Protect Dis!

For awhile now, clever liberal heteros have been pointing out that using the term “protection of marriage” to advance an anti-gay agenda is, well, kinda bullshit, as many of us feel our marriages need no such protection.

Apparently, the Christian Right has now clacked on to this:

"Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh, soul-searching look at the institution.

"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor who writes frequently about family issues.

While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats to marriage's place in society.

"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated — if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."

Deliberate childlessness. I suppose it doesn’t occur to Mr. Christensen that some couples may be deliberately childless because they can’t afford to have children. Not threatening as much as responsible, really. And, anecdotally, the couples I know who are deliberately childless tend to have great marriages. I do, however, know a few ex-couples whose attempts to save their marriages by having a child didn’t work out so well.

"That was the best argument same-sex marriage advocates had: 'Where were you when no-fault divorce went through?'" said Allan Carlson, a conservative scholar who runs a family-studies center in Rockford, Ill. "Any thoughtful defender of marriage has to say, 'You're right. We were asleep at the switch in the '60s and '70s.'"

Looking at the marriage success rates of some prominent conservatives (say, Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh, for example), I’d guess that napping wasn’t as much the problem as being preoccupied by divorce attorneys.

Carlson decries no-fault divorce, where neither spouse is held responsible for the breakup, but acknowledges that its demise is not imminent. He proposes more modest steps: tax revisions benefiting married couples…

Tax revisions benefiting married couples is an awesome idea! The best way to strengthen hetero marriages is to widen the divide between the privileges granted straights and gays.

…a more positive portrayal of marriage in textbooks…

I don’t remember negative portrayals of marriage in any textbooks while I was in school. I do, however, remember it being widely known that several of the married teachers were having affairs; that I once saw the married assistant superintendent of schools making out with the married vice principal at the mall; and that the principal left his wife and married one of the guidance counselors.

…policies aiding young college graduates so they could afford to marry sooner.

Excellent idea. Because everyone knows, the younger you get married, the better your chances of success are.

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and his wife have invited 1,000 couples to join them in a Valentine's Day (news - web sites) covenant marriage ceremony in which they would voluntarily reduce their options for a quick divorce.

Aww, how sweet. I heart Gov. Huckabee.

"For decades, Christians have been guilty for having a weak defense of marriage," [Jordan Lorence, a Phoenix-based lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund] told the Christian Post earlier this year. "Marriage has become a junior high school dating scene where if I am unhappy I could divorce my husband or wife and move on to someone else."

Which is bad, because the Christian way is to make sure you wallow as long as possible in an unhappy situation. And if Mr. Christensen has his way, your brood of children can wallow in it with you.

One group, the Alliance for Marriage, has focused almost entirely in the past two years on advocating a federal amendment that would ban gay marriage. The alliance's president, Matt Daniels, said the proposed ban is an essential starting point for other initiatives to strengthen heterosexual marriage — such as promoting family-friendly workplace policies.

Like banning women from the workplace. That way, there will plenty of jobs for the men, and the women can all stay home and raise babies. Sorry, barren women. Don’t know what you’ll do, since you can’t get married, either. Maybe you should try Canada.

"Heterosexuals changed marriage, not gays and lesbians," [Stephanie Coontz, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and author of a new history of marriage] said. "None of these measures is going to change the fact that marriage no longer plays the same central economic and political role that it used to. ... People see it as more optional."

That’s right. Marriage has changed because women wanted equal rights. They demanded equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work, and once they got it (or close to it), they realized they didn’t have to get married to survive anymore, thereby making marriage a choice, as well it should be. And all things being equal, it should be a choice for everybody.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Whip It Good

Jesus’ General, who as we know is a 10 on the manly scale of absolute gender, calls our attention to the outrageous dismissal of a high school principal:

Jesus has become an outlaw in our secular society. First they outlawed state-sponsored prayer in schools. Then, they enacted hate laws so that we could no longer witness to homosexuals using our steel-toed boots of brotherhood. Now, a principal has been fired for demonstrating a little old-fashioned Christian discipline. When will it end?

The Anchorage Daily News’ Zaz Hollander has the story:

Matanuska Christian School's principal has been fired and a teacher has quit over a disciplinary incident in which the principal had himself whipped in front of two students.

Principal Steve Unfreid, who said he was inspired in his choice of disciplinary tactics by the actions of Jesus, asked teacher Joe Brost to whip him in front of two male students in the school's basement last month after the boys were caught kissing girls in the locker room for the second time in a week.

Unfreid, in an interview Friday at his home, acknowledged he should have called the boys' parents first but expressed no regret for his behavior.

The school's board of directors unanimously decided in a closed door session Sunday to fire Unfreid.

[…]

The decision to take the boys' punishment on himself showed a form of Christianity that was too radical for some members of the school community, Unfreid said, sitting cross-legged on a leather couch in his Wasilla living room Friday afternoon.

[…]

When the two seniors, 17 and 18, got caught kissing girls in front of younger students in late October, Unfreid said that while contemplating what discipline to hand out, he woke at 3 a.m. and prayed how to avoid expelling them. He said that was when he remembered years ago he had cured his son of chronic lying by telling his son to hit him with a wooden ladle instead of spanking the youngster.

Later at school, Unfreid walked the boys down to a basement room with Brost. He told them, " 'Guys, this has gotta stop,' " he said. " 'I've let the atmosphere get too lax. I share in this discipline. This is a one-time deal.' "

Then the principal took off his belt, gave it to Brost, and instructed the teacher to "discipline me like you would discipline your own son," he recalled.

He told the teacher to stop only when the students acknowledged their mistake. The whole thing, starting with the trip downstairs, lasted 5 to 10 minutes, he said.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Paging Dr. Dean

The invaluable Charles Pierce, in Altercation’s Correspondence Corner, issues the following suggestion:

I think it's time for Bill Clinton, and his wife, and all the people who worked for him to shut up for a while. As time has ground on, I begin to realize that his primary accomplishment over his two terms was keeping the real wingnuts at bay -- which is not an inconsiderable one, given the present state of things. But, let us also admit that, on his best day, Clinton was a DLC Democrat and, even as one of those, he never got 55 percent of the popular vote. He signed an overly punitive welfare bill and he was the worst president on the Bill of Rights in my lifetime. He didn't do jack about building the party. And, for all the noise about how Gore didn't use him in 2000, if Clinton had been able to keep his pants zipped for eight years, Gore wouldn't have had to be so ambivalent about it -- and might not have felt compelled to choose the useless Weepin' Joe Lieberman as a running mate.

This is not a time for triangulation, not a time to cut off our own slice of rotten beef and serve it up as chateaubriand. The next four months are crucial because it's the only chance the D's have to keep the ducks from being put in a row. You may recall Contingency Plan A, briefly summarized as:

No.

Here's what I'd like to see. The entire Democratic caucus of the House of Representatives simply refuses to go to work as long a Tom DeLay is Majority Leader. Deny a quorum. Get your best parliamentarian and tie the place in knots. Sell the hell out of the fact that the House Republicans just used the rules of the institution as a getaway car. Go to Texas and pose with Ronnie Earle. But, under no circumstance, do anything of substance until the Tiny Little Hammer is deposed. And, above all, do not listen to Bill Clinton who, I swear to God, still believes there are reasonable men among the Republicans.

I’ve written before about my frustration with the Democrats for continuing to glorify Bill Clinton, to the detriment of moving the party forward. Pierce has nicely encapsulated some additional reasons to abandon the Clinton-as-Savior model, and they’re particularly relevant as we close in on the deadline for choosing the new head of the DNC. Simon Rosenberg, though a successful 527 organizer and fundraiser, is a Clintonista. I don’t think that should necessarily rule him out, but it should definitely give Dean an edge.

Additionally, what we need is grass-roots activism—something the Clinton people have no real use for, or, perhaps more accurately, no real experience with. And I fear the reliance on 527s was (and is, should they remain legal, which is doubtful) foolishly short-sighted, as 527s cannot coordinate directly with a candidate. Dean’s campaign, on the other hand, had a successful grassroots track record, and we need to harness that ability to organize and combine it with a kickass product like the branding campaign Oliver Willis has proposed.

To beat a dead horse (and hopefully make it a fire-breathing donkey)… There’s nothing wrong with our values; we just need to learn how to effectively communicate the message.

And as Pierce notes, a little help from the Dems in Congress would be greatly appreciated in the meantime.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Vilsack No; Reform on the March?

Atrios has the big announcement: Vilsack has pulled himself out of the running for head of the DNC. That’s great news for those of us who believe the party needs reform.

My personal choice for DNC chair is still Howard Dean. I signed up here to register my support for him; if you’re on the Dean tip, make sure you sign the petition, too.

If you support reform, but Dean’s not your choice, tell me in Comments why you don’t like Dean (and who you do like). I’ve yet to hear a persuasive argument why he’d be a poor choice (although I do agree that Simon Rosenberg is an interesting alternative), and I’m keen to know why someone who supports reform wouldn’t support him.

In a tangentially related item, Oliver Willis’ Brand Democrat campaign is fucking awesome. Check it out.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

I Dig Digby

Over the past few weeks, Digby at Hullabaloo has written some outstanding posts examining various issues all generally falling under the umbrella of the cold culture war. There's been an extraordinary amount of examination of the red state/blue state divide, but Digby's done some of the best writing out there, and I like the way he frames it in terms of the future of the party.

Today he has another great installment. Read it, and the others linked below, too. It makes you feel good knowing that there are guys like Digby on our side.

Pop Goes the Populism

TV With the Sound Turned Off

Heartland Values

A Very Old Story

It Won't Work

More Culture War

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Welcome New Member...

...Demosthenes, who brings with him a historical bent that far exceeds mine, and a unique perspective as a recent immigrant to this mess we call a political system.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

And in the War on Women's Rights...

In a continuing analysis of the omnibus spending bill previously mentioned, Shakespeare’s Sister wants to call your attention to another shocking provision that was inserted. This provision, inserted by Congressman Dave Weldon of Florida, prevents funds from going to governmental agencies that act against health care providers or insurers who refuse to provide abortions for their patients and/or customers.

The awesome House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi addressed Congress on Nov. 20 about this provision. Because I feel so strongly about this issue, and because I feel Ms. Pelosi’s remarks cannot be improved upon, I will post them here in their entirety:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon amendment, an extraordinary sneak attack on women's rights and a disgraceful display of ideology over health.

This language is a radical change in policy that the House has not debated on the floor, and the Senate has never considered, debated, or voted on. Republicans simply slipped it into the appropriations bill when they thought no one was looking. It is entirely outside of the scope of this omnibus spending bill. Yet it is a part of a 'must-pass' bill at the insistence of House Republican leaders.

This language makes a mockery of Roe v. Wade. Under this provision, a woman will not know where her right to choose will be honored and where it will be denied.

This was first advertised to me as a part of the 'conscience clause,' which we all respect. As a person who served under the leadership of Mr. Obey on the Labor HHS Education Appropriations Subcommittee and with our distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, I knew full well of the importance of the conscience clause to Catholic doctors, or other faith doctors, but particular mention was always made of Catholic doctors.

And it was said to me that this was merely an expansion of that from the doctors to the hospitals. But my colleagues, it's so very much more than that. We all respect the conscience clause. But this goes well beyond that.

If a hospital, health insurance company, or doctor opposes Roe v. Wade, they could simply ignore it. Ignore it. This is the law of the land. A Constitutional right could simply be ignored.

The Weldon amendment is essentially a domestic gag rule, restricting access to abortion counseling, referral, and information. Health care companies should not be able to prevent doctors from giving medically necessary information.

This language makes a mockery of existing state and local laws, including many state constitutions. Under the Weldon Amendment, any law or regulation currently on the books to protect access to reproductive health services is at risk. The term 'discrimination' in this amendment is so vague that it could be used against any federal, state, or local government effort to provide reproductive health services.

This language makes a mockery of Title X. The Title X family planning program provides much-needed reproductive health services that reach millions of low-income, uninsured individuals. And it really is sad because we all want to reduce the number of abortions in our country. That is a goal that we all share. And family planning is one way to do that. But under this amendment, clinics could participate in the Title X program without providing a full range of reproductive health services. Federal dollars should not be used to deny the federally-protected right to choose.

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but Republicans are gutting it step by step. The Weldon amendment will have a major and harmful impact on women's health. This sweeping new exemption from current laws and regulations should not be the law of the land, and it certainly shouldn't be a part of the omnibus appropriations bill.

The Republican assault on women's rights must be stopped.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Me and My Shadow

Meteor Blades at Daily Kos has a good post that echoes my call for a shadow cabinet. Not the only place I've seen the suggestion. Shakespeare's Sister was ahead of the curve on this one, folks, and she still thinks it's the best idea for organizing an effective opposition.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Meanwhile, in the War at Home…

As part of the $388 billion spending bill working its way through Congress last week, apparently the GOP inserted a provision allowing the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees or their "agents" to review any American's tax return with no limitations. Josh at Talking Points Memo has the lowdown here, and there’s a diary at DailyKos with info here. Josh says:

[A]t the request of Rep. Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, chairman of the House Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, a special provision was inserted into the bill which allows the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees or their "agents" to review any American's tax return with no restrictions whatsoever.

Specifically, none of the privacy law restrictions -- or the criminal and civil penalties tied to them -- would apply when the Chair or anybody he or she designates as his or her "agent" looked at your tax return.

[…]

The provision was slipped into the bill at the last moment. And, at least on the Democratic side, no one was told about it until some Dems caught it at the last moment.

Senate Republicans quickly backtracked, calling the provision a mistake or snafu and insisting they knew nothing about it. You can see some of the back-and-forth that took place on the Senate floor in this AP piece at CNN.

Sen. Stevens of Alaska, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, originally blamed the provision on a 'staffer'. But later, according to the AP, Sen. Frist and "congressional aides" said it was inserted at the behest of Rep. Istook.

And in case you're wondering, Istook's staffers are apparently telling constituents that Rep. Istook had to step out of the room for a moment when the DeLay Rule was being voted on.

The provision has been pulled from the bill, thanks to the Dems kicking up a fuss (way to go, guys!). But lest you think the poor, victimized Republicans got all the fun ripped out of their spending bill, fear not—the provision for a Presidential yacht is still in.

This incident must give us (and hopefully our Democratic leaders) an acute awareness of what we’ll be up against unceasingly the next four years. The IRS provision was snuck in at the last minute, and it was only because the Dems happened to notice it (out of 3000 pages) that it was effectively confronted. We must scrutinize and challenge everything, and never, ever take for granted that we are dealing with fair people.
Between the rampant greed of the Republicans and the despicable tactics of the decidedly non-Christlike Christian Right, vigilance will be the key for the foreseeable future.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

War Notes

In the ongoing struggle to win the hearts and minds, sharply increasing malnutrition in Iraqi children is sure to help our cause (and here—you’ll need a log-in).

Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.

After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to a study conducted by Iraq's Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway's Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein.

This is truly unconscionable. How can we wonder why there are insurgents fighting against our troops when our “liberation” has wreaked such havoc among the Iraqi populace? Perhaps the most disheartening sentiment expressed in the article is this:

"Believe me, we thought a magic thing would happen" with the fall of Hussein and the start of the U.S.-led occupation, said an administrator at Baghdad's Central Teaching Hospital for Pediatrics. "So we're surprised that nothing has been done. And people talk now about how the days of Saddam were very nice," the official said.

We have actually made the Iraqi people long for days of Saddam’s rule. And why wouldn’t they? We were delivering them from rape rooms but gave them Abu Ghraib. We were supposed to be freeing them from Saddam’s brutal regime, where people were starving and those who opposed the regime were taken from their beds at night without warning. Now, under our heavy hand, even more people are starving (and doing without water and electricity), and nighttime raids pull men from their beds.

One of the things that haunts me is how little I understood of the Iraqi people leading up to this war. When Fahrenheit 9/11 was released, one of the criticisms was directed at the scenes of Iraqis before the war. Critics of the film accused Michael Moore of having misrepresented Iraq as a happier, safer place than it had actually been. I felt it may have been a fair criticism, but I didn’t really know. Now I read Baghdad Burning and see footage of Iraq pre- and post-invasion, and I realize that I really had no clue what life was like for Iraqis before we got there.

Recently, a man called into the Randi Rhodes Show on Air America, and he was describing seeing the bedroom of an Iraqi in footage of a raid on American television. He was upset; he said the bedroom looked just like his, or his mother’s, or any American’s. I understood his shock. We were told the Iraqis were starving under the decade of sanctions, that Saddam’s storm-troopers made their very lives one of constant abject fear.

But we weren’t told the truth. Sure, some of that existed; I’m not about to become an apologist for Saddam Hussein. But the entire story escaped me before the invasion, and probably many people. Even know I don’t believe I fully grasp what life used to be like for Iraqis, or the kind of people they are, although I think they’re very much like us. All I know now is that they say like used to be better, and we took that from them. What good have we done if we’ve removed one tyranny only to replace it with another?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Immediate Action Required 2

Yesterday, the Washington Post’s printed a magazine ad supplement, a product of Grace Christian Church, containing articles and interviews by such rightwingers as Dr. Derek Grier and Dr. James Dobson. The entire purpose of the insert appears to be appealing to homophobia in the black community, as happy, primarily black families (and only white gays) are pictured throughout. The insert also seeks to diminish the legitimacy of the Gay Rights Movement, by repeatedly saying it is in no way like the Civil Rights Movement, despite Coretta Scott King having advocated standing with gays and lesbians in their fight for equal rights. (You can also see here for clear and relevant comments by Mrs. King on the issue.)

The entire insert can be viewed in four parts (thanks to John Aravosis of AMERICAblog for alerting everyone and hosting the pdf files):

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four

This is the most vile piece of garbage I have ever seen printed in a newspaper with a reputation such as the Washington Post’s. The disclaimer makes it clear that it is not a publication endorsed by the Post, but as John said, it is:

[O]ne of the most bigoted homophobic things I have ever read. I am astonished the Post would print this filth.

In it you learn things like the fact that sexual orientation isn't genetic. Why? Because if it were genetic it would have to be passed by gay parents who don't have kids! Putting aside a number of holes in that theory, there's the more general scientific point about recessive genes. My point is that this filth isn't even scientifically correct, and the Post is publishing it. I didn't realize the Post had no problems publishing junk science targeting minority groups. Huh.

What's more, the entire publication is based on race-baiting. It is CLEARLY written for the black community in an effort to piss them off against the gays. Funny, but you'd think the Post would have a problem with a scientifically invalid publication whose sole intent was to enrage one minority community against another. But no.

[…]

Where the hell is the Washington Post on all of this? Pay them the right price and they'll publish any crap, no matter how outrageous, no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful and obviously race-baiting (note that the fags in the publication are all white).

This is so beyond the pale. You have got to see this. And we have got to respond. On its face this is publishing junk science meant to attack minorities, and is race-baiting, among other things. I wonder if the Washington Post would publish a magazine insert that, oh, specifically targeted the white community, alerting them to studies suggesting that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, more prone to disease and early death than whites, and that blacks therefore don't deserve affirmative action and other civil rights protections…

[…]

[I]f the Post wouldn't run bigoted race-baiting Aryan science studies about blacks - and they wouldn't - then they'd better treat gays with the same journalistic standard.

Please read the insert using the links provided and then register your disproval with the Post’s ombudsman, who can be contacted at ombudsman@washpost.com. We cannot let this stand.

The scapegoating of a minority group is nothing new, and neither is the use of propaganda to spread misinformation about a particular group. However, I’d like to think we’re still not on the descent into the mass hysteria that gripped Germany before WWII. Of course, if we don’t speak up against a mainstream publication raking in profits from such vicious bile, we’ll soon find ourselves only steps away from that slippery slope.


UPDATE: The following is the text of my letter to the Post:

To Whom It May Concern:

I have read the advertising insert published by the Washington Post, the space for which was purchased by Grace Christian Church. This is the most vile piece of garbage I have ever read in a newspaper with a reputation as that of the Post.

I understand this was not explicitly endorsed by the Post; however, do you have no standards for that which you publish even under advertising banners? The decision to include this hateful, race-baiting insert defies comprehension. I can assure you that I will never again consider a subscription to the Washington Post unless and until you print a retraction and an apology, and give equal space to a group such as GLAAD to counteract the damage this misinformational piece may have done.

Lest you think that you have only outraged the gay community, which you seem to find a disposable readership, I will tell you that I am a married woman in the red state of Indiana with not a single gay relative (that I know of), and I find your choice to buffer your profits by allowing such advertising nothing short of dispicable. I will be forwarding the information on your decision to publish such homophobic vitriol to all of my friends and family and encourage them to boycott your publication as well, until such time as you see fit to make appropriate amends.


UPDATE 2: Check out Atrios, who chose another page from the same website to register his own disbelief.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Duty Calls

The cannibalization of our candidate started, of course, immediately after he lost. Typical Democrat bullshit. But now it’s reached such a fevered pitch that I felt compelled to comment.

I see two main complaints over and over (especially at DailyKos and Atrios):

1) Kerry’s concession was indicative of his flip-flopping tendency after all. He let us down.

2) Kerry hoarded money just so he can run again in ’08, and it may have cost other Democrats victories.

The conclusion reached from these assumptions is that we should abandon Kerry and withhold all support for him, as punishment, I suppose. Now aside from how completely and utterly illogical that is (he isn’t fighting hard enough, so let’s not support him at all – a general isn’t much good without an army, folks), it’s also based on bad information.

Kerry conceded so he could work under the radar to challenge any vote irregularities, without drawing the inevitable attention and resulting condemnation of the Right and the mainstream media that Gore did. Sour Grapes. Divisiveness. Sore loser. Kerry learned from the 2000 election what many of his supporters, apparently, did not.

As for the held back money, which has been cited to be as much as $45 million, the accurate details are as follows:

First, Kerry has already declared that money left over from his campaign will go to Democratic candidates and committees. Kerry advisors who spoke to the AP said he “wanted to save it in the event of a recount, legal challenges or other unforeseen bills. In the end, they said, Kerry's nest egg will be less than $10 million.” According to the AP article, “two advisers who have spoken to Kerry about the money said he likely will donate a substantial amount to Democratic committees and candidates for the 2005 contests and 2006 congressional midterm elections.” The AP also noted that Kerry’s campaign gave $3 million each to the DSCC and DCCC, and $32 million to the DNC, with $9 million dedicated to state parties, the largest-ever donation to the DNC, and the first from a Presidential campaign. So enough with the “why did Kerry steal $45 million” stuff. It’s a non-story.

I’m not thrilled with Kerry’s support of Vilsack as DNC chair, but considering his recent emergence to provide the opposition for which we’ve all been longing, I’m willing to entertain the notion that maybe he knows something I don’t. And with all our collective grousing about how we want a president who’s smarter than we are, I think we ought to be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And if he’s wrong, well, we need to give him the chance to be wrong, too. It’s appalling to me that we’ll overlook Clinton’s mistakes and yet hold Kerry to a higher standard, where any misstep becomes proof of his inability to lead.

Turn your energies spent cannibalizing our man into some excitement about the proposition of opposition! I’m not suggesting that constructive criticism has no value; of course it does, but bitching for bitching’s sake is useless. Sitting around waiting for a Superman is a lost cause. We’re human, and we’re supposed to operate in the reality-based community. There are no super heroes. There are only men who can lead as best they know how, and they need followers to maintain their strength. Apathy and bitterness is the Left’s kryptonite. Think about that the next time you criticize without suggesting any solutions of your own.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Dubya: The Movie

Watch it here.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Left March - Continued

As earlier reported, John Kerry is making a pledge to continue fighting against the current administration, and he’s asking for our help. Sign the petition to co-sponsor a bill that will help provide health care to every child in America. You’ll also have the opportunity to watch a video of Kerry addressing the election and his future plans, including Protect Every Child. I implore you to watch it and throw your support behind him and his plan.

Digby comments:

People have been talking a great deal about behaving as a real opposition party, presenting alternate plans, boldly defining ourselves as a government in exile. This is a smart politics. There is a leadership vacuum in the Party and if John Kerry wants to step in, I say more power to him. But for a few thousand votes in Ohio, we'd be calling him President-elect Kerry today.

This is a classy move from a classy guy. Perhaps that's not in fashion at the moment but
it means a lot to me.

It means a lot to me, too. When I cast my vote for Kerry, I was casting my vote for my vision of America’s future, and I feel tonight like he recognizes that, and he carries our hopes with him. A strong opposition is our mandate, and I hope that Kerry is the man to carry that sizable responsibility.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

New Member

Shakespeare's Sister welcomes evlhrb4, who will be joining us from the deliciously blue state of California. She may be an Evil Herbivore, but she'll bring nothing but pure, shiny goodness to our little blog.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Left March

Leaked excerpts from a message to supporters John Kerry will be releasing later this afternoon:

From Atrios:

And we must fight not only against George Bush's extreme policies -- we must also uphold our own values. This is why on the first day Congress is in session next year, I will introduce a bill to provide every child in America with health insurance. And, with your help, that legislation will be accompanied by the support of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

There are more than eight million uninsured children in our nation.

That's eight million reasons for us to stay together and fight for a new direction. It is a disgrace that in the wealthiest nation on earth, eight million children go without health insurance.

Normally, a member of the Senate will first approach other senators and ask them to co-sponsor a bill before it is introduced -- instead, I am turning to you. Imagine the power of a bill co-sponsored by hundreds of thousands of Americans being presented on the floor of the United States Senate. You can make it happen. Sign our "Every Child Protected" pledge today and forward it to your family, friends, and neighbors...

From Talking Points Memo:

Regardless of the outcome of this election, once all the votes are counted -- and they will be counted -- we will continue to challenge this administration. This is not a time for Democrats to retreat and accommodate extremists on critical principles -- it is a time to stand firm.

I will fight for a national standard for federal elections that has both transparency and accountability in our voting system. It's unacceptable in the United States that people still don't have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process.

I ask you to join me in this cause.

Kerry’s leading the charge, but he needs troops. I’m reporting for duty. How about you?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The War at Home

While David at AMERICAblog laments the disservice the media is doing to our troops with their whitewashed reporting, James Wolcott dissects their (and our) misplaced post-election focus:

So thick is the euphoria and triumphalism post November 2nd that I wonder if most of our media, never mind the bovine American public, have any inkling of how ghastily Iraq is going down the drain, and taking the American military with it. We've been so bombarded with "Failure is not an option" that few are willing to assert, as van Creveld and Lind do, that failure may not be an option but it damn well may be the outcome, and quicker than anyone contemplates.

Andrew Sullivan and Thomas Friedman can petition for more troops all they please. It's too late for more troops. We don't have troops to spare as it is, but even if we did, it's too late. It's too late for everything. The blundering mistakes that were made in the first days and weeks of the occupation can't be reversed now--they're incorrectible. The window of opportunity dropped like a guillotine while Donald Rumsfeld was regaling the press corps with his pithy wisdom.

Clearly, Wolcott’s intent was to chastise the conservatives for letting the collective jubilation at their incumbent’s success, and the seemingly never-ending celebration of his questionable mandate, serve to facilitate a collective amnesia about his reckless endeavor in Iraq. I wonder, however, if we on the Left aren’t dangerously close to becoming equally as guilty.

Granted, we didn’t vote to keep the purveyor of this tragedy in office, nor did many of us support the invasion. And it’s true that we support the troops in a way that many on the Right don’t understand—that we can hate the war and still respect and care for the troops who fight in it, that we want them brought home. And it’s understandable that after our disheartening defeat, we hung our heads and licked our wounds and navel-gazed a bit, wondering how it all went so pear-shaped.

But now we must turn our attention to the war. While the Right’s elation carries them blithely along, cheering on the Marlboro Man while ignoring the complexities, the reality, of the war, we cannot fall victim to the same disregard. Our trouncing and resulting self-analysis cannot overshadow this catastrophe. We must hold this administration accountable for its colossal mistake; we must remember the men and women who are fighting and dying for this mistake (on both sides); we must not let ourselves get so distracted with the politics of the war that we ignore the consequences of the war.

Read Operation Truth and Baghdad Burning, get angry, then let’s get busy demanding accuracy from the media and accountability from the administration.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

More on the Ownership Society...

…care of Digby:

Atrios notes the happy news that the AEI administration is thinking of dropping the business tax deduction for empoyer-provided health insurance in order to pay for making interest, dividends and capitals gains tax free.

I don't know what he's so unhappy about, though. George W. Bush is just trying to empower the working man here. With those fancy new medical savings accounts, the guy who works at Pep Boys and his wife who works in the hospital gift shop will be able to save the 10k a year (tax free!) to pay for his wife and 2 kids' health insurance. Then he'll be a member of the ownership society because he'll own his own health insurance policy. Isn't that great?

I'm assuming, of course, that if employers drop health insurance they will then be required to give their employees a raise in the amount of what they were paying for their health care, less the tax break. They will do that, won't they? Of course they will. Otherwise, these working people will be forced to "save" money that they don't have. That wouldn't be right.

But if that happens let's face it, if you can't afford to make ends meet that's what churches are for. Be good and maybe you'll be allowed some charity. (Or you'll be allowed to pray for some, anyway.) Meanwhile, just work harder. Like our good ole boy, Real American president who knows the meaning of hard earned dollar. He's tough, tough, tough and we have to be tough just like him. Why, a real man would rather gnaw off his leg or put his wife out of her misery than have his boss pay for his health insurance. This whole issue is an excuse for lazy Democrat losers looking for a handout.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Bizzaro World

Well, Ann Coulter is at it again, showing herself to be a bastion of reason and tolerance, by accusing the Democrats of being racist. From MediaMatters.org:

Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter labeled Democrats as "racist" for questioning the credentials of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, recently nominated by President George W. Bush to replace Secretary of State Colin Powell, and conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Coulter's remarks came during a November 17 discussion on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes of some controversial political cartoons depicting Rice as a pawn of President George W. Bush.

The cartoons shown on the program are in poor taste (see here, here, and here), but are in no way a production of the Democratic Party. Regardless, Coulter said "It goes beyond the cartoons," claiming that Democrats who oppose Rice's nomination are doing so because they "have a big problem with black women."

There are probably thousands of arguments I could invoke to dispute this claim, but I’m going to go for simply the most obvious: the first black woman to serve in Congress was Shirley Chisholm, a Democrat from New York, who served from 1969 to 1983, and the first black woman elected to the Senate was Carol Moseley-Braun, a Democrat from Illinois, who served one term starting in 1993. (More info here.)

Coulter also said:

I think liberals have a problem with blacks. They have a little race issue going on here.

Here are the results of the Democrats’ “little race issue”: Of the 113 black Americans elected to the U.S. Congress, 86 have been Democrats. The longest black office-holder in John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), who was first elected in 1964. Perhaps the two most talked-about speakers at the Democratic National Convention were our keynote speaker, Barack Obama, the newly-elected Senator from Illinois, and Al Sharpton, who got the crowd fired-up with a speech that forgot the teleprompters and instead came from the heart, as the reverend reminded the Republicans that his vote wasn’t for sale.

I am not about to argue that there are no racist Democrats, or that the Democratic party has a perfect track record; indeed, we have often fallen far short of our promises to the black community. But the suggestion that Democrats are racists reflects what I assume is willful ignorance about the history of our party and its current state. When we saw Obama speak, we were looking at our future.

As for criticisms of Condi Rice, they are not unfounded. I’ve yet to hear any of my fellow liberals question her ability on the basis of her sex or her race, just her incompetence (and her rather odd relationship with the President, which is fast becoming legendary). She has fallen down on the job in numerous ways (see here, among many others), and her credentials are dubious at best in regard to serving in her new role as Secretary of State (and here).

If Coulter wants to see the Dems get behind Rice’s appointment, perhaps she could start by encouraging Rice to explain her performance to the 9/11 commission. There’s something really wrong in this country when a political party that questions the integrity of a cabinet member after such a display is demonized as racist, and the party who supports her does so without hesitation, even when hesitation (at the very least) is warranted. This is a winner-take-all game and so they will never criticize their own, even when it’s well-deserved. Ultimately, that makes us all on the losing side of this game in the end.

[UPDATE: The Rude Pundit offers his uniquely brilliant take on the Ann Coulter debacle here.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Reel Crazy

The ever-vigilant John Aravosis has unearthed yet another example of almost unbelievable right-wingnuttery. Apparently, the religious right is taking their fight to the cinema, and you’ll never guess what paragon of filth they’ve set their sights on.

Unless, of course, you guessed “Shark Tale,” in which case you’d be right.

Yes, my blue brothers and sisters, you read me right. That’s “Shark Tale,” the animated adventure about a vegetarian shark whose meat-rebuffing ways irks his dad. In no small part due to the film’s controversial assertion that “it's sometimes okay to swim against the current,” the Jesus freaks have come out against the film’s liberal message, which they believe metaphorically pushes a homosexual agenda.

You’ll have to read the entire story to fully appreciate their evidence of this subversive scheme. I have to admit, it’s pretty convincing. I’m going to write letters to my Senators and congressman insisting they introduce legislation to ban shark marriage as soon as possible, before some activist judge makes it legal, and I suggest you do the same, if you value families.

I wonder how one goes about catching gay fish. Queer bait?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!