judges are not liberals, they are not activists, and they are not (for the most part) even Democrats.

When the judiciary speaks with one voice, as it has in the Schiavo case, the general public can be pretty confident of one thing: The judges are following the clear mandate of the law. In Florida, the law is controlled by Republilcans who run the legislature and the Governor's mansion, not by liberal Democrats.

If the law is clear enough that the judges speak with one voice, then the Save Schiavo activists need to turn their attention away from demonizing Democrats, and focus more on developing a reasonable plan for changing the law as it relates to persistent vegetative states and pulling the plug.

They can begin their persuasive efforts by asking W. Bush to rebuke himself for signing a Texas law in 1999 that permits hospitals to pull the plug (even on babies) whenever the patients can't pay and further treatment would be futile.

Yahoo! News - Lawyer: Schiavo Legal Battle May Be Over: "PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - Nearly two weeks after Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was disconnected, her parents endured what their lawyer says may be their last legal setback when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene.

The ruling Wednesday night came as Schiavo, 41, began her 13th day without food and water. Earlier in the day, a federal appeals court also refused to intervene in the case."

Conservative judge blasts Bush, Congress for role in Schiavo case - from KR Washington Bureau

2005-03-31T03:55:00.000-08:00

FYI: A very conservative judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rebukes Congress and others over thei involvement in the Schiavo case, for trying to usurp the discretion of judges, and criticizes them for chanting a mantra about "activist judges".

KR Washington Bureau | 03/30/2005 | Conservative judge blasts Bush, Congress for role in Schiavo case: "Conservative judge blasts Bush, Congress for role in Schiavo case

By Stephen Henderson

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The latest rejection of the Terri Schiavo case by a federal court was accompanied by a stinging rebuke of Congress and President Bush from a seemingly unlikely source: Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., one of the most conservative jurists on the federal bench.

Birch authored opinions upholding Alabama's right to ban the sale of sex toys and Florida's ability to prohibit adoptions by gay couples. Both rulings drew the ire of liberal activists and the elation of traditional and social conservatives.

Yet, in Wednesday's 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to deny a rehearing to Schiavo's parents, Birch went out of his way to castigate Bush and congressional Republicans for acting 'in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for governance of a free people - our Constitution.'"

Watching as the GOP develops a new propaganda vehicle for the spinwits to demagogue about - the ACVR

2005-03-31T03:10:00.000-08:00

We are privileged, because of the internet and some interpid independent reports, to be watching the development of a new propaganda vehicle for the Republican Party, FoxNews, and the spinwits Hannity-Coulter-Limbaugh and their ilk.

The new propaganda vehicle started up a few days ago, and is a new organization called "American Center for Voting Rights" (ACVR).

The ACVR has published a report purporting to detail many instances of voter intimidation by the Democrats and their allies.

The ACVR organization is actually a mail drop at a UPS store. Cite: Brad Blog - Mystery Solved! Location of 'American Center for Voting Rights' Found! Exclusive Photographs!.

And just look who is behind the ACVR ! ---------
"The ACVR is anything but 'non-partisan' and their so-far known ringleaders are actually Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, the National Counsel for Bush/Cheney '04 Inc. and his partner-in-crime Jim Dyke, the RNC's Communications Director." Cite: Brad Blog report - RNC Political Director Cites Report by RNC 'Voting Rights' Front Group to RNC Email List!.

Ok, so based on the above, reasonable people might be somewhat skeptical of the scholarly credentials and legitimacy of this so-called non-partisan voting rights group.

HOWEVER --- the world of propaganda and politics is NOT reasonable. The ACVR will be construed by the right wing as THOROUGHLY legitimate and undeniably completely truthful in whatever it proclaims. That's who the spin and propaganda game works these days.

The mere existence of the ACVR gives the right wing spinwits and politicos enough COVER to start to CITE THE ACVR as their source for "proof" about widespread voter intimidation by Democrats.

And so let's look at the next step in the development of the ACVR as a usable propaganda tool:

1) A news organizaion called CNS ran a piece which portrayed the ACVR as a legitimate non-partisan group. The Brad Blog takes CNS to task for perpetrating this propaganda (see excerpt below).

2) The Political Director of the Republican National Committee mentioned the ACVR in an email newsletter MArch 30, 2005: The Brad Blog discovered that in an email newsletter on 3-30-05, The political director of the Republican National Committee picked up the ball and discussed the "work" of the ACVR.

3) Congress held some hearings and invited the ACVR, but not more mainstream and long-standing and legitimate voting rights groups. During the hearing, ACVR people DI NOT MENTION their ties to the Republican Party, so the ACVR appears to be legititamely non-partisan in the official public repord of the United States -- More cover for the propaganda scheme. CITE: Brad Blog - 'Voting Rights' Group Leader Withholds Bush/Cheney/RNC Ties During Congressional Testimony!
Describes Himself as 'Advocate of Voter Rights' But Not as Bush/Cheney '04 General Counsel!.

And so we can see how the scheme to legitimize the ACVR has taken several steps forward. The stage is now set for the ACVR to EXPLODE on the media scene in the same way as the Swift Boat Veterns exploded. What happens NEXT?

Next, we will see FoxNews do stories citing the ACVR, and FoxNews will brag about how the ACVR report has been reported on by the CNS news service and has to be circulated by the Republican Party "because the liberal media refuse to report on it".

Then spinwits Hannity-Coulter-Limbaugh will demagague how the liberal media does not want anyone to know about the ACVR investigative report, because they want to cover up for Democratic misconduct.

As you can see from the citations above, the Brad Blog has been all over this story. Brad Freidman has written a fairly comprehensive letter to the editor of the CNS new organization protesting the presentation of the ACVR propaganda as news. I have excerpted the letter below:

(Oh, By the way: WHY did the Republicans feel the need to form this questionable organzation called the ACVR and then foist it on the world as if it were a legitimate non-partisan scholarly research group? ----- The answer is simple: There have been hundred or even thousands of reports of Republican tricks and misconduct involving voters throughout the country --- BS or not --- and the Republicans needed a way to strike back. But there are not a large number of credible reports of Democrats trying to purge Republicans from the voter roles, or ensuring that Republican precincts have too few voting booths, or throwing away boxes of ballots from Republican precincts, or Democrats sending around unsigned literature that scares Republicans away from the polls, or Democrats challenging the eligibility of Republican voters waiting in line at the polls, etc, etc, etc.)

Now on to the excerpt from the Brad Blog's protest letter to the CNS news organization:

Excerpt from the Brad Blog's letter to CNS denouncing the legitimization of a transparently political ploy

It's simply astounding that you would publish an article by Kathleen Rhodes ("Liberal Bloggers Pounce on Voting Fraud Watchdog Group") apologizing for the bogus and insulting "American Center for Voting Rights" (ACVR) by describing the ring-leaders of the group as "non-partisan", having "Past GOP connections" and being "formerly involved in Republican politics".

Both of the known ACVR participants are anything but non-partisan as they are current and active high-level RNC operatives.

Thor Hearne, who gave testimony for the group before congress, representing the only "voting rights" group called to testified at last week's U.S. House Administration Committee hearings on the 2004 Election in Ohio, is currently slated as the key-note speaker at the RNC-funded Republican National Lawyers Association reception next month in Florida. He is still an active member of that organization.

As well, hard-right partisan ACVR spokesperson Jim Dyke continues his work with the RNC and serves as a "GOP News Analyst" for Fox "News".

Hardly "former". Hardly "past". Hardly "non-partisan".

Your article also fails to mention that this group of snake-oil salesmen appeared on the Internet on Thursday, March 17th and gave testimony as experts on the issue of "Voting Rights" to Congress just three days later on Monday, March 21.

In the meantime, real "Voting Rights" organizations, who have been working on these issues for months and years were not even notified of these hearings. It's also more than notable that Hearne never bothered to mention his active affiliation with Bush/Cheney '04 Inc. and other Republican organizations during his congressional testimony. He referred to himself deceptively as simply "a longtime advocate of voter rights."

Furthermore, you advance the notion that this "non-partisan", tax-exempt 501(c)3 group, actually has filed the paper work to receive the privileges granted with that status, yet fail -- as they did -- to produce any documentation to demonstrate that in fact they have the access they claim on their website. A website, mind you, that gives no way to donate to the company, and was claimed to be registered by some unnamed company in Dallas, the name of which nobody at this front group seems to be able to remember despite having built the website just days ago. (The address, by the way, is a post office box in a Dallas, TX UPS store, yet none of the known operatives for this bunch actually lives or works in Dallas!)

This front group, set up solely to counter the hundreds and thousands of credible and verifiable claims of voter disenfranchisement, and miscounted and uncounted votes of the American people in the 2004 election is an insult to the Americans who have died both in this country and overseas fighting for the right to a free and fair vote. On the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by President Lyndon Johnson after American were killed and beaten fighting for the right to vote in Selma, Alabama, such a phony organization is all the more insulting and outrageous.

For you to support and feed in to their fiction displays the hard-right bias of "news" organizations such as yours claiming to offer "balance" to what you see as a "Liberal" media bias.

Rants about the culture of torture we've established -- from The Rude Pundit

2005-03-30T18:08:00.000-08:00

CAUTION: Watch for a lot of crude language below.

The Rude Pundit is an interesting read. He rants and raves about an issue, but scores a lot of points in the process. He digests a lot of info, and then all hell breaks loose. Reading the Rude Pundit is kinda like listening to Lewis Black do his "Back in Black" rants on The Daily Show.

In this case, The Rude Pundit takes on Torture.

The reason this one caught my eye is that the ACLU has provided a summary of about 1200 pages of Army-released documents that relate to the treatment of prisoners in various places around the world.

The Rude Pundit hits home when he describes how others in the world might view us, considering we've created a culture of torture for the first time in our history.

I hope you find it entertaining, even if it's over the top. After all, the Rude Pundit is proud to be "Lowering the level of discourse".

My own thoughts about torture: I hate to say it but I would not hate torture in the right circumstances. For example, if we KNEW that a terrible thing was about to happen and we KNEW that the prisoner KNEW essential material info about it that might help us prevent the terrible thing. In that sceanario, we could morally justify an emergency use of torture.

But all the signs are indicating that we LACK such moral justification for torture.

We lacked sufficient justification for the Iraq war, when gauged by the standards of civilized society. Civilized nations do not start a war unless the threat is imminent, and the entire world now knows that Iraq did not pose and imminent threat.

How about torturing the Afghan fighters to learn about the Muslin terror network?

The signs and symptoms are that we have NOT learned anything particularly useful in the three years we've been torturing people.

You can bet your last dollar that if we had obtained the breakthrough that we SHOULD be able to get through torture, then we would be treated to a huge celebration by the Bush adminsitration to showcase our great successes (such as the prevention of a major attack, or the capture of Bin Laden).

Torture is immoral with a narrow emergency exception that is inapplicable to the current debate.

Torture makes the United States no better in the eyes of the world than some evil dictator-run totalitarian state.

Let's reclaim the moral high ground.

The Rude Pundit: "The ACLU's summary of the recent 1200 pages of documents from the Army is a wonderful catalog of hate and destruction, the kind of shit that if you read it about any other nation, you'd wonder why the people don't rise up in rebellion. Or if the people did rise up, you couldn't blame 'em. We got sworn statements of soldiers saying they were told to take prisoners out back and 'beat the fuck out of them,' we got a healthy man dying in custody, we got soldiers being allowed to get 'payback' against suspected insurgents. And no distinction, often, between people picked up who have done something to attack the American or Iraqi military and people who just were standing next to that person. Because, you know, that might require, let's just fuckin' say, 'Due fucking process,' which is anathema to the purposes of this approach: inflicting fear on populations.

Here's how they used to treat prisoners under a U.S. buddy, the Shah of Iran - see if any of this sounds familiar, from the 1999 book Tortured Confessions by Ervand Abrahamian: 'sleep deprivation; extensive solitary confinement; glaring searchlights; standing in one place for hours on end; nail extractions; snakes (favored for use with women); electrical shocks with cattle prods, often into the rectum; cigarette burns; sitting on hot grills; acid dripped into nostrils; near-drownings; mock executions; and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams while amplifying them for the victim. This latter contraption was dubbed the Apollo--an allusion to the American space capsules. Prisoners were also humiliated by being raped, urinated on, and forced to stand naked.' No, not all, no acid in the nostrils that we know about, but, fuck, an awful lot of these techniques and others are part and parcel of the 'interrogation' of prisoners, part of the 'softening up' process."

Demagogues attack judiciary over Schiavo - the judge is a Christian Conservative

2005-03-30T04:30:00.000-08:00

The following piece is a more legitimate source for commentary than my own prior blog posts about how the Schiavo case is being misused by the politicians.

Moreover, the piece talks about how the spinwit demagogues have whipped the zealots into a bloody frenzy, so that the zealots are willing to kill the Christian Republican Judge who decided the Schiavo case using Florida law.

By the way, the Judge's decision ahs been upheld by all other judges to hear the case on appeal. So, do the zealots truly believe that all these judges are wacko liberals who want to kill people, or who do not respect life?

Let's let the Schiavo case serve as a motivator for a national model law regarding how to deal with those in persistent vegetative states (I realize the great and moving debate about whether Schiavo qualifies as vegetative - I oppose starvation, remember).

Each state would then enact the model law. We do this for commercial codes and criminal laws, and for other areas of law as well.

News-Leader.com | Opinions | Our View | Demagogues attack the judiciary

It is an odd twist of logic: To save a brain-damaged women's life, a zealot would take a judge's life.

But these fanatics are not the only ones targeting judges. Conservative politicians and commentators have made a calculated decision to use the Schiavo case in their efforts to subvert an independent judiciary. For short-term political gain, they seek to undercut one of the foundations of American liberty.

This is ridiculous, because the courts are the only ones who have stuck to their job description in this case.

The courts have not sought to extend their authority beyond its legal bounds, as Florida Gov. Jeb Bush did. The courts did not plan a congressional hearing in Schiavo's hospice room. The courts did not call members back from vacation for a midnight vote to extend their authority into family matters, as Congress did.

Greer — a conservative Christian and Republican — and all the state and federal judges who have reviewed his decisions did what they are supposed to do: They made decisions based on facts and the law.

Bush's Secret Service admits it kicks out peaceful Dems from publically funded forums when Republicans Party wants it to --- It's UnAmerican

2005-03-30T03:54:00.000-08:00

Your patriotic blood should boil at this story of apparent official corruption by the Bush administration and the Republican Party and the Secret Service.

The story starts with three persons who held tickets for a publically funded Bush public forum. At such forums, when public funds are used, it is a violation of the US Constitution for peaceful persons to be excluded based on their political beliefs. Moreover, it's just plain fascist or communist or totalitarian to exclude peaceful citizens from publically funded events based on their political party affiliation.

Bush uses public funds to arrange the forums, but then lets the Republican Party decide who gets to come. The Republican Party cannot OVERTLY demand that only Republicans can get tickets. HOWEVER, the Republicans have a workaround ---- They look for signs and symptoms that ticket holders might actually be Democrats or other non-Bush supporters. Then Party Officials instruct the Secret Service to deny such persons admission. That's illegal, and is a violation of our civil rights as Americans, as well as probably a violation of umpteen ethics laws.

That's the story, and it's utterly UnAmerican if true. I suspect it's illegal. I'd rather see Congress hold hearings on Bush's ethics than on steroids, but they don't ask me.

I hope all moderate minded persons reading this are as offended as I am.

I invite anyone interested to defend the actions of Bush and the Republicans and the Secret Service, assuming the story to be true. I supect that even such defenders will know, in their heart of hearts, that this is just plain UnAmerican, whether they are willing to admit it or not.

Daily Kos :: Suppressing free speech: "Very rarely does the everyday public get a glimpse of what happens behind the scenes in a normally-secret Bush Administration.

But Monday, March 28, the Secret Service called three everyday people into their offices to discuss why we were kicked out of a presidential event in Denver last week where Bush promoted his plan to privatize Social Security. What they revealed to us and our lawyer was fascinating.

There we were - three people who had personally picked up tickets from Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez's office and went to a presidential event. But as we entered, we were told that we had been 'ID'ed' and were warned that any disruption would get us arrested.

After being seated in the audience we were forcibly removed before the President arrived, even though we had not been disruptive. We were shocked when told that this presidential event was a 'private event' and were commanded to leave.

More astonishingly, when the Secret Service was contacted the next day they agreed to meet with us this Monday, March 28 to discuss the circumstances surrounding our removal. We had two big questions going into this meeting:

1. How is the Bush Administration 'ID'ing' citizens before presidential events?

2. Why was an official taxpayer-funded event called a 'private event' - leading to citizens being kicked out?

Most shocking of all, we got answers to both questions.

The Secret Service revealed that we were 'ID'ed' when local Republican staffers saw a bumper sticker on the car we drove which said 'No More Blood For Oil.' Evidently, the free speech expressed on one bumper sticker is cause enough to eject three citizens from a presidential event. (Similarly, someone was ejected from Bush's Social Security privatization event in Arizona the same day simply for wearing a Democratic t-shirt.)

The Secret Service also revealed that ticket distribution and staffing of the Social Security event was run by the local Republican Party. They wanted us to be clear that it was a Republican staffer - not the Secret Service - who kicked us out of the presidential event. But this revealed something else that should be startling to all Americans.

After allowing taxpayers to finance his privatization events (let's call them what they really are after all,) and after using the White House communications apparatus to set them up, Bush is privatizing the ticket distribution and security staffing at his events to the Republican Party. The losers are not just taxpayers, but anyone who values the First Amendment. Under the banner of a 'private event' the Republican Party is excluding citizens from seeing their president because of the lone sin of expressing the wrong idea on a bumper sticker or t-shirt. The question for Americans is - will we allow our freedom to be privatized?

Karen Bauer, Leslie Weise. Alexander Young
Denver residents"

Rev. Jerry Falwell in critical condition

2005-03-30T03:03:00.000-08:00

I wish Falwell a speedy recovery.

For a generation, Falwell has gotten under my skin with his viewpoints and apparent influence. And I talk about him sometimes on this blog.

But I don't wish sickness and desease on anyone just because I disagree with them.

Get well soon.

CNN.com - Rev. Jerry�Falwell in critical condition - Mar 29, 2005: "LYNCHBURG, Virginia (AP) -- The Rev. Jerry Falwell was hospitalized in critical condition Tuesday, battling his second case of viral pneumonia in just five weeks, hospital and church officials said.

Falwell, 71, was admitted to Lynchburg General Hospital shortly before midnight Monday suffering from 'respiratory arrest,' the hospital said in a statement, meaning his breathing had slowed or stopped.

'His cardiac status is stable and there is no evidence of a heart attack,' said hospital spokesman Tom Urtz, reading from a statement. 'He is alert and responding to questions."

Rush Limbaugh trying to calm a violent caller, and thoughts from the RM about that.

2005-03-29T06:45:00.000-08:00

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh in my car for a little while yesterday,
Monday March 28, 2005, and I heard an interesting exchange with a caller.

It was fun to watch Rush squirm, trying to courteously deal with the natural
and probable violent tendencies provoked by his own words.

The caller was an older guy who had become focused on the Schiavo case. He
was regurgitating the over-the-top junk he's been hearing from his favorite
right wing spinwits, and possibly from his favorite TV preachers, and was
calling for, in essence, violence.

The caller likened the Schiavo case to something out of Nazi Germany, and said
that the people should rise up and oppose evil judges who thwart the will of
the people, or something like that. Of course, it's all the fault of the
liberals.

And he does not understand why the great upstanding conservative, Jeb Bush
(Governor of Florida) won't rescue Sciavo.

Rush had his hands full.

Rush knows very well that the "activist liberal judge" in Florida who made
the tough decision in the Sciavo case is just one of many judges who have
looked at the case. There have been appeals after appeals, and under Florida
law everything is legal that has occurred in the case.

Rush was trying to explain to the caller that violence and law breaking by
the Save Schiavo forces is not appropriate.

Each time Rush would try to say violence was inappropriate, the caller would
remind him of examples from history where law breaking and violence were
appropriate, including the American Revolution where our patriots broke
England's laws in revolting.

I wonder what Rush Really thinks about the intellect of the hard core rank
and file religious conservatives with whom he dances. Rush fills their heads
with demonizing name-calling against evil liberals and evil liberal judges.
He says liberals don't care about life, or similar crap. In other words, he
tells the Faithful that liberals are in effect evil people who are working
their level best to destroy our nation and our religion and our babies and
our helpless citizens.

(Oh, By the Way: Rush is keeping W. Bush's secret about that Texas law Bush
signed, the one that lets hospitals kill people who can't pay for care in
some circumstances --- Isn't Rush a nice guy, to help Bush avoid
embarassment?)

But Rush does NOT want to publically endorse violence, even though violence
would be understandable if what he were saying were true, about the evil
liberals and the evil judges and their culture of death. By his choice of
language, he has encouraged but not endorsed Violence to save Schiavo and to
prevent abortions.

But when the caller wanted Rush to actually tell him that violence was OK,
Rush balked. In fact, Rush sounded very off balance. Rush seemed to want to
say some harsh things to the caller, but stumbled around trying to be polite
and discourage violence.

If you think Rush Actually would endorse violence, you'd be wrong. Violence
would mean that right wing radio has become officially dangerous to civil
order, and its popularity among more moderate folks would plunge.

When the violence starts, then the public will recognize that the spinwits'
insane demonizing of liberals and Democrats is NOT all in good fun, and is
Dangerous to our civil society.

We are not a jihadist culture yet, but we may be getting there.

Anyway, it was fun to watch Rush squirm, trying to courteously deal with the
natural and probable violent tendencies provoked by his own words.

Terri Schiavo Was Just An Innocent Bystander To A Political, Elmer Gantry Circus Of GOP Political Opportunists And Religious Hucksters

2005-03-28T06:46:00.000-08:00

Here's a dose, from the LEFT, of the exact same type of over the top radical name calling that we hear ALL THE TIME from the right wing and the likes of Spinwits Hannity-Coulter-Limbaugh-etc.

Try not to be offended by the BuzzFlash editorial below. Instead, as you feel the rage welling up inside you at the unfair name calling, and the idiotic spinning and distorting, and the seeming hatemongering, then realize that you are walking in the shoes of the victims of Hannity-Coulter-Limbaugh-etc.

Sure would be nice if we stopped demonizing people because they disagreed with us, and instead elevated the debate to a civilized level and acknowledged that our opponents are rational people too (usually).

Terri Schiavo Was Just An Innocent Bystander To A Political, Elmer Gantry Circus Of GOP Political Opportunists And Religious Hucksters: "Terri Schiavo Was Just An Innocent Bystander To A Political, Elmer Gantry Circus Of GOP Political Opportunists And Religious Hucksters

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Terri Schiavo deserves our sympathy and our Godspeed.

She was just an innocent bystander to a political, Elmer Gantry circus of GOP political opportunists and religious hucksters.

The origins of the travesty and moral crime of exploitation was a family feud of sorts. It was about a wrenching decision made thousands of times a year by Americans about loved ones who are in vegetative states or terminal conditions.

But with the help of the infamous Randall Terry and the GOP hypocrisy machine, a case long ago settled by the courts, was hijacked to advance Republican fortunes and fill the pocket books of celebrity fundamentalist preachers.

Terri Schiavo, like anyone in her situation, deserves our sympathy and our empathy. She didn't ask for a three ring circus, but the Bush brothers and Tom 'the Exterminator DeLay' could care less about her dignity or her life. She's only of use to them if her parents' campaign can help them further consolidate power -- or, in the case of DeLay, cling onto it amidst a rash of ethical and legal problems.

We are always a bit baffled when the mainstream media and centrist Democrats 'concede' that the Republicans have some sort of monopoly on the 'values issue.' The only value that the GOP leadership seems to consistently embrace is hypocrisy. Virtually, everything else is brazen showboating by hardened sinners and liars, immoral opportunists and slick river boat gamblers playing the role of saintly pious men."

State, 1; Schiavo, 0 by Gary North -- Right to Lifers must be willing to have the state pay for care

2005-03-27T23:54:00.000-08:00

Interesting article below. The author points out certain problems he sees in both sides of the Schiavo case. On the one hand, those who would continue feeding Schiavo tend not to want to have the government pay for medical care. Those who support pulling the plug are refusing to acknowledge that a triage must occur, that some must die to save scarce financial resources.

Try to overlook the author's overreaching generalizations, and focus more on the underlying issues he raises.

In my view, we must find a way for the government to fund care for those in Schiavo's condition, or else develop a reasonable legal method for peaceful and prompt death, rather than slow death by starvation and thirst.

State, 1; Schiavo, 0 by Gary North: "RIGHT TO LIFE = OBLIGATION TO PAY

There are no free lunches. This is the scarce resource issue.

To say that Terri Schiavo has a right to life is to say that someone else has a legal obligation to pay to keep her alive.

The obligation to pay is an inescapable concept. It is never a matter of 'obligation to pay vs. no obligation to pay.' It is always a question of 'who has the obligation to pay and which jurisdiction of civil government has the obligation to say who has the obligation to pay.'

The horror of the Schiavo case is not that the state has pulled out the feeding tubes. The state was paying for those tubes. He who pays the piper calls the tune. To deny this is to adopt tooth-fairy economics and ultimately tyranny. The state must be under law to spend money in predictable ways. If it is not under law, then the politicians will take our money and spend it on anything they choose.

The horror of the Schiavo case is that the state will not allow anyone else to pay in order to stick the feeding tube back in. Police are arresting people who attempt to give her water.

Nobody on either side wants to put the issue in these stark terms. The pro-Schiavo forces want tooth-fairy economics, and the anti-Schiavo forces want to reduce the red ink, which is not good public positioning for advocates of the healer state.

Who pays?"

AlterNet: Bush's Dangerous Propaganda Game

2005-03-27T23:43:00.000-08:00

I write often about Bush's propaganda efforts, and highlighting those who also criticize Bush, like the one below:

AlterNet: Bush's Dangerous Propaganda Game
This deliberate manipulation of our news is more than outrageous – it's a frontal assault on our democracy and is totally disrespectful of the American people.

You're used to hearing television reporters give their signature tag lines: "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting." "This is Jennifer Morrow reporting." "I'm Pat O'Leary reporting."

But these days, you can't know if your news presenter is a reporter ... or a ringer. Karen Ryan, for example, is a veteran of the government's propaganda machine, having posed as a "reporter" for fake news segments produced and distributed by seven federal agencies in the past two years. Ryan is really a PR consultant, who candidly calls herself a "paid shill for the Bush administration."

The Blogger website is having problems

2005-03-26T11:23:00.000-08:00

A friendly note to let readers know that the Blogger website is apparently suffering periodic outages that are causing it to reject my blog posts.

When I try to post lately, I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for Blogger to acknowledge the post, and then I find the post has been lost in cyberspace.

It's frustrating and has discouraged me from blogging so often the past few days.

The Blogger status pages acknowledge that they are upgrading servers and stuff.

BUT BLOGGER IS OWNED BY THE MULTIBILLION $ GOOGLE COMPANY ---- Get we expect you to get off your arses and FIX this thing please. I LUV Google BTW. Someone at Google might need to look into the issue with Blogger lately, and devote some more resources to getting the service back to its historic reliability.

I apologize for any inconvenience to readers lately.

Soft tissue found in T-rex fossil --- and comments about creationism

2005-03-25T09:59:00.000-08:00

70 Million year old fossilized dinosaur SOFT TISSUE is found!

That's exciting, because all other fossilized material from dinosaurs has been bone.

The soft tissue fossil may reveal blood vessel details, and possibly containsome fragments of proteins. Scientists will fit this new data into the existing database and see what they might be able to deduce about the life of dinosaurs.

Evolutionists will have new fodder for improving their theories.

Many Creationists will have a new challenge in store for them in trying to debunk the new findings.

The key difference between "religious science" and a "secular science" is this: Secular Scientists reach conclusions based on the actual empirical evidence, but Religious Scientists start with a conclusion (ex: the Bible is inerrent on the 6,000 year age of the earth) and look for "evidence" to support the conclusion.

Some Secular Scientific concepts are SO VERY WELL CONFIRMED that they are accepted as truth, almost like a religious concept. EXCEPT THAT Secular Scientists will ABANDON or MODIFY such "truths" the INSTANT contrary credible evidence is found and verified. For example, the special and general theories of relativity, and evolution through natural selection.

Of course, Religous Scientists will NOT reject or modify their religious truths, no matter how much credible evidence exists contrary to such truths.

Secular Science and Religious Science are two very different things. Don't be confused.

CREATIONISM:
How will the creationists deal with the fossilized soft tissue and the new findings to be discovered therein? That depends on what version of creationism you follow I think.

Those who are not serious scientists, including a significant percentage of the hyper-religious lay public, believe that the world is something like 6,000 years old. Outside of the Biblical account of creation, no credible evidence esists to support this 6,000 year religious belief.

But there is another faction of creationism, a middle of the road type of creationism. This Moderate Creationsim acknowledges that secular science has accumulated real credible evidence that the earth (and the cosmos) is not just 6,000 years old, but many billions of years old.

The Moderate Creationists are not blinded to science. They want to harmonize science with their religious views. And it is not too hard to perform the harmonization, on the surface at least: "God must have "created" all the species, at different times even, because we do not think there exists enough evidence of intermediate steps for us to believe that a species can "evolve" into another species."

(It is my feeling that creationists try so hard to debunk "Evolution" and "natural selection" because of the inevitable conclusion that humans must have evolved from other species, which runs contrary to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. ----- and that'll shake the fundamentalists' confidence in their faith)

Here's a form of creationism that harmonizes beautifully with science: God created the cosmos and the Earth, and His method of populating the earth was evolution through natural selection.

This last form of creationism is completely at harmony with science. Even the most jaded theoretical physicist will probably acknowledge the the "moment of creation" of the universe is like an unknown singularity, in that we will likely never truly know how it happened. And in the absence of contary scientific proof, the "moment of creation" could have been at the Hand of God for all we know.

CNN.com - Soft tissue found in T-rex fossil - Mar 24, 2005: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70-million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.

'We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising,' she said in a telephone interview.

It was recovered dinosaur DNA -- the blueprint for life -- that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film 'Jurassic Park.' Although that was science fiction, Schweitzer said she was not sure if scientists would be able to isolate dinosaur DNA fragments from the fossilized materials."

Craigslist gets beamed into space - Tim's name becomes almost immortal

2005-03-23T21:34:00.000-08:00

DIVERSION: Hey, my Craigslist ad for a receptionist just got beamed into space!

Now, my name has taken on a form of immortality as it drifts through space at the speed of light, forever.

I think that's cool, and I didn't have to pay for it.

CNN.com - Craigslist gets beamed into space - Mar 23, 2005

Science & Space

Craigslist gets beamed into space

By Ker Than
Special to SPACE.comexternal link
Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Posted: 4:25 PM EST (2125 GMT)

Craigslist became the first commercial transmission of a Web site into space on March 11, 2005, according to Deep Space Communications Network.
(SPACE.com) -- Aliens will be glad to know that if ever they need to find an apartment here on Earth, someone has got them covered.

On March 11, a company called Deep Space Communications Network beamed the first commercial transmission of a Web site into space.

The message? Over one hundred thousand separate postings from craigslist.com, the popular community Web site that includes classified listings for jobs, housing and other goods. The transmission included a date and time stamp, as well as an audio track identifying the message as originating from Earth.

Joseph Sobran --- The Fear of "Theocracy" --- Sobran defends theocracy in America --- Is our thinking being "conditioned"?

2005-03-23T04:00:00.000-08:00

Joseph Sobran is a conservative columnist in line with the Christian Right and its social agenda.

In the column excerpted below, Sobran defends the idea of Theocracy in America.

All this talk about Theocracy is coming out of the woodwork under George W. Bush. In the blog post just prior to this one today, I talked about how a Republican Congressman, Shays, thinks the recent Save Schiavo law is a Theocracy" action.

Liberals have been talking about theocracy coming for a long time.

The difference now is that Republicans have stopped ignoring the theocracy talk, and are talking about it openly, and, as Sobran does, actually are defending theocracy.

Maybe our thinking is being "conditioned". That's a Karl Rove political strategy, one that George Bush accidentally talked about in answering a question recently, where he started his answer by saying something like "Let me condition your thinking on that point .....".

If we are being conditioned, what are we being conditioned for?

Sobran Column --- The Fear of "Theocracy"

This is why it always sounds quaint to me when liberals warn us obsessively against one particular form of government: theocracy. They see the threat of theocracy in every Christmas creche, in legal restrictions on abortion, in public school prayer, in the rise of the Religious Right, in the Pledge of Allegiance, in any official reference to the Almighty (“In God we trust”).

But just what are we being warned against? What is theocracy, anyway? Its vigilant enemies never bother to define it. If the danger signs they cite are any indication, Western man has lived under theocracy for most of his history — and in some respects, he still does.

How bad is it? Judging by, say, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, not too bad. His pious pilgrims seem quite content in a religious society. And judging by, say, the tavern scenes in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, even people who were none too pious didn’t feel oppressed by life under an official state religion.

Rocky Mountain News: No room for dissent at President's forum --- Bush works hard to stay uninformed, and listens to NeoCons - a leftist group

2005-03-23T02:58:00.000-08:00

Our President's handlers historically (now I can say that) do NOT PERMIT known dissenters to attend the President's "public" forums. This is a long-standing policy, well reported by the media on the back pages of newspapers, and scream about loudly on the liberal blogs.

It's unAmerican for the President to behave in this way.

But, MORE IMPORTANTLY: The policy of shutting down all dissent shields the President from reality. George W. Bush has proudly proclaimed on several occasions that he does NOT read newspapers. Being that he is a non-reader, I doubt he surfs the internet and gets a healthy does of broad opinion.

That means that he gets his "news" from TV. TV News is worthless, and FoxNews is not much more than a propaganda tool for the Republican Party.

In his daily briefings, the President will not get a broad does of healthy opinion. He will get what he wants to hear, from lapdogs. He might get a small taste of what his most powerful opponents are saying, but he will dismiss such dissent as political posturing.

Mr. President, it appears that you are not likely to be well informed.

Bush sees only throngs of screaming fans at his forums. He hears breifings that spin things his way. He makes no attempt (that we know of) to be a well rounded informed citizen. And he is leader of the free world, making decisions that affect the world.

Those on the right hated Bill Clinton. But no one ever said Bill Clinton was uninformed or dimwitted. Clinton knew what he was talking about, even if you disagreed with him. He could rebut his critics with the best of them, because he knew things and studied.

George Bush will go down in history as a good natured sheltered leader, not known for his intellect and curiosity, who stubbornly followed policies he believed in and ignored everyone's opinion but himself and his political allies. The end of the historical reconrd remains to be written, but it might be: And the result was successful, or The result was terrible ----- we don't know the final outcome yet, on the major policies of the Bush administration. We don't yet know the unintended consequences of Bush's policies, which could be good or bad.

Those of us who oppose Bush are scared of his admitted lack of intellectual curiosity and his dedication to stifling any dissent and shielding himself from opposing points of view. We do not respect his mind or his decision making process, and so we question every action he takes. He must prove himself to us - we do NOT give him the benefit of the doubt. He has done nothing to attempt to earn our trust. He leads by demanding blind faith and loyalty.

I hope my view of Bush is wrong, because he is my President and I want to trust him and admire him. But he continues to show that he is not a man to be respected for his mind and judgment, except that he is President and we should always respect the Office. The real mental power is in his staff of course.

BUSH'S BACKUP GROUP IS ACTUALLY A LEFTIST GROUP
Bush's staff appears to be made up of the group known as "neocons". Neocons are not traditional conservatives. In fact, a prominent conservative author, Thomas Woods, Jr., calls the neocon philosophy "a variety of leftism" . The linked article is by Woods, and is responding to a critique of his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History . And so, Bush has surrounded himself with leftists (neocons are leftists according to Woods).

However, Bush also listens to the social conservative base and throws them bones from time to time, primarily in the form of judgships, while waiting to give them the BIG PRIZE ----- Supreme Court Appointments.

I want to see Bush have a real dialogue about issues with those who disagree with him, where he speaks intelligently and not in talking points, and shows us that he thinks about issues and has a grasp on reality.

Rocky Mountain News: Local: "Little room for dissent at president's forum

By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News
March 22, 2005

A few people who didn't support President Bush's Social Security reform plan snuck into his town hall meeting on Monday.

But they didn't last long.

'We went in and sat down, and a half-hour later we were escorted out,' said Alex Young, 25, who is involved in an anti-Bush group known as the Denver Progressives. The group has a Web site and has protested Bush appearances in the past.

'They definitely seemed to know who we were,' Young said. 'They have this pretense of having a conversation about Social Security, but they're very selective about who they let in. They didn't say you have to be a registered Republican to get a ticket.'

The 1,000 people at the event were outspoken in their enthusiasm for the president. It was impossible to pick out anyone not participating in a standing ovation for the president's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan."

ABC News: GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo

2005-03-23T02:03:00.000-08:00

Below is the memo in which the GOP political strategists "sold" the Save Schiavo bill to Republican members of Congress.

It's all politics as usual, mobilize the base, that kind of stuff.

Even though the Save Schiavo bill is anti-Republican, anti-conservative, and unconstitutional, it still serves one good purpose: The bill highlights that we probably need a national consensus on how to deal with the personal and familial tragedies imposed by dealing with persons in a persistent vegetative state (but there is intense debate about whether Schiavo is in such a medical state).

I personally am mortified at the thought that we as a society can starve such patients to death, but we can't put them to sleep peacefully. If we can kill them, mercy killing let's say, why must we starve them to death?

The talking points memo is not too far over the top when it says that the bill will help treat Terry Schiavo at least as well as we treat convicted murderers.

Politicians can have valild debate about the "role of the Federal government", and people of goodwill can disagree about whether it is proper, under our system of government, for the Federal government to be getting involved in decisions traditionally made under state law by state officials.

TIM CALLS FOR A MODEL LAW
But we can probably all agree on one thing: The Congress and the President have the bully pulpit. If the national leaders chose to push things, they could create a "model law" regarding Schiavo-like situations and ask each state to pass the model law (this is commonly done in the law, for many areas of law --- Uniform Commerical Code, etc). In this way, the Congress is exerting its moral leadership, without taking official actions that might tread upon our federal system of government.

WHO PAYS? GEORGE BUSH SAID IN 1999 THAT IT'S OK TO KILL THOSE WHO CAN'T PAY FOR THEIR LIFETIME OF CARE
By the way: Who is going to PAY for Schiavo's care if the Republicans do not want her to die? Will the Republicans vote to reduce the tax cut for the rich in order to provide a fund to allow the Feds to house and care for Schiavo-like patients nationwide?

LINKS FOR MORE INFO AND CONFIRMATION
George Bush signed a law in Texas in 1999 alllowing hospitals to kill patients against the wishes of the family, when care would be futile and the family could not pay ---- unbelievable.

And a hospital recently killed a baby under Bush's 1999 law against the wishes of its parents.

FYI I blogged about Bush's hypocrisy on the Schiavo issue and killing patients the other day.

ABC News: GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo:

"S. 529, The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act

Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m.

The Senate needs to act this week, before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri's family will not have a remedy in federal court.

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.

This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

The bill is very limited and defines custody as 'those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment.'

There is an exemption for a proceeding 'which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or (sic) withdrawl (sic) of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances.'

Incapacitated persons are defined as those 'presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawl (sic) of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law.'

This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy.

Conservatives: G.O.P. Right Is Splintered on Schiavo Intervention

2005-03-23T01:29:00.000-08:00

The religious conservatives are fighting with the traditional conservatives over the Schiavo case, and it's getting nasty.

Republican Rep. Christopher Shays calls the "Save Schiavo" movement in the Congress THEOCRACY.

In the NY Times article below, the reporter frames the debate as being between two strong factions: "Social Conservatives" on the one hand, and then on the other hand "Process Conservatives" and libertarians, advocates of states' rights and supporters of individual rights.

The "Theocracy" word rolls easily off the tongues of those of us who are more libertarian, or are simply uncomfortable with the Republican Party's overt intertwining of church and state. When we wish to make an insult, we like to say "American Taliban" and "Ayatolloh Falwell", that kind of thing, in reference to the Republicans and church vs. state issues.

It's a refreshing and hopeful sign, I think, that a prominent Republican Congressman (Shays) has now referred to his own party as taking a "theocracy" action.

It's inevitable that we will have theocratic actions, when our Congressional leaders are 100% rated by the major activist Christian political groups, like the Christian Coalition. Power corrupts, as the old saying goes. And the Christian Coalition is in power at the Federal level, completely. So we will see them interject their agenda whenever possible.

[As an aside, I'd like to point out that I disagree with starving people to death - there has to be a better way to deal with Schiavo type situations - perhaps federally funded lifetime care as part of Social Security, as an option for the family to consider]

For much more about the movement toward theocracy in the US Congress, see Theocracy Watch. Did you know that your Republican political leaders who run the Congress are nearly perfect in the eyes of the Christian Coalition? The Christian Coalition approves of those leaders because they are "Social Conservatives". The more mainstream Republicans and "Process Conservatives" in Congress have little power.

For more debate about Rep. Shays' remarks, On DailyKOS - Schiavo Debate Splinters the GOP.

The New York Times > Washington > Conservatives: G.O.P. Right Is Splintered on Schiavo Intervention: "'My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing,' said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. 'This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility.'

'This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy,' Mr. Shays said. 'There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them.'

While the intensity of the dissent appears to be rising - Mr. Warner made a point Tuesday of calling attention to his little-noticed opposition in a nearly empty Senate chamber over the weekend - support for the measure among Republican and conservative leaders still appears strong. In interviews, some conservatives either dismissed the argument that the vote was a federal intrusion on states' rights or argued that their opposition to euthanasia as part of their support of the right-to-life movement trumped any aversion they might have to a dominant federal government."

[emphasis in the above added by your friendly blogger]

CNN.com - Judge denies request to reinsert Schiavo feeding tube - Mar 22, 2005

2005-03-22T05:04:00.000-08:00

Ok, Congress passed an emergency law to enable Federal Courts to review the order to withdraw life support.

The first trial court judge to hear the case rejected it. Soo, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will step in. Either way, the loser will appeal to the US Supreme Court on an emergency basis.

Now the fun starts: This is what the Republicans REALLY wanted --- Get the case propelled up to the US Supreme Court, where the public will take real notice and the Republicans can woo their base.

Bush needs to woo his base. He has pissed of tradtional conservatives with his wrwomgering and deficits. And the American public is very much against the privatization of social security.

So Bush needs a winner ---- Schiavo is it, for now. He does not have anything else.

For more on Bush hypocrisy on the Schiavo issue, to seemingly confrim that he is just using Schiavo for a political booast right now, see my post from yesterday 3-21-05.

In a series of posts yesterday, I showed that Bush signed a law in Texas in 1999 allowing hospitals to PULL THE PLUG on people like Schiavo EVEN IF THE FAMILY OBJECTED, unless the family could PAY for continuing care.

That's an outrageous law. Ok to Kill persons like Schiavo against her family's wishes IF SHE CAN'T PAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Bush has no moral authority on the Schiavo issue, but he will posture as if he does, and his base will forgive him for his cruel and immoral 1999 Texas law.

CNN.com - Judge denies request to reinsert Schiavo feeding tube - Mar 22, 2005

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Posted: 7:35 AM EST (1235 GMT)
TAMPA, Florida (CNN) -- A federal judge on Tuesday denied an emergency request to reinsert a feeding tube for Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman who is the center of a national legal battle over her life.

Attorneys for Schiavo's parents will file an appeal at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia.

Schiavo has been without food or water since Friday, when her feeding tube was removed by order of a state judge who ruled that her husband has the right to decide her fate.

The ruling in Tampa by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore came after Congress and President Bush enacted legislation aimed at allowing federal courts to review Schiavo's case.

A Misguided Anti-Vice Pledge - Bush holds international HIV money hostage to morality loyalty oath

2005-03-22T04:53:00.000-08:00

The sex industry should be legal and regulated, not prohibited.

Bush is holding HIV assistance money hostage to some kind of loyalty oath to share his religious values on the sex industry. The LA Times preaches to the choir against Bush's moralizing to the world.

But I don't blame the Bush administration for pandering to its base, I just think Bush is misguided in his evangelizing to the world. The Iraq war has cost us any real moral authority we might have had, for a generation anytway.

Maybe Bush truly belives that loyalty oaths are good things. After all, he pretty much had everyone sign one before they could visit him on the campaign trail.

Oaths are aspirations. But when placed in treaties, then any ALLEGED violation of the oath makes it EASY to withhold the HIV money as a hammer to coerce cooperation. They will be used like weasel words in contracts.

We seem to think of ourselves as the evangelizers of the world, through the government. I guess it's a good thing for the USA that no Muslim nation happens to be the world's richest nation, or else WE'd be having to deal with a different sort of loyalty oath forced upon us.

I like the conclusion of this LA Times piece.

A Misguided Anti-Vice Pledge:
Social conservatives in Congress, backed by the Catholic Church and the Christian right, are on a new foray to dictate sexual mores to the rest of the world, at the expense of public health. This time it's an oath being foisted on U.S. groups working to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic. They will soon be asked to comply with a 2-year-old law dictating that they have "a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking" before they will be considered for federal grants to provide health services overseas.

[SNIP --- jump to conclusion]

"If conservatives want to go after prostitution in the Third World, they can fund religious groups to proselytize against it. Interfering in the fight against HIV is a misguided policy that could cost lives."

HoustonChronicle.com - Life support may be cut based on pay, prognosis

2005-03-21T07:51:00.000-08:00

Third and last post I think today on the Schiavo issue and Bush's anti-Schiavo Texas law.

Confirmation that Bush signed a Texas law allowing hospitals to kill people --- against the wishes of their families --- if the patients can't pay their bills, if they are brain dead or maybe if further treatment is futile.

What implications does this have for the credibility of the Republican Party on the Schiavo issue now? See my previous two posts for more.

HoustonChronicle.com - Life support may be cut based on pay, prognosis: "Hospitals can end life support
Decision hinges on patient's ability to pay, prognosis
By LEIGH HOPPER
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Bill Olive / Chronicle
(L-r)Mario Caballero, Spiro Nikolouzos Jr. and Jannette Nikolouzos. St. Luke's notified Jannette Nikolouzos in a March 1 letter that it would withdraw life-sustaining care of her husband of 34 years, Spiro Nikolouzos, in 10 days.
A patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday.

Dr. David Pate's comments came as the family of Spiro Nikolouzos fights to keep St. Luke's from turning off the ventilator and artificial feedings keeping the 68-year-old grandfather alive.

St. Luke's notified Jannette Nikolouzos in a March 1 letter that it would withdraw life-sustaining care of her husband of 34 years in 10 days, which would be Friday. Mario Caba-llero, the attorney representing the family, said he is seeking a two-week extension, at minimum, to give the man more time to improve and to give his family more time to find an alternative facility."

HoustonChronicle.com - Bush's Texas Law- Case is the first in which a judge allowed a hospital to discontinue care

2005-03-21T07:44:00.000-08:00

This is the second post in a series started this morning.

See the posts below, about Schiavo, where I talk about the rumor that George Bush had signed a law in Texas allowing hospitals to kill brain dead patients IF THEIR FAMILY COULD NOT PAY TO KEEP THEM ALIVE.

And the excerpt I quoted from a DailyKOS diary mentioned that a BABY had already been killed against his parent's wishes under this law.

I DOUBTED the accuracy of the DailyKOS diary.

No more doubts, it seems. The excerpt below seems to confirm the dead baby story.

Case is the first in which a judge allowed a hospital to discontinue care
By LEIGH HOPPER
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, nearly 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open, his mother said, and smacked his lips.
• • • • •

"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive."

Wanda Hudson ,
mother of Sun Hudson
• • • • •

Then at 2 p.m. Tuesday, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his birth Sept. 25. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive," Wanda Hudson told reporters afterward. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months. ... They made a terrible mistake."

Sun's death marks the first time a U.S. judge has allowed a hospital to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.

Daily Kos :: Schiavo hypocrisy? Bush signed a Texas Law Encouraging Pulling the Plug - Spinwits will be silent about it.

2005-03-21T06:26:00.000-08:00

This entry is about the Schiavo story and politics. Those who read my earlier post about Schiavo know that I am inclined to support efforts to prevent her from being starved to death.

When I read the below-excerpted DailyKOS diary, I was kinda shocked to say the least, that the mainstream meadia would NOT have covered the apparent hypocrisy of the Republicans and George W. Bush in particular.

That's why I am a bit skeptical that the diary is accurately reporting things. So I await further info and withhold the harshest judgment till later.

ISSUE: Did George W. Bush sign a Texas Law that permits hospital to pull the plug Against the Wishes of the Family when a patient is brain dead and cannot pay for care?

If Bush did such a thing, I would be surprised. If he did such a thing, then he HAD to have the support of the very conservative Texas Republican Party.

IF (a BIG if) Bush and the Republicans SUPPORTED such a position, I would expect the media to be ALL OVER HIM about the Schiavo Bill, where Congress wants to intrude into Florida's state rights.

I would expect the left-wing spinwits to blow the Texas law out of proportion in order to embarass Bush and the Republicans.

I would expect the right-wing spinwits to underplay (or even ignore) the Texas law rather than discuss its real terms and impact, to protect Bush and the Republicans from embarassment.

I would SO much rather read blogs, for and against, and decide for myself, rather than listen to the spinwits from either side.

There is even more: Apparently Randall Terry, the anti-abortion crusader and founder of Operation Rescue, has linked up with the parents of Schiavo to lobby for the involvement of other powerful people (press release). This reminds me of when Al Sharpton comes to town whenever there is a racial issue. The Republican political thinkers apparently see the Schiavo situation as a public relations goldmine to keep its base energized. People like Randall Terry might NOT be thinking of the good politics and instead are only following their gut. But the Power Brokers are ALWAYS thinking of the politics. BTW: Click here for Randall Terry's flyer talking about Schiavo's mental and physical state. I don't know if he is accurate or not, but it's interesting to read.

One more thing: The Schiavo bill signed by George Bush last night is anti-conservative in that the bill expands the role of the Federal Government by creating a new way in which the Feds can interefere with a State's resolution of an issue. In addition, the Federal Government has taken a giant step into our personal lives (where the State has historically been the most active player when compared to the Feds).

[UPDATE]
1) Bush DID sign such a law - Life support may be cut off based on pay and prognosis

2) Bush's law DID result in a baby being killed against the wishes of the parents

WOW!

This can't be true --- I MUST be misinterpreting. Would someone please set me straight on this (but courteously please!).

Daily Kos :: Does the Media Know that Bush's Texas Law Is Allowing Deaths?: "By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far."

[snip]

This is why we cannot trust the mainstream media. Most people get their news from television. And television is presenting this issue as a round the clock one dimensional soap opera pitting the "family", the congress and the church against this woman's husband and the judicial system that upheld Terry Schiavo's right and explicit request that she be allowed to die if extraordinary means were required to keep her alive. The ghoulish infotainment industry is making a killing by acceding once again to trumped up right wing sensationalism.

This issue gets to the essence of the culture war. Shall the state be allowed to interfere in the most delicate, complicated personal matters of life, death and health because a particular religious constituency holds that their belief system should override each individual's right to make these personal decisions for him or herself. And it isn't the allegedly statist/communist/socialist left that is agitating for the government to tell Americans how they must live and how they must die.

One of the things that we need to help America understand is that there is a big difference between the way the two parties perceive the role of government in its citizens personal lives.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Republican leader apologizes for Holocaust remarks during stem cell debate

2005-03-21T03:42:00.000-08:00

A lawmaker opposed to a stem cell research bill likened the destruction of embryos to the Holocaust in Europe 60 years ago.

This comparison created a firestorm, and the lawmaker apologized.

My thoughts: I completely understand such sentiments, likening stem cells research and abortion to the Holocaust. Those who have the religious belief that life begins at conception cannot really feel otherwise, it would seem.

I wonder why the lawmaker apologized that his remarks offended?

I wish we could resolve the abortion and "personhood begins at conception" debates, and find a middle ground. If I were one of those who held the religious belief that a fertilized egg was as much a human as a full formed fetus is a human, then I would probably feel similar passion in opposing stem cell research and early term abortion.

These kind of conflicts ---- where the lines can be easily crystalized into black and white, good vs. evil, all or nothing ----- These conflicts have the power to motivate the populace to commit civil war. Thankfully, our national leaders have not called for violence in pushing their side of the debate.

The persons with the most power to influence a peaceful resolution are our religious leaders. But our religious leaders have taken such an absolutist prohibitionist stand, it seems, that they cannot give an inch.

The analogy made by religious conservatives to slavery is well placed. They argue powerfully that slavery was an absolute moral evil, and that the crusade against abortion is like the crusade against slavery. I have always respected this analogy for its moral power and consistency.

I wonder if, 150 years ago, the national opinion was as divided on slavery as it is on abortion today.

I was speaking to a pretty passionate abortion opponent recently, who (despite beliefs) supported abortion for rape and incest.

I'd like to see a reputable survey done of the attitudes of Americans toward abortion, so we could find out what restrictions are supported by a large majority. Then maybe a constituional amendment could be enacted to try to cool down the debate.

I have a feeling that the absolutist-prohibitionist (no exceptions) position is held by a small minority of the population. I would expect that the great majority of people in the USA are in favor of SOME legalized abortions, on a sliding scale of sorts: A great number in favor of some exceptions to an absolute prohibition (rape, incest, health of mother), a lesser number in favor of the Roe v. Wade compromise, and a tiny minority in favor of abortion on demand for the full term.

Bill Clinton had the best statement on abortion, for those who support some form of abortion rights: Safe, legal and rare. I support the Roe vs. Wade compromise on abortion rights, which I think is the majority opinion in the USA.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Republican leader apologizes for Holocaust remarks during stem cell debate: "Friday, March 18, 2005 � Last updated 4:49 p.m. PT

Republican leader apologizes for Holocaust remarks during stem cell debate

By REBECCA COOK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- State House Minority Leader Bruce Chandler apologized Friday for remarks other Republicans made earlier in the week comparing embryonic stem cell research to the Holocaust.

'The references made to the Holocaust were regarded by some, understandably, as insensitive and inappropriate,' Chandler, R-Granger, said on the House floor.

However, one of the representatives who made such a comparison said he did not mean to disparage the mass murder of Jews in Hitler's Germany, and saw no reason to apologize personally.

Chandler said he'd spoken with Jewish community leaders about the stem cell debate. 'I offer my apologies to them and to people who have committed their lives to using science to improve humanity.'

Rep. Shay Schual-Berke, D-Normandy Park, who sponsored the bill endorsing embryonic stem cell research and who is Jewish, said she believed Chandler's apology was heartfelt, sincere and appropriate.

Click Here
'We need to take this as an opportunity now to continue to educate and inform,' Schual-Berke said.

'I don't know anyone who thinks the horrible events of the Holocaust were anything but an affront to humanity,' she added. Comparing the murder of 6 million Jews to stem cell research, she said, 'is just unthinkable.'

Schual-Berke's bill passed by a vote of 59-36 in the House after an emotional, sometimes tearful debate late Tuesday night. A couple of Republican representatives - not Chandler - referred very obliquely to the Holocaust, but Rep. Glenn Anderson, R-Fall City, drew the most direct comparison.

'Life sciences, biotech research - it sounds warm, sounds progressive. The potential is there, we hope, we're betting on it,' Anderson said Tuesday on the House floor. 'But the cold look of history really does require sobriety. Sixty years ago in Nazi Germany, it was state policy in order to perfect humanity it would be required to destroy humanity. And the medical experiments at Auschwitz were carried out for that explicit purpose. We all say no, that's not us, that would never happen, that's not why we're doing this.'

Schual-Berke leapt to her feet and objected, and House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, quickly called for a break to let both sides cool off. They returned about 15 minutes later and passed the bill after more debate.

The embryonic stem cells in question come from human embryos created through in-vitro fertilization. The embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted. Researchers believe this research may someday lead to cures for diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes."

Yahoo! News - Brain-Damaged Woman's Feeding Tube Removed

2005-03-18T15:09:00.000-08:00

Bugs me that due to certain considerations, we cannot have a right to die with dignity at the time of our choosing.

But we can pull the plug, or stop artificial life support. If the life support is air, then the patient simply suffocates. If the life support is food, the patient starves. Either way it's ugly.

Wouldn't it be better if we treated such people with the same humanity as we treat convicted death row inmates, and gave them a painless injection?

Just asking.

Yahoo! News - Brain-Damaged Woman's Feeding Tube Removed: "Brain-Damaged Woman's Feeding Tube Removed

By MITCH STACY, Associated Press Writer

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - Doctors removed Terri Schiavo's feeding tube Friday despite an extraordinary, last-minute push by Republicans on Capitol Hill to use the subpoena powers of Congress to save the severely brain-damaged woman.

It is expected that it will take one to two weeks for Schiavo, 41, to die, provided no one intercedes and gets the tube reinserted. Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, said his client was at his wife's side shortly after the tube was removed.

The tube has twice been disconnected in the past, but was re-inserted within days in both cases. Similar appeals are under way in the current case.

The latest removal came amid a flurry of maneuvering by Schiavo's parents, state lawmakers and Congress to keep her alive. Committees in the Republican-controlled Congress issued subpoenas for Schiavo, her husband, and her caregivers demanding that they appear at hearings in the coming weeks."

The New York Times > Washington > U.S. Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide

2005-03-18T04:56:00.000-08:00

BTW: NyTimes online is free, just register. It's harmless.

It must be especially tough to be an American interrogator. Your Secy of Defense and President have authorized torture, but as soon as your torture gets disclosed, you get prosecuted by underlings within the system.

We are still learning the true extent of the network of torture engaged in my US troops and spys.

Now we are learning about 26 apparent homicides of prisoners by interrogators. Just think about that. This is NOT WWII, where we had hundreds of thousands of enemy prisoners. We don't have that many prisoners, but we ARE torturing them. And many are dying,

I don't know if this is ultimately for the good or bad. But I know that I don't like it the USA has a policy of torture.

We look so very bad in the eyes of the world. The world already sees us as a bunch of fundamentalist religious nuts, not that much different in mindset from the Islamists. And we obviously are willing to be extremely brutal in Iraq, cementing the analogy to the Islamists.

I have a feeling that more and more revelations are waiting to be trickled out about our conduct in Iraq and our commission of torture in Iraq and other places.

What a shift in the way my country is viewed worldwide, in my lifetime!

The New York Times > Washington > U.S. Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide: "U.S. Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 16, 2005

Doug Mills/The New York Times
Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III, went before a Senate panel last week to discuss his review of detention operations and interrogation techniques.

WASHINGTON, March 15 - At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide, according to military officials.

The number of confirmed or suspected cases is much higher than any accounting the military has previously reported. A Pentagon report sent to Congress last week cited only six prisoner deaths caused by abuse, but that partial tally was limited to what the author, Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III of the Navy, called 'closed, substantiated abuse cases' as of last September.

The new figure of 26 was provided by the Army and Navy this week after repeated inquiries. In 18 cases reviewed by the Army and Navy, investigators have now closed their inquiries and have recommended them for prosecution or referred them to other agencies for action, Army and Navy officials said. Eight cases are still under investigation but are listed by the Army as confirmed or suspected criminal homicides, the officials said.

Only one of the deaths occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, officials said, showing how broadly the most violent abuses extended beyond those prison walls and contradicting early impressions that the wrongdoing was confined to a handful of members of the military police on the prison's night shift.

CNN.com - McGwire mum on steroids in hearing -

2005-03-18T04:41:00.000-08:00

We'll chat about steroids, and move into substance use generally.

The article below discussed how slugger Mark McGwire essentailly takes the fifth before the Congress regarding his alleged steroid use.

Question: Is steroid use in baseball a freedom issue?

Answer: No. Personal freedom to use performance enhancing substances is not relevant when you are talking about athletics, where the athletic authorities are trying to establish rules for fair athletic competition.

Change the facts: What about personal freedom to use substances off duty from our jobs?

Answer: Our society makes it legal for employers to regulate our off duty substance use, particularly the illegal mood altering drugs. (through urine tests, etc)

In MY state, Missouri, we have a law that prohibits employers from interfering with the off duty use of tobacco, though.

By The Way: Your friend Tim, the libertarian-leaning Radical Moderate, is NOT a user of illegal drugs, and in fact does not even use alcohol (having been sober for about 12 years now).

So my libertarianism on substance use does not stem from a desire to use substances myself. I hope that gives me a little more credibility on this issue.

CNN.com - McGwire mum on steroids in hearing - Mar 17, 2005

McGwire mum on steroids in hearing
Sosa, Palmeiro deny use in front of House panel

Thursday, March 17, 2005 Posted: 11:07 PM EST (0407 GMT)
Jose Canseco wrote a book alleging widespread drug use in baseball.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former St. Louis Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire refused to answer questions about steroid use during his playing career at a congressional hearing Thursday, repeatedly telling a House committee he was "not here to talk about the past."

McGwire, who broke Roger Maris' single-season record for home runs in 1998, was among a panel of current and former all-stars who appeared before the House Government Reform Committee to discuss the use of steroids in the majors.

Buzzflash interview about journalistic integrity today ---- Bonnie M. Anderson ---Newsflash

2005-03-17T03:41:00.000-08:00

A former CNN excutive has written a very critical book about the declining integrity and value of the media today, and about the propaganda machine.

Order the book here, and support the Buzzflash.com website: News Flash: Journalism, Infotainment and the Bottom-Line Business of Broadcast News by Bonnie Anderson.

Buzzflash has many more similar offering of activist books and videos, trying to shake things up to stop the propaganda and deceit and erosion of civil liberties.

Regular readers know that I focus a lot of attention on the media and journalism and propaganda and the spinwits. But I ain't nobody, just a guy with attitude.

This lady below, Bonnie Anderson, is SOMEBODY. Listen to her.

Bonnie M. Anderson Newsflash

[snip]

BuzzFlash: Well, we seem to have come full circle because the White House has been outed for using, on at least two occasions, if not more, these promotional video releases presented as news.

Bonnie M. Anderson: Yes.

BuzzFlash: The videos imply that a journalist is covering the story, when it’s really an actor. This prepackaged footage is called "B-roll," but it’s really B-roll being used as a news story.

Bonnie M. Anderson: To me, this was a huge development and it’s what's wrong with journalism in this country. You have an Administration lying to the public and participating in pulling the wool over the eyes of the public to advance their own agenda. Call me old school. Call me old fashioned or a dinosaur, but I think government should be about protecting the Bill of Rights. Government should be truthful to the American public, and not about trying to manipulate the public and, in this case, also manipulating the media. We also had commentators who were pretending to give their honest opinion on issues, when they were being paid by the Administration to promote an agenda. This, to me, is very, very frightening. Red flags should be going up all over this country. Unfortunately, I’m not so sure that there will be that sort of national debate or alarm over this. It is horrific.

Reuters.com -- Robert Blake Aquitted -- Tim talks Civil Rights

2005-03-17T03:27:00.000-08:00

Blake is acquitted of murder. The evidence against Blake seemed quite strong, and everyone I knew thought he did it. So what happened?

You are seeing the effect of having a jury hear ALL the evidence. You just never know the whole story, from the media. But the jury hears it ALL, and the jury gets to see the faces of the people telling their stories, and chooses whom to believe or disbelieve.

This was a CRIMINAL MATTER, where the Constitution requires that a jury be permitted to determine the fate of the case.

CIVIL RIGHTS ANALOGY: Those of us who practice civil rights-related law DO NOT routinely get to have a jury hear hear our cases and determine whom to believe. Judges DISMISS our cases, on a million legal technicalities, and no jury gets to hear the whole story.

We lawyers KNOW that if juries would get to hear the WHOLE STORY, as in criminal law, the juries would do justice.

And so, when I see the criminal justice system working well (where a jury who hears the whole story does something different from the media's piecemeal reporting), I always fell a little LET DOWN that the CIVIL LAW system is SO UNJUST.

Entertainment: People Article | Reuters.com: "Actor Blake Aquitted of Murder After Seamy Trial
Wed Mar 16, 2005 08:56 PM ET

By Jill Serjeant and Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A jury found actor Robert Blake not guilty on Wednesday of shooting dead his estranged wife after trying to solicit others to kill her, capping a celebrity trial that exposed Hollywood's seamy underbelly.

The white-haired Blake, 71, the former star of the 1970s TV detective series 'Baretta,' trembled with emotion, buried his head in his hands and appeared to sob as the verdict was read, ending a three-month trial.

Afterward, jurors said they were not convinced by the circumstantial case brought by prosecutors against Blake in the May 2001 murder of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, 44, who was portrayed during the trial as a star-struck grifter who ran a mail-order sex business.

In addition to finding Blake not guilty of first-degree murder, the Los Angeles County Superior Court jury acquitted him of asking a retired stuntman to kill his wife.

The jury deadlocked 11-to-1 in favor of acquitting him on a second count of solicitation of murder involving yet another former stuntman who was a friend of Blake. The judge dismissed that charge."

TomPaine.com - Stop Fake News! Stop White House Propaganda

2005-03-16T19:53:00.000-08:00

So 20 federal agencies have produced fake news shows to sell the Bush agenda, and distributed them to tv stations for broadcast?

I don't think I like this form of propaganda.

I wonder what the other side of the story is?

TomPaine.com - Stop Fake News!

Stop Fake News!
March 16, 2005

This week, The New York Times reported that 20 federal agencies have made and distributed pre-packaged television news segments to promote President Bush's policies and initiatives. These were sent to local stations without disclosure that the segments weren't actual news coverage. The General Accounting Office told the Bush administration to stop producing and distributing the segments, which it called "covert propaganda." The White House refused. It's time to take the matter into our own hands. Join Free Press and sign a petition calling on Congress, the FCC and local stations to make tougher laws about government propoganda—and to come clean to viewers when it's used. Then, help organize "citizen agreements" with your local broadcasters that they won't air fake news broadcasts . Because if it's not The Daily Show, we're not interested. ACT NOW

Should pharmacists apply moral tests before dispensing birth control pills?

2005-03-16T04:15:00.000-08:00

I guess it's getting kinda hard to be a pharmacist these days, because when you try to follow your religion and refuse to dispense birth control pills to immoral customers, the State comes and disciplines you.

What's the world coming to? (Its senses?)

Printable Version: "Playing Mr. God at the pharmacy counter

We all have a right to follow our own religious or moral beliefs in our daily lives. That's part of being a good person.

But there's nothing religious, moral or even particularly good about claiming to be gods ourselves and trying to impose our own personal beliefs on everybody else. That's the height of human arrogance.

That's why it's a complete misnomer to say that a pharmacist who refuses to provide health care is following his conscience.

Conscientious pharmacists do not jeopardize the health needs of patients. They do not refuse to do their job of dispensing legitimately prescribed drugs.

If there are pharmacists whose personal religious beliefs forbid providing medication to heal sickness and preserve health, they've made a very bad career choice.

It's not only bad for them. It's bad for those unfortunate patients who find themselves at the mercy of these self-appointed gods.

That's why an administrative law judge for the State Department of Regulation and Licensing properly recommended discipline for a pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control pills to a coed at the University of Wisconsin - Stout.

After grilling the student about whether she intended to use the pills for contraception - duh! - the pharmacist not only refused to fill a doctor's prescription, but also refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy where it could be filled by a conscientious pharmacist.

The administrative law judge recommended that the pharmacist, Neil Noesen, be reprimanded for violating the code of ethics for pharmacists and spend six hours in ethics education."

C-SPAN's Balance of the Absurd - Does Fairness require a holocaust denier by covered?

2005-03-16T04:01:00.000-08:00

(Please register for the free WashingtonPost online edition)

Commentator Richard Cohen sharply blasts CSPAN for its absurd attempt at "balance" or "fairness". CSPAN is covering an event highlighting a new Holocaust book. CSPAN wants to "balance" the coverage with coverage of a notorious Holocaust-Denier.

You know, there are just some things (in science and history) that are so firmly TRUE and there is no meaningul "other side of the story".

The Holocaust is clearly one of those things. The "other side" is pure nonsense. Sorry.

I wonder what the motive is for some people to try to debunk whether the Holocaust occurred? How does it make those people feel better to try to deny the undeniable? And Why in the Hell is CSPAN trying to lend any credibility to such destructive bullshit?

If a CSPAN producer feels he should present a Holocaust denier to "balance" coverage of the Holocaust, then the producer MUST BE FIRED for his idiocy, ignorance, or evil motive (whichever appllies).

However, maybe Richard Cohen's story has got the facts wrong. It's hard to belive that CSPAN could employ such an idiot in such an important position.

C-SPAN's Balance of the Absurd (washingtonpost.com): "C-SPAN's Balance of the Absurd

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A23

You will not be seeing Deborah Lipstadt on C-SPAN. The Holocaust
scholar at Emory University has a new book out ('History on Trial'), and an upcoming lecture of hers at Harvard was scheduled to be televised on the public affairs cable outlet. The book is about a libel case brought against her in Britain by David Irving, a Holocaust denier, trivializer and prevaricator who is, by solemn ruling of the very court that heard his lawsuit, 'anti-Semitic and racist.' No matter. C-SPAN wanted Irving to 'balance' Lipstadt.

The word balance is not in quotes for emphasis. It was invoked repeatedly by C-SPAN producers who seemed convinced that they had chosen the most noble of all journalistic causes: fairness. 'We want to balance it [Lipstadt's lecture] by covering him,' said Amy Roach, a producer for C-SPAN's Book TV. Her boss, Connie Doebele, put it another way. 'You know how important fairness and balance is at C-SPAN,' she told me. 'We work very, very hard at this. We ask ourselves, 'Is there an opposing view of this?' '"

TomPaine.com - Framing The Republican Leadership as Radical - Most Americans are moderate

2005-03-15T03:04:00.000-08:00

TomPaine.com has a pice about "framing" which is interesting but maybe a little over the top.

TomPaine.com argues that Bush and the Republican leadership are outside the mainstream because they are on the "extreme right wing" of th Republican Party.

NO THEY AREN'T.

Bush did not go into office looking to start wars of aggression that would smear the USA's good name around the globe.

Bush did not come into office on a platform of racial segregation.

Bush did not campaign to destroy the social safety net.

Bush does not believe in any of those things.

Bush is not an extreme right winger. Bush is a mainstream Republican on most things, I think. (I am NOT a Bush supporter, BTW)

Bush wants to tweak our society in a way the the Republican Party and its supporters in corporate America want. But Bush and his leadership group do not want to overhaul the nature of the USA's social and political system. They are not as radical as some might think.

The war in Iraq is another matter, though. The Iraq war IS a radical thing, at least as radical as Kennedy's and Johnson's war in Vietnam.

If I had been president of the most powerful nation on earth on 9/11, what would I have done with all that power?

Hey, don't read too much into this kinda-pro-Bush post! I'm just a moderate after all, with a strong libertarian streak, and I appreciate fairness in debate. It's not really fair to call Bush the extreme right wing, because I think the extreme right wing is really VERY FAR OUT THERE.

TomPaine.com - Framing The GOP

We all know that the current leaders of the Republican party—be it President Bush, Tom Delay or Bill Frist – represent the extreme right wing of their party. But most of America doesn’t see them that way, because nobody has successfully framed them as such. It's time we start calling them what they are—irresponsible, reckless, extreme and radical. These are four adjectives that most accurately describe their agenda. More important still, these adjectives imply un-American values and speak to a flaw in their collective character.

This group of leaders is endangering our country's safety, our children’s future, our health and other things we hold close to our hearts. Most Americans are moderate in their views; extremism on either side of the political spectrum makes them uncomfortable. Reckless behavior makes them very uncomfortable. Americans would rather that their leaders be conservative in the true sense of the word. The majority of Americans don’t want Social Security dismantled. They don’t want us to fight an endless war in Iraq with more of their sons and daughters maimed or killed. They don’t want their air polluted and their water poisoned, and they don’t want their public school system destroyed.

CNN.com - Lawmakers: Hands off Web logs -

2005-03-14T17:44:00.000-08:00

This news item is a couple days old, sorry I didn't catch it earlier.

It's nice to see that a significant body of Congressmen are recognizing that the internet is GREAT for freedom of speech and diversity of viewpoint.

I've said several times that I feel MORE FREEDOM OF SPEECH because of the internet, despite the crackdown on civil liberties under the guise of the war on terror.

And a coalition of blogs and Congressmen are trying to put a stop to the government's attempt to squelch our freedom of speech by making web logs (blogs) regulatable as if they were political organizations.

The power to regulate is the power to prohibit (old saying). Oppose regulation of web logs.

CNN.com - Lawmakers: Hands off Web logs - Mar 11, 2005: "Lawmakers: Hands off Web logs

Friday, March 11, 2005 Posted: 4:10 PM EST (2110 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Internet bloggers should enjoy traditional press freedoms and not face regulation as political groups, lawmakers and online journalists said Friday.

In separate letters, Democratic lawmakers and Internet commentators urged the Federal Election Commission to make sure that political Web sites that serve as focal points for political discussion, like Wonkette.com and Freerepublic.com, don't have to comply with campaign-finance rules.

'Curtailing blogs and other online publications will dampen the impact of new voices in the political process and will do a disservice to the millions of voters who rely on the Web for original, insightful political commentary,' said the Online Coalition, a group of bloggers and online activists.

Fourteen members of the House of Representatives said blogs foster a welcome diversity of viewpoints.

"This 'democratization' of the media is a welcome development in this era of media consolidation and a corresponding lack of diversity of views in traditional media outlets," said the group, which consists of thirteen Democrats and one Republican.

Daily Kos :: Don't they have Google at NYT? Times falls again for PR website as a source of legitimate news

2005-03-14T14:39:00.000-08:00

See this thread on DailyKOS for a discussion of what appears to be Republican spin machine website and how the website has somehow seduced the New York Times into using it as a source of news, despite the site's reputation.

Makes you wonder something: Did the New York Times decide, based on reasonable criteria, that the website now qualifies as a source of legitimate news and commentary?

Or did the Times just mess up and fail to check on its source?

Or did the Times' reporter use the website in the story just to give a boost to the respectability of the site, because the reporter has an agenda to push?

But I'd personally like to hear more about the website and the organization behind it, to get the other side of the story. A lot of websites improve with time. A lot of commentators with agendas become more and more credible over time. Just because you have an agenda, that does not mean everything you say is worthless.

One of the maxims I carry around is that EVERYONE has an agenda, whether spoken about or not.

Daily Kos :: Don't they have Google at NYT?: "Don't they have Google at NYT?
by Maccabee
[Subscribe]

Sun Mar 13th, 2005 at 12:50:10 PST

First CBS falls prey to the obviously slanted reporting from a fake news organization, and then the NYT does the exact same thing.

Two years ago, CBS '60 Minutes' linked a chicken farm in Georgia to terrorists. Turns out the source of the organization: SITE or Search for International Terrorist Entities, is a bogus front funded by pro-Bush War on Terror backers.

But irony of irony, To-day, after a huge story on pre packaged fake news they did it again. in the same issue!!!

Diaries :: Maccabee's diary ::

In a discussion of this fake group's study of press releases from Al Quaeda, Rita Katz comments.

'I think they feel they are losing the battle,' said Rita Katz, director of the SITE Institute, an American nonprofit group that monitors Islamist Web sites and news operations. 'They realize there will be a new government soon, and they seem very nervous about the future.'

A little Googling revealed that SITE, is an 'news' organization with all the credibility of Talon News. SITE consists of Rita Katz and Josh Devon. They are only cited on NationalReview Online, or Fox News, and one of the partners has been hand picked by Bush to man lots of posts on Homeland Security and other Bush organizations. Look at the site and you'll see a PR job website that dresses as a real organization. All this scrollinbg news stories are progress in the WOT. There is no critical thinking or punditry. Just a big ra-ra site."

Daily Kos :: Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysis

2005-03-12T11:23:00.000-08:00

This DailyKOS thread will educate people about how political activists "frame" debates, and will discuss how public debate can be controlled or focused or derailled by how the issues are "framed".

It's informative, but a bit esoteric and wonky.

Good to read, though, for a better understanding of what FoxNews and the Spinwits are up to when they all seem to be saying the same things.

Aside: The author criticizes the right wing for attempting to undermine the "global warming" debate by changing the term to the more innocent sounding "climate change". This reminds me of how the environmentalism movement successfully changed the term "jungle" into "rain forest".

Daily Kos :: Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysis: "Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysis
by Hudson
[Subscribe]

Thu Mar 10th, 2005 at 20:39:11 PST

SUBTITLE:

Some limitations of Lakoff's 'framing,' and the evolving Republican strategy to fence voters off from Democratic ideas, leaders and values -- before the debate even begins

INTRODUCTION: BEYOND THE FRAME

In the past year, like so many other Democrats and progressives, I latched onto George Lakoff's advice about 'framing' with the ferociously desperate optimism of a drowning man spotting a passing tree trunk.

I pre-ordered Don't Think of an Elephant, I googled a half-dozen Lakoff interviews, and I urged every liberal-minded friend to do the same.

Indeed, framing has become an unremitting refrain of every progressive op-ed piece, Haloscan post and DFA Meetup. Just mention framing, and heads bob appreciatively up and down across the (chat) room. 'We must frame our arguments better!' is fast becoming a latter-day gloss on the naive proclamation of Boxer in Animal Farm ('I will work harder!') -- a pledge he makes right up to the minute the pigs ship him off to the glue factory.

Diaries :: Hudson's diary ::

Despite the following criticisms, Lakoff's exhortation remains a welcome and commonsense one. To re-take control of the national discourse, Democrats of course must redefine the terms of debate in ways which predispose the audience to be more accepting of progressive arguments--all the while exhibiting the same or greater 'message discipline' as our Republican nemeses.

As the 2004 campaign wore on, however, two things became apparent: (1) that John Kerry and other prominent Democrats were not showing much skill, charm or even discipline in these new framing efforts--which the Republicans had been practicing for a least a decade; (2) even more devastatingly, that just as Democrats began to try to master framing, the Republicans were one step ahead with a more powerful, and far more underhanded strategy.

For lack of a better term, I've started to call that more recent Republican strategy "fencing.""

Daily Kos :: Letter to My GOP Dad: Gov't Been Very, Very Good to You (pt. 1)

2005-03-11T19:23:00.000-08:00

The author below tries hard to get his right wing father to understand the good things government does, because his dad has chosen to hide his head in the sand and feel that all government is bad, or something like that.

I tried having similar conversations with my own Republican father for many years. Finally, my father became a Democrat (and met John Kerry by the way).

My own father became a Democrat when he started spending his retirement watching the legislature in action in Jefferson City Missouri, and keeping up on the dirty details of political debates. Enough about that for now.

The article below does a pretty fair job of raising issues that could be used to help the closed minded anti-government crowd see the illogic of their position.

Daily Kos :: Letter to My GOP Dad: Gov't Been Very, Very Good to You (pt. 1): "Letter to My GOP Dad: Gov't Been Very, Very Good to You (pt. 1)
by Steven D
[Subscribe]

Fri Mar 11th, 2005 at 09:00:09 PST

A few weeks ago, before my GOP-for-life father and I stopped speaking to each other, one of the last things he told me was that as far as he was concerned taxes could be cut a great deal more than they already have been because government is simply too big. In his opinion, the larger government got (here he meant government at all levels: state, local and federal) the less he got in return for his taxes.

The standard GOP line right? More taxes = bigger, more ineffective government.

That got me thinking about how government impacts all of us, and specifically how it benefited my father during the course of his lifetime, which began in 1930, the first year of the Great Depression. Here's the first part of the letter I wrote to him about this (more parts to follow over the weekend):"

Dear Dad,

You remember what you said about big government being a cancer? About how it wastes your tax dollars, dollars that would be better off in your own two hands being spent for what you wanted rather than in the hands of some bureaucrat? That, in your mind, government hadn't been particularly helpful in your life? That your own hard work had been the reason for your success, not government handouts?

Well, you might recall that we didn't agree on that point. Since that time I've done a lot of thinking about what government at all levels does and has done for folks, and specifically what it has done to benefit you and your family over the course of your lifetime. I'd like to share them with you, if I may.

ABC News: ABC Edits Fox News Out of 'Boston Legal'

2005-03-11T19:13:00.000-08:00

So, gotta be a little bit careful before going after the juggernaut of FoxNews, eh? When Boston Legal tried to criticize FoxNews by name, ABC made them change the script.

See the article for the spin the parties place on the wimpout decision.

The producer says he found a better way (in essence) without naming names.

ABC says it's a longstanding policy of not naming real events. Hmm, wishi I had access to the vaults at ABC to see what TV shows have ever named names of entities before.

ABC News: ABC Edits Fox News Out of 'Boston Legal': "LOS ANGELES Mar 10, 2005 — When the ABC drama 'Boston Legal' takes on the issue of alleged media bias in Sunday's episode, it doesn't name names specifically Fox News Channel.

In the original script, a high school principal blocks Fox News from being aired on campus television sets because he considers the channel biased and inflammatory, according to the network.

But ABC asked executive producer and writer David E. Kelley to remove references to Fox; instead, there is criticism of TV news in general and one network, which is unidentified, in particular.

'We did make some changes to the script per ABC's request, but managed to tell the same story in what we believe is an even more subversive and provocative way,' Kelley spokeswoman Stacey Luchs said Thursday."

CampusProgress.org | 10 Things Big Media Doesn't Want You to Know

2005-03-11T19:03:00.000-08:00

I can't really exceprt the Top Ten list from the below article, but it's interesting to see the 10 reasons why media is in somewhat of a role NOT to serve the public good any more. And the authors did not even mention the end of the "Fairness Doctrine".

Howver, the authors omitted the fact that the internet has caused an explosion of new and independent media.

Persons who use the internet can easily be better informed and entertained than ever before.

So in a sense, the decline of the usefulness of the old-style media might not be such an evil thing as the authors portray it, except for the technologically illiterate who cannot or will not discover the vast resources on the internet.

CampusProgress.org | 10 Things Big Media Doesn't Want You to Know: "10 Things Big Media Doesn't Want You to Know

Learn about the barriers that have been constructed around the public airwaves.

By the Staff of Free Press"

From The American Conservative: --- Marxism of the Right

2005-03-10T04:43:00.000-08:00

A "conservative" interesting and subtle rebuttal of libertarianism, in order to justify the Republican moral crusade. (Wow, how's THAT for a spin!).

Actually, this is a thoughtful article that attacks the extreme forms of libertarianism. The article shows that we need a balance between personal liberties and the collective good, and a balance between capitalism and reasonable protection for us all (including environemental and financial protections).

I fear that the article goes a little too far in saying that pornography creates a society that is too vulgar, thereby impinging on the freedom of the masses. The author is simply showing his TRUE side, a moralist Republican side. I've heard Limbaugh and Hannity say that they want the "freedom" to live in a society free of vulgarity (it's a right wing talking point, seemingly). No one forces us to subscribe to dirty mags, or dirty websites, or buy sex toys, or do any number of other adult things that are only available by positively seeking them out as adults.

So as good as the article is, please understand that the author's real point is probably to intellectually justify the moralistic Republican regulation of society, while at the same time keeping the Republican Libertarians within the Big Tent of the party (by showing the Libertarians that their philosophy is flawed).

Everyone has their biases. Sometimes we hide them very well, like the author of the linked article.

Marxism of the Right: "March 14, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

Marxism of the Right

by Robert Locke

Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.

There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties—I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism—enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before."

Guardian Unlimited : Bush Admin Tries to Prevent Abortion Rights in International Women's Rights Treaty

2005-03-10T02:30:00.000-08:00

I sure wish we in the USA would resolve our political battle over abortion rights, so we don't have to monkey around with international treaties and try to deny the UN funding for reproductive health services, and any number of other ways in which our Republican administrations have to show the world that we are anti-abortion rights whenever Republicans are in power.

That's why I call for a national referendum on abortion rights. All political parties can take cover in that, and they can openly support moderate abortion rights positions, because the American public finally voted on the rights it wants. Such a referendum would not change the law --- It would simply tell politicians the will of the people.

Republicans would not want such a referendum, because they know the public would vote for a moderate abortion rights position.

Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment | Mary-Ann Stephenson: Bush against women's right: "It will take all our energy to stand still

Bush's America is waging a global battle against women's rights

Mary-Ann Stephenson
Tuesday March 8, 2005
The Guardian

For all George Bush's courting of Europe, when it comes to women's reproductive rights he is closer to Iran and Syria than the EU. In 1995, representatives from 189 countries met in Beijing and agreed a major programme on women's equality and human rights - the Beijing platform for action. This statement was ambitious, and the UN commission on the status of women is currently meeting in New York to review its progress over the past decade.

The meeting was to publish a statement reaffirming international support for the platform for action. But the US has refused to support it unless it is amended to say that the platform does not create any new human rights or the right to abortion.

But it doesn't actually give the right to abortion. States are called on to 'consider reviewing laws containing punitive measures against women who have undergone illegal abortions', but the platform is clear that 'any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process'.

But that's not how the US is presenting it. Countries are being warned that failure to support the US amendment could allow the platform to be used to push through a 'right to abortion' and take away the right of countries to determine their own laws. Activists are furious. Annette Lawson, of the European Women's Lobby, said the US is 'simply trying to mislead the rest of the world'.

This is not the first attack "

Daily Kos :: Confessions of a Former Dittohead: The Right-Wing Reasoning Chip

2005-03-09T03:50:00.000-08:00

A blogger at DailyKOS writes periodically about his transformation away from being a Dittohead. He writes with wit and candor.

In the following excerpt, he describes how the committed Dittoheads process information, particularly information that (if true) might run contrary to their ideology. It's an entertaining read.

On the far left, I'm sure things are similar. But the far left has no huge media machine to spew its propaganda, and so the far left doesn't really count. The majority of the mainstream media may be somewhat left of center in terms of the reporters' outlook, but it is not far left.

Read the thread on KOS, and see if you agree. And let's all watch out for similar tendencies in ourselves when we find inconvenient facts standing in the way of our ideology, cause we're all guilty to some degree.

Daily Kos :: Confessions of a Former Dittohead: The Right-Wing Reasoning Chip: "
Confessions of a Former Dittohead: The Right-Wing Reasoning Chip
by advisorjim
[Subscribe]

Mon Mar 7th, 2005 at 15:04:53 PST

One of the most frustrating aspects of dealing with dittoheads is the way they casually dismiss facts that are counter to their worldview. Case in point: There are no WMDs in Iraq. There haven't been any there since 1998. They didn't go to Syria or Iran or North Korea. They did not exist. The administration has admitted this publicly. Yet an overwhelming majority of dittoheads still believe Iraq had WMDs. How is this possible?

Diaries :: advisorjim's diary ::

Some will say it's because this administration does such a good job of lying. Others will blame Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. But trust me, it's bigger than that. Focusing our rage on Fox News or right-wing talk radio is about as effective as the Pro-Life crowd wanting to stop abortion by banning the procedure. We're treating the symptom, not the disease.

The right-wing mindset is a pretty deep rabbit hole. It's been carefully programmed over the last decade to respond predictably to various stimuli. From an organizational perspective they've been practicing parade marches while we've been milling about. During election season it's our angry mob versus their disciplined troops. Historically the mob hasn't faired so well under those circumstances.

Like the analogy of the closed fist, the `disciplined troops' of the right didn't happen overnight. It took a long time to get otherwise intelligent people to turn their backs on reason and embrace ideology at all costs. Don't make the mistake of assuming that all Republicans are stupid. They're not. They're just serially misinformed and have a mental `truth-detecting missile shield' fully deployed with 100% accuracy.

It's a process not entirely unlike brainwashing. The `drinking the kool-aid' analogy is chillingly more accurate than I'd like to admit. I'm going to try to take you inside the Republican mind so you can see what it looks like. It's what the inside of my own mind looked like just 18 months ago. I saved it to the internet a few months ago so I could show it off when I needed to. It's also my `backup' brain should I experience primary brain failure. I'll warn you, it's not pretty. It's dark, it drips this hate-filled, oil-like substance, and inexplicably it smells like day-old Papa Johns pizza.

[...]

[Your imagination is going to have to supply the appropriate `Going Inside Someone's Head' imagery]

[...]

The first thing you might notice is that this particular brain isn't the size of a walnut. That's a mistake we make a lot. We assume that the Republican detachment from reality is due to some form of functional mental retardation. But as you can see it's a perfectly average sized brain. It should be able to function normally. If you look closely you'll see some wiring that's not `factory original.' That's the elective surgery performed by the right-wing media. I'll get to that in a moment.

[...]

That wiring you saw was all part of the `right-wing reasoning chip,' which surrounds the `worldview' portion of the Republican brain. Its primary purpose is to apply a pass/fail test to any incoming information. This is important because, as any neurosurgeon will tell you, the `worldview' portion is upstream from the `critical thinking' portion of the brain. If information can't get past `worldview' then it has to take a long and perilous journey through the `soul search' mountains to get to `critical thinking.' Rarely does information survive such a journey. The secondary function of the chip is to project a negative image of itself on those who disagree with it. For example, "I think the sky is blue, therefore liberals think the sky is red."

Daily Kos :: Pulitzer winner Laurie Garrett blasts media, quits

2005-03-09T03:45:00.000-08:00

Wow. See this DailyKOS thread for a discussion of some very harsh criticism of the media, from a longtime media insider. Maybe the blogs are not too far off the mark when we chastize real journalists for refusing to confront and oppose the propaganda and misinformation that is rampant in the media today.

Daily Kos :: Pulitzer winner Laurie Garrett blasts media, quits today: "This is terrible for democracy. I have been in 47 states of the USA since 9/11, and I can attest to the horrible impact the deterioration of journalism has had on the national psyche. I have found America a place of great and confused fearfulness, in which cynically placed bits of misinformation (e.g. Cheney's, 'If John Kerry had been President during the Cold War we would have had thermonuclear war.') fall on ears that absorb all, without filtration or fact-checking. Leading journalists have tried to defend their mission, pointing to the paucity of accurate, edited coverage found in blogs, internet sites, Fox-TV and talk radio. They argue that good old-fashioned newspaper editing is the key to providing America with credible information, forming the basis for wise voting and enlightened governance. But their claims have been undermined by Jayson Blair's blatant fabrications, Judy Miller's bogus weapons of mass destruction coverage, the media's inaccurate and inappropriate convictions of Wen Ho Lee, Richard Jewell and Steven Hatfill, CBS' failure to smell a con job regarding Bush's Texas Air Guard career and, sadly, so on."

BuzzFlash Vs. The New York Times

2005-03-09T03:13:00.000-08:00

The editor of BuzzFlash.com explains why the New York Times news pages are, in his opinion, little more than shills for the Bush White House. It's an interesting read, even if a little over the top.

BuzzFlash Vs. The New York Times: "BuzzFlash Vs. The New York Times

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

In a David vs. Goliath battle, we think BuzzFlash is holding its own. For one thing, the New York Times is starting to get a little defensive at our criticisms of their roll over and play dead coverage of the White House.

Maybe it was when we honored (or dishonored) NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller as our BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the week that they got a little edgy.

Or maybe it was when we called for an investigative reporter, along the lines of a special counsel for journalism, to investigate the New York Times News Section for journalistic malfeasance in covering the White House.

Or maybe it was the numerous other times that we have pointed out how the New York Times whines about being a liberal media whipping boy for the right wing, while ensuring that the White House is never REALLY offended."

Daily Kos :: Diary from a blogger who will be on ABC's Nightline tonight! (Discussion on blogging ethics)

2005-03-08T21:01:00.000-08:00

Blogging ethics is being explored by Nightline.

The ethics of blogging. Humm.

I try to properly attribute to sources, I do not knowingly blog untruths (although I might be wrong on facts or boneheaded in opinion), statements of opinion are obvious and not confusable with fact statements.

So do I qualify as an ethical blogger, in the context of the type of blog I have?

Daily Kos :: I'll be on ABC's Nightline tonight! (Discussion on blogging ethics): "Given there has been so much recent news about blogging, from concerns about FEC regulation of blogging to the recent court ruling in favor of Apple which denies bloggers the protection that journalists get regarding revealing their sources, I expect that tonight's Nightline segment will raise questions again about the extent to which bloggers are, and are not, journalists. The fact that blogger Garrett Graff from FishbowlDC finally got day credentials to cover this morning's press gaggle at the White House only makes these questions more timely. Garrett raises some of these questions in his most recent post.

For those of you who followed the story on HB1677, I'd love for you to post your thoughts on what would (and would not) constitute an ethical approach to bloggers voicing criticism of a bill:

* Should we make every attempt to contact a legislator before writing about a bill?
* Must we identify ourselves as bloggers when we contact elected representatives?
* What ethical considerations should we keep in mind as we write about legislation?

I hope you'll choose to watch tonight's Nightline episode. I'm incredibly nervous about how I will come off on camera. I hope I can do us proud.

Above, I raise some of the questions which came up during my interview, and I wonder how many of you would have answered them. The Nightline folks will likely review this thread, so if you've got any thoughts on ethical considerations regarding blogging, please join the discussion below!"

World Heritage is poorer ------ Death of Hans Bethe -- escaped Nazi's, worked on A-bomb

2005-03-08T14:21:00.000-08:00

World Heritage is much poorer today. Click the link to read the bio of this major player of early-mid 20th century history, with implications for forevermore.

Hans Bethe -- worked on A-bomb, feared space weaponry: "Hans Bethe -- worked on A-bomb, feared space weaponry

David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

Tuesday, March 8, 2005

Hans Bethe won a Nobel Prize in 1967 for explaining how t...

* Printable Version
* Email This Article

Hans Bethe, the last of the giants of 20th century physics who explained the energy source that powers the stars and helped develop the atom bomb, but devoted decades of his life to nuclear arms control and campaigns against space-based weaponry, died Sunday night at his home in Ithaca, N.Y.

He was 98, a Nobel laureate and one of the most admired figures in modern science.

In the last years of his life, he continued working on the deepest problems of theoretical astrophysics while advising the government and weapons- makers on how to control the proliferation of nuclear arms.

Nearly 70 years ago, Professor Bethe published a seminal paper announcing that the fusion of hydrogen and helium atoms in stars like the sun was the source of their energy and light. The discovery won him the Nobel Prize nearly 30 years later, and while it also helped inspire Edward Teller to conceive of the hydrogen bomb, it also led to the long and bitter enmity between the two scientists who were once close friends.

Born in Strasbourg in 1906 when that city was part of Germany and not yet France, Hans Albrecht Bethe had a mother who was Jewish although his father, a professor of physiology, was not. After earning his doctorate in physics at the University of Munich and starting his research career, he was forced by Hitler's race laws to flee Germany in 1933 -- first to England and then to the United States and Cornell University."

The New York Times > National > Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, U.S. Report Finds

2005-03-08T04:03:00.000-08:00

Let's talk about guns a little bit, and connect it to the Big Brother society.

The article excerpted below reports on a government study that shows that certain people on watch lists are trying to buy guns (or succeeding).

At present, the law does not forbid those on watch lists from buying guns. Gun ownership is a civil right, and our laws do not allow the government to take away our civil rights except in limited circumstances, such as being a convicted felon, etc.

The FBI (and I guess many other govt agencies now) maintain super-secret watchlists of supposed problem people. The article below says that some of those people are buying guns.

But we don't know who is ON the watchlists. So we don't know whether we should actually be concerned about this "problem".

Is it a real problem? We don't have enough info. We ONLY know that the govt has compiled a list of people, a secret list, of thousands of people who it wants to "watch". And the govt has told a congressman that some of those being watched have applied to buy guns.

Big Brother? BB identifies a secret enemies list, and then tells us that the secret people are a threat because they are trying to buys guns.

PROBLEM: Those people on the watch lists are apparently FOLLOWING THE LAW: They are trying to LEGALLY buy guns by filling out applications to purchase, using their REAL NAMES.

Everyone knows that guns can be purchased illegally on the black market.

So why is it so bad for watchlisters to buy guns legally? By filling out applications, the FBI has a record of where the watchlister is, and what kind of firepower they have, and can better FIND the watchlister at any time.

In other words, since the watchlister COULD get guns illegally, maybe it's a GOOD thing that the watchlisters are choosing to get guns LEGALLY and give us all of their current contact info, so WE CAN BETTER WATCH THEM!

But I think the government is going to use this watchlist-gun-purchaser story to try to increase the amount of monitoring of law abiding citizens.

More Big Brother is on the horizon.

The New York Times > National > Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, U.S. Report Finds:
WASHINGTON, March 7 - Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year, according to a Congressional investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal gun laws.

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack.

The G.A.O. study offers the first full-scale examination of the possible dangers posed by gaps in the law, Congressional officials said, and it concludes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation 'could better manage' its gun-buying records in matching them against lists of suspected terrorists.

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

At least 44 times from February 2004 to June, people whom the F.B.I. regards as known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry a gun, the investigation found.

In all but nine cases, the F.B.I. or state authorities who handled the requests allowed the applications to proceed because a check of the would-be buyer found no automatic disqualification like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or someone deemed 'mentally defective,' the report found.

Daily Kos :: Bush to Press: "You're Assuming That You Represent the Public. I Don't Accept That."

2005-03-07T08:03:00.000-08:00

Bush's comment is interesting, and this KOS thread is interesting.

Let's talk for a minute about the role of the press. Conservatives have essentially declared war on the established traditional press, claiming for a generation that the press is "too liberal."

Now comes the conservative press, as a counter to the perceived biases of the so-called-liberal-media (SCLM), a conservative press perhaps best characterized by FoxNews, and worst characterized by the right wing spinwits like Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter.

Their thesis is that the SCLM does not speak for or to the People's interests or needs.

Their antidote for the SCLM is is propagandize and try to spin everything toward the Republican Party positions.

If you read the left-leaning news sites and blogs, however, you will find a level of criticism of the SCLM that mirrors the level of criticism of the SCLM that is levied by the right wing.

Daily Kos :: Bush to Press: "You're Assuming That You Represent the Public. I Don't Accept That.": "Bush to Press: 'You're Assuming That You Represent the Public. I Don't Accept That.'
by lawnorder
[Subscribe]

Mon Mar 7th, 2005 at 01:34:46 PST

Straight Cut & Paste. Sorry, but I just can't add anything to it. It's perfect as it is...

This article is the top one in readers to date at PressThink, and I believe VERY RELEVANT to GannonGate
PressThink: Bush to Press: 'You're Assuming That You Represent the Public. I Don't Accept That.'

Which is a powerful statement... Bush's people have developed it into a thesis, which they explained to Auletta, who told it to co-host Brooke Gladstone:

That's his attitude. And when you ask the Bush people to explain that attitude, what they say is: We don't accept that you have a check and balance function. We think that you are in the game of 'Gotcha.' Oh, you're interested in headlines, and you're interested in conflict. You're not interested in having a serious discussion... and exploring things.

... [The headlines obssession means that] The press has forfeited, if it ever had, its quasi-official role in the checks and balances of government. Here the Bush Thesis is bold. It says: there is no such role-- official or otherwise."

Pew Finds Surge for Web as Source of Political News, As Newspapers Sink

2005-03-07T04:02:00.000-08:00

New study confirms the trend to get political news and commentary from the web.

I've said a few times recently that the Internet makes me feel like we have more freedom of speech than ever before.

Pew Finds Surge for Web as Source of Political News, As Newspapers Sink: "NEW YORK A Pew Center study released today found that using the Internet to get news of politics during the 2004 presidential contest grew sixfold from 1996, while the influence of newspapers sank.

In 1996, only 3% of those surveyed called the Web one of their two leading sources of campaign news. In 2004, the figure was 18%. Reliance on TV rose slightly from 72% to 78% but prime use of newspapers plunged from 60% to 39%.

Four in ten of the heavy Web said they found it an important tool in helping them make a voting choice. "

DesMoinesRegister.com - Christian Lawyers Oppose Republican Bankruptcy Reform Bill on Bible Grounds

2005-03-07T03:47:00.000-08:00

I think this stuff is fascinating. The Republicans are paying back their Industry Supporters with a bankruptcy reform bill that would make it harder for people to discharge their debts. The Rpublicans took power by convincing a majority of American voters that they were the Party of Godliness, and would legislate based on Biblical teachings (implicitly, anyway).

Now comes a group of Christian lawyers, citing the Bible's provisions about debt forgiveness as the basis for opposing the Republilcan bankruptcy reform bill.

The Republicans defend their industry-friendly reform measure by saying, in essence, "We do not legislate based on the Bible, because we are not a theocracy."

How fascinating.

DesMoinesRegister.com: "A national group of Christian lawyers is appealing to church leaders to join them in lobbying against the bankruptcy reform bill introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia.

The lawyers say the legislation runs contrary to the forgiveness of debt and charity required by the Bible.

'As Christian attorneys, we strongly believe that it was never God's intention to create a society where indebtedness was a crime or a badge of dishonor,' Christian members of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys wrote in a letter sent Feb. 26 to hundreds of church leaders across the nation.

The bill, which is receiving Senate debate, would make it harder for most people to receive full debt cancellation under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy laws. More people would have to repay at least part of their debt, based on income.

The lawyers note that in the Old Testament, God did not outlaw borrowing and lending, but provided that loans would become discharged every seven years.

In response, Grassley said Congress could not be bound by biblical mandates because 'the Constitution does not provide for a theocracy.'"