I’m Dreaming of a Caste Christmas

Voodoo economics in action, working its wonder during the magical season:

With less than two weeks of shopping left until Christmas, the nation's malls and stores stepped up discounts over the weekend, but business appeared to be mixed.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. — which became more aggressive on pricing after a disappointing start to the holiday shopping season — continues to struggle. The Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer said on Saturday that for the week ended Friday, sales of winter merchandise were below expectations, and its general merchandise business was not as strong as food sales. However, the world's largest discounter is still sticking to its December sales forecast.

[…]

Meanwhile, business at luxury stores continued to be robust, with designer handbags, jewelry and items like $1,200 massage chairs being snapped up by well-heeled shoppers.

Karen MacDonald, a spokeswoman at mall operator Taubman Centers Inc., said business on Saturday at luxury chains was up in the high single-digit to double-digit percentages from a year ago. For the rest of the merchants, sales were even with last year or rose a modest single-digit percentage from a year ago.

"Retailers are all revved up, all ready to go, and the consumers are just taking their sweet time, walking around, checking out items, but not buying," said Marshal Cohen, senior industry analyst at NPD Group Inc., a market research company based in Port Washington, N.Y. He checked out malls in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut over the weekend, and noted that traffic was disappointing.

He added, "For the luxury market, it feels like Christmas, but to everybody else — the midlevel and lower-end customer — it is not going to be a great Christmas."

Can’t you just feel the holiday spirit trickling down?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Loyalist Leavitt

The AP reports that Bush has selected EPA chief Michael Leavitt to be secretary of Health and Human Services.

Bush praised Leavitt as a "fine executive" and "a man of great compassion." "He's an ideal choice to lead one of the largest departments of the United States government."

What, exactly, makes him such an ideal choice? His tenure in the Bush administration has not been without controversy, and Leavitt sure hasn’t done anything to get them off the EPA’s shitlist.

In fact, when Leavitt was nominated to lead the EPA, there was significant opposition from environmental groups. See the Earthjustice press release, a letter from Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Friends of the Earth, Mineral Policy Center, National Environmental Trust, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group opposing Leavitt’s confirmation to the EPA, a letter from Campaign for America's Wilderness, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, Mineral Policy Center, National Audubon Society, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Refinery Reform Campaign, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 20/20 Vision, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group opposing Leavitt’s nomination, and more can be found here.

Amidst reports of his poor record on the environment are some things that seem to make him a questionable choice, at best, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, whose motto is “Leading America to Better Health, Safety and Well-Being.”

From the Environmental Integrity Project, via Environmental Media Services:

He downplayed toxic releases reported by the mining industry - including releases of the neurotoxin mercury - by saying "in reality it is not pollution" (Deseret News, June 16, 1999; Mineral Policy Center)

He sponsored policy resolutions of the Western Governors' Association in 2000 and 2002 to oppose environmental regulation of the mining industry and to limit public access to information about the mining industry's toxic pollution, respectively (WGA Policy Resolutions 00-13 and 02-19, www.westgov.org, Mineral Policy Center).

[…]

Under Governor Leavitt, water quality monitoring in Utah [was] well behind the national average for testing streams and rivers for water quality. The vast majority of Utah waters are not even monitored, according to EPA's most recent state water quality report (U.S EPA 2000 Water Quality Report to Congress).

[…]

Between 1995 and 2002, Utah's power plants slightly increased their emissions of nitrogen oxide - a pollutant linked to respiratory disease - while the rest of the country decreased such emissions substantially - by 21.8% on average - during the same period (U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory 2001).

While Utah has made progress in attaining the one-hour ozone standard, nearly half of the state's population live in a county that has not met clean air health based standards for one or more pollutant, compared to an average of 36.6% nationwide. Utah counties in nonattainment for criteria pollutants include: Particulate Matter (PM)-Ogden, Weber, Salt Lake and Utah counties; Sulfur Dioxide (SOx)-Salt Lake and Tooele counties; Carbon Monoxide (CO)-Provo and Utah counties. (U.S. EPA Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, and Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, PDF doc)

Despite his obviously and demonstrably unsuitability for this new position, though, he is viewed by the administration as an ideal candidate.

Leavitt, in the EPA job only a year, quickly won a reputation as a Bush loyalist. He also shares Bush's enthusiasm for technological and market-based approaches to fixing problems.

Right. Because loyalty is the best (and perhaps only requisite) qualification for any job with the Bushies.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Damned Lies

In a totally unsurprising revelation, the L.A. Times reveals that Bush’s motives re: Social Security might not be totally altruistic:

Many Democrats accuse Republicans of intentionally making Social Security's future look bleaker than it is so that they can more easily sell their privatization proposals. The Republican agenda, they say, is more ideological than financial: the promotion of Bush's "ownership society."

The ownership society includes a proposal to privatize Social Security, with workers diverting cash to glorified 401(k) accounts instead of having automatic withdrawals from each paycheck going in to a national coffer. This would be voluntary, meaning that if it seemed more attractive to you to have an extra $50 in your take-home pay each payday, you could continue to avoid saving for retirement just as many do now, but with absolutely no safety net waiting for you in old age. I have two big problems with this half-cocked plan. First, I have yet to hear the Bush administration’s explanation for what happens to the money already contributed by people in the middle of their working lives. Lots of money directed to Social Security already, but no return on investment. Kind of sets us back a few years in the old private accounts, guys. Secondly, the entire proposal is predicated on misinformation and fear-mongering:

Three times in the past week, Bush has created or used public relations events to promote his view that Social Security is facing a dire financial threat and needs major repairs. Most recently, Bush said in his Saturday radio address that "the system is headed towards bankruptcy down the road. If we do not act soon, Social Security will not be there for our children and grandchildren."

But the truth is:

Critics of private accounts point out that the board that oversees Social Security estimates that the program will not run out of funds until 2042 — and even then, ongoing payroll taxes will be able to foot the bill for about 75% of full benefits.

That leaves plenty of time, they say, to assure Social Security's future with just a little nipping and tucking — slightly higher taxes, minimally smaller benefit increases, maybe a higher retirement age.

This is like selling your house because the porch light goes out. A sane person would, instead, change the light bulb. Democrats need to get busy on this issue, before our collective house gets sold by the asinine management team we put in charge of it.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Dirt and Bernie

Bernard Kerik has announced his withdrawal from consideration as the new Department of Homeland Security chief. Apparently, he’s got nanny problems.

It turns out, though, that Kerik’s got more problems than that. He’s also got bias problems, financial problems, conflict of interest problems, and mob connection problems.

I think the most interesting report has to be this one:

Kerik was also coming under close scrutiny for his windfall profit from stock options in Taser International, a company that makes high-voltage stun guns. He netted more than $6 million on the options, without ever having invested any of his own money. Kerik joined the Taser board after leaving his police commissioner’s job in 2002 . New York City was a purchaser of the stun guns, as was the Department of Homeland Security. Kerik sold the stock in early November, shortly before an Amnesty International report charged that there had been more than 70 Taser-related deaths since 2001.

Intriguing line of business for a potential Homeland Security guy. Not to mention, he sounds as dangerous as Martha Stewart!

It’s an interesting problem for the administration to be faced with, isn’t it? Kerik was Bush’s first choice for Homeland Chief, but his not insignificant list of peccadilloes was outed by the media. I’m surprised that part of the 9/11 Commission’s report on intelligence wasn’t a recommendation to collectively rename all agencies under the proposed intelligence czar the Keystone Cops.

John Aravosis at AMERICAblog says:

I'm watching THIS WEEK this morning. And ABC's Terry Moran, ever the pit bull (not), just reported that the reason the White House didn't know about Kerik's alleged affair with a subordinate, taking thousands of dollars of gifts from his previous job he wasn't supposed to take, etc., is becaus KERIK DIDN'T TELL THE WHITE HOUSE.

Huh. Bush is appointed the top domestic counter-terrorism guy in the US and he doesn't even vet the guy to see if he is, well, a terrorist, or at least a bad cop. But hey, Keriks NEVER TOLD Bush the truth, and as we know, in this White House if you don't TELL the president something, then the president has no obligation to want to, or try to, find out the truth.

The funny thing is that how did so many outside non-profits like CREW, and newspapers across the country, and bloggers/online reporters like John Byrne at RawStory get the inside scoop on Kerik all within a week? Yet the White House didn't have a clue, and had no way of getting a clue about Kerik? They didn't even do an FBI background check on the guy? They couldn't wait a week to do the same investigation everyone else did on the guy? Isn't homeland security worth that kind of due diligence from the White House?

And Atrios points out:

And, of course, the vetting process was handled by Alberto Gonzalez, whose contribution to justice and competence are legendary...

Well, I’m sure Mr. Gonzalez just figured that he and a guy who liked tasers that much were bound to get along fine.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Liberally Speaking

I’ve been mulling over Peter Beinart's recent piece in The New Republic for awhile now, trying to organize my thoughts into a cogent response. However, today I came across David Niewart’s response at his blog, Orcinus, and I have nothing to add. Go.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Dumbaugh

Sometimes when we go out on our lunch hour, I tune the radio to Rush Limbaugh just to torture Mr. Shakespeare’s Sister, who loathes Limbaugh with such intensity that, if harnessed, it would certainly fuel a small country for several generations.

Now, if you’ve ever heard a women telling a story about a male partner doing something incredibly dumb, you know that there’s a particular “dumb guy” voice that women effect to represent the man’s voice, the one-word summary of that impression being “Duhhh.” Recently, Mr. Shakes, upon hearing Limbaugh blubbering away on one of his patented insano-rants, said, “His voice is the voice every woman uses to represent a dumb guy.”

It’s so true. If you can bear to listen to him at all, tune in for a few minutes and see if you can’t picture a woman invoking the same tone when delivering a line such as, “And Steve was like, ‘I didn’t think you’d care if I recorded over the tape of Billy’s first birthday. If you didn’t want it taped over, you shouldn’t have made me go to your parents when I wanted to watch the Bears game.’”

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

WTF?

I just don’t even know what to say about this.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Culture of Life, Bush Style

Via BlondeSense, a link to pictures of Iraqi victims of the war. The images are disturbing, but as part of the great ownership society Bush keeps talking about, I think we all need to collectively own the damage we’ve done.

I didn’t support the war, but I didn’t do as much as I could have to try to stop it, either.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Blowhard Bill Strikes Again

On Tuesday, Shakespeare’s Sister, along with a slew of other blogs and journals, mentioned Media Matters’ report on Bill O’Reilly telling a Jew who grew up feeling bullied by Christians at Christmas to “go to Israel.” Now O’Reilly is attacking Media Matters and Anti-Defamation League president Abraham Foxman, who sent O’Reilly a letter in response to his original comments.

According to O’Reilly, there is “a defamation pipeline that starts in the Internet,” and he’s none too happy about it:

The left-wing websites who are responsible for all of this kind of stuff, and the journalists in the newspapers who print it without any context -- are the worst element -- non-criminal element in the country. The worst. All right? They undermine freedom of speech. They undermine all fair play. They are despicable, vile human beings -- ankle biters.

You know, I really, really, really fucking despise this guy. Aside from his regular barrage of slurs against liberals, he’s approximated viewers of Fahrenheit 9/11 to Nazis, and now the implication is that liberal bloggers are seditionists. Well, I fall into all three groups (and don’t even get me started on his attitude toward women), and I take particular umbrage to being thought of as a lying, fascist traitor, especially by someone who can’t ever, ever seem to be honest about anything.

Now, the write-ups about this -- didn't put any of it in context. Didn't say it was about Christmas. Didn't say it was about anything. The writer said, O'Reilly told a guy if he didn't like it go back to Israel. Dishonest, of course, blatant. That's what they do all day long.

[...]

Now, I have now been accused by Abraham Foxman as [sic] being anti-Semitic because I said to the guy [the December 3 caller], "hey, you know, if it's drivin' you crazy you gotta go back to Israel."

First of all, the context used by Media Matters was a direct transcript of his show, which was also used by myself and undoubtedly most of the other bloggers and journalists who reported the story. That’s the thing about Bill O’Reilly—he’s such an incredible dickhead that his idiocy is apparent even when he's quoted in context.

Secondly, what O’Reilly said to the caller was: “[Y]ou don't wanna hear about it? Come on, [caller] -- if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then.” He didn’t tell him, as he claims, “if it’s drivin’ you crazy.” He said if “you don’t wanna hear about it” and “if you are really offended.” Driving someone crazy, i.e. annoying someone, and offending someone are, in fact, two different things, although O’Reilly repeatedly proves that one person is perfectly capable of doing both.

Remember, more than 90 percent of American homes celebrate Christmas. But the small minority that is trying to impose its will on the majority is so vicious, so dishonest -- and has to be dealt with.

Leaving aside that O’Reilly makes no distinction between celebrating Christmas as a religious holiday (Jesus’ birth) and celebrating it as a secular holiday (Santa and a day off work), thereby rendering his 90% stat suspect at best, I’m not sure how he is able to claim with a straight face that it is his opponents who are vicious and dishonest.

And it is really his contention that the will of the majority should include sending anyone who disagrees with them out of the country? I suppose most of his viewers probably hold that opinion, but it’s still amazing that we’ve reached a point where even a supposed news man can espouse that belief without even a flutter of real controversy.

Except among the treasonous Lefty bloggers, of course.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Rumsfeld Follies

Seriously, just when you think he couldn’t be a bigger dick:

Despite Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's assertion that the military is outfitting Humvees with armor as quickly as possible, the company providing the vehicles said it has been waiting since September for approval from the Pentagon to increase monthly production by as many as 100 of the all-terrain vehicles, intended to protect against roadside bombs in Iraq.

Army officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged yesterday that they have not approved new purchase orders for armored trucks, despite the company's readiness to produce more.

[…]

Michael Fox, a spokesman for Armor Holdings, said the company is simply waiting for the Pentagon to say how many it needs: "We have always said, 'Tell us how much you want, and we'll build them.' "

This story should be mass emailed to every man and woman in the military, particularly those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Considering it took the soldiers to ask the questions that the press corps should have been asking, maybe the soldiers can do something noticeable (lay down weapons for one day?) to call attention to the bullshit constantly being spouted by this administration.

In related news:

“Teams in Washington have been working for months on how to protect forces from roadside bombs and similar explosives, he said.”

Months????

Our troops have been getting killed by IEDs for years, and it's just recently that the Pentagon has started researching countermeasures?

And Bush has rewarded Rummy for this incompetence with a second four-year stint.

It’s no wonder Nancy Pelosi is calling for Rummy’s resignation. And I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m pretty goddamned tired of hearing the Left accused of not supporting the troops when this administration seems completely oblivious to the danger these men and women are in every day. Reports about the injuries coming out of Iraq are chilling, and yet it has been only within months that protection against IEDs has begun being researched?

This diary at Daily Kos liberally excerpts from a New England Journal of Medicine article on Iraq War casualties:

Every other Thursday, surgeons at Walter Reed hold War Rounds by telephone conference with surgeons in Baghdad to review the American casualties received in Washington during the previous two weeks. The case list from October 21 provides a picture of the extent of the injuries. There was one gunshot wound, one antitank-mine injury, one grenade injury, three rocket-propelled-grenade injuries, four mortar injuries, eight IED injuries, and seven patients with no cause of injury noted. The least seriously wounded of these patients was a 19-year-old who had sustained soft-tissue injuries to the face and neck from a mine and required an exploration of the left side of the neck. Other cases involved a partial hand amputation; a hip disarticulation on the right, through-knee amputation on the left, and open pelvic debridement; a left nephrectomy and colostomy; an axillary artery and vein reconstruction; and a splenectomy, with repair of a degloving scalp laceration and through-and-through tongue laceration. None of the soldiers were more than 25 years of age.

Commander Codpiece summed up this whole situation thusly:

"The concerns expressed are being addressed, and that is, we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment. And if I were a soldier overseas, wanting to defend my country, I'd want to ask the secretary of defense the same question," Bush said.

Perhaps part of the problem is that he never has been a soldier overseas. Maybe if he had been, he’d have a different perspective.

Bush had rejected charges from Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry in the campaign for last month's election that military forces in Iraq did not have sufficient protection.

Oh, yeah. Remember him?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

She's a Deaniac

Since very early in the last election cycle, if you wanted to know what a real Democrat should look, sound, and feel like, you only had to look as far as Howard Dean. Howard Dean was the man who invigorated the “Democratic wing” of the Democratic Party, who reflected an anti-war position and a pro-gay rights position, who yelled about healthcare and proved it could be done in his own state.

Now Dr. Dean is the favorite of many for DNC chair (myself included). The opposition against Dean keeps growing, but so does the pool of aspirants, meaning that opposition votes will be diluted. There is still hope that Dean will ascend to this leadership position, and if you need any reasons why hope should yet be held, I encourage you to read his remarks made yesterday at George Washington University. The speech is also partially excerpted below.

Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.

I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn't beat 'em, join them.

I'm not one for making predictions -- but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being "Republican-lite." We've tried it; it doesn't work. The question is not whether we move left or right. It's not about our direction. What we need to start focusing on... is the destination.

[…]

That destination is a better, stronger, smarter, safer, healthier America.

An America where we don't turn our back on our own people.

That's the America we can only build with conviction.

When some people say we should change direction, in essence they are arguing that our basic or guiding principles can be altered or modified.

They can't.

On issue after issue, we are where the majority of the American people are.

What I want to know is at what point did it become a radical notion to stand up for what we believe?

Over fifty years ago, Harry Truman said, "We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it."

Yet here we are still making the same mistakes.

Let me tell you something: there's only one thing Republican power brokers want more than for us to lurch to the left -- and that's for us to lurch to the right.

What they fear most is that we may really begin fighting for what we believe -- the fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought.

I'll give this to Republicans. They know the America they want. They want a government so small that, in the words of one prominent Republican, it can be drowned in a bathtub.

They want a government that runs big deficits, but is small enough to fit into your bedroom.

They want a government that is of, by, and for their special interest friends.

They want a government that preaches compassion but practices division.

They want wealth rewarded over work.

And they are willing to use any means to get there.

[…]

We are what we believe. And the American people know it.

And I believe that over the next two... four... ten years...

Election by election...

State by state...

Precinct by precinct...

Door by door...

Vote by vote...

We're going to lift our Party up...

And we're going to take this country back for the people who built it.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Thou Shalt Piss Me Off on a Daily Basis

That must be the 11th Commandment, according to this administration.

Bloomberg reports:

The Justice Department today filed a brief supporting two Kentucky counties accused of violating the constitutional ban on government establishment of religion by posting framed copies of the Ten Commandments.

The Bush administration has thrown its weight behind the brief,

saying that religion "has played a defining role'' in the nation's history, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to permit Ten Commandments displays in courthouses.

An interesting claim, but I’m not sure that religion has played a defining role in the nation’s history as much as escape from religious persecution has played a defining role in the nation’s history. Kind of a key distinction, especially these days.

"Official acknowledgement and recognition of the Ten Commandments' influence on American legal history comport with the Establishment Clause,'' the administration argued in a brief filed with the court in Washington.

The Establishment Clause reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Often, this clause is referred to as the separation of church and state, but such a phrase cannot be found in the US Constitution. (The phrase originated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association.) By strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause, which in sum total seeks to prevent a state-sponsored religion, the administration’s claim that displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses is still dubious at best. It is hard to argue that the exhibition of a religious document in a governmental venue, particularly one in which the visitors are often subject to the laws of said government, is not indicative of a state endorsement if that particular religion.

A logical argument invokes a Sikh defendant, for example, who appears in court wearing recognizable garments announcing his subscription to another religion—one that shares no history with Judeo-Christian traditions. Upon seeing the display of the Ten Commandments, is he not meant to feel that justice might be better served were the document of equal meaning to him?

Suggesting the display is simply meant to recognize the Ten Commandments’ “influence on American legal history” is debatable. One might just as easily argue that secular humanism has had as great—or greater—an impact. The problem is, of course, that the Framers were vague, and perhaps even more importantly, did little to accommodate those who follow no religion at all and seek to be free from its influence in the public sphere.

Undoubtedly, the debate will rage on. It’s curious to note, however, that these days the struggle increasingly seems to be less between the religious and non-religious, but between those who respect individual religious rights and those who don’t. People of faith can be found in both categories, and those of us who do not share their views should remember to appreciate the faithful who respect ours.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Linxxx

Two new links to check out. That Colored Fellas Weblog and Upon Further Review… (from whence we snatched the splendid Pepsi Spice endorsement). Go look at 'em.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This Post is, like, Totally Gay

After reading Max Gordon’s piece at Democratic Underground and Christopher Rice’s column in The Advocate (via AMERICAblog), I happened to be watching an old episode of Six Feet Under, where one of the characters, David, is wracked with confusion about his own homosexuality. He’s haunted by a young man who was the victim of a hate crime, killed simply because he was gay. In an effective sequence used to recreate the ongoing debate about homosexuality, he argues with the specter of the young man, who tells him that men like them should be able to overcome the urges handed to them by a testing God.

This is the position that is advocated by many Christians, particularly the hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner variety: homosexual acts are sinful, and the desire to engage in them is a test issued by God. It is up to the homosexual to resist these temptations to live a righteous life. The oft-cited reference evoked to make homosexuals feel as if they are not alone in such a struggle is alcoholism; just as alcoholics must reject the urge for another drink, so gays must reject impulses to have sex with a person of the same gender.

There are several problems with this analogy. First of all, alcoholism is considered a disease, so the comparison is offensive right out of the box. But the main issue with the argument is that it compares action to action (sex to taking a drink), ignoring all other components of homosexual relationships. The allusion to urges suggests compulsion, which may be appropriate in discussing an action (sex), as all humans find themselves so compelled from time to time, but is entirely inappropriate when discussing love.

One might successfully argue that falling in love is in fact an action, but rarely does anyone suffer from a compulsion to fall in love, and even more rarely to stay in love.

Love, of course, is one of those ethereally indefinable notions, that you can really only recognize once you’re in it, and even then its true nature can remain frustratingly elusive. It is ever-changing, as those who are bonded by it are, too, ever-changing; poor Cupid’s mark is a moving target, rendering a singular definition unattainable. And so it is that we have decided to leave its meaning to those in its capture, with each couple living its own version of the thing we call love.

The Christian celebration of love is called marriage, and it is considered sacred. It is the regard for this practice as sacred that informs their argument against gay marriage. Gay marriage, it is said, would undermine the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. What do they mean, exactly, when they refer to the sanctity of matrimony? Well, sanctity is defined thusly:

1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.

Marriage then, the celebration of a love between two people, is recognized as holy, or having been sanctified by God. I trust you will find few Christians who dispute that the love between a married man and woman is anything but a gift from God.

Which necessarily begs a few questions.

If the love shared by a man and a woman is considered consecrated by God, why not the love shared between two men or two women? I imagine the argument would be something similar to the one outlined above, that if a person feels that particular brand of love for someone of the same sex, it is merely a test issued by God and must be resisted. But if the love between two people, honored by Christians through the marriage ceremony, is sacred, why would God grant something sacred to someone with its express purpose being to exist as an urge to be refuted? Doesn’t it seem particularly cruel that God, whose love, Christians say, is supposed to be our salvation, would create a love within someone if it’s only meant to be ignored?

I imagine then the argument would be that the love issued as a test is not real; God would only give such a love to a man and a women. So then only one question remains. If that were true, if God would place a false love in the heart of a person—equal in strength and intensity to that of a married man or woman, but lacking in the sanctity, instead just an approximation of sacredness, a ruse so cleverly disguised as truth that its dupes cannot discern its artifice—doesn’t the existence of such counterfeit love undermine the sanctity of real love more than homosexual marriage itself ever would?

I find it astounding that (some) Christians would rather believe that God delivers a mock version of eternal love to homosexuals than to acknowledge that love between two men or two women is just as authentic as their own. And yet, there it is. Isn’t that what they mean when they call a homosexual relationship “unnatural”? Not of nature, not of this earth, certainly not of God. Of whom, then?

The Devil? Well, if the Devil’s going around issuing unnatural impulses masquerading so convincingly as love that it fools those subjected to it and those who bear witness to it, then how can anyone be sure they haven’t fallen victim to his folly? No, the only work of the Devil here is that the debate about gay marriage remains in the realm of who someone fucks and how they fuck them, down to urges. But marriage isn’t about getting off, getting laid. It’s about love (or it should be). So let’s talk more about the love between two men or two women, because when you talk about love, you win.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Reid

Linnet at Looking at the Stars does another good summary of Harry Reid’s recent appearance on Meet the Press. She’s a bit more positive on Reid than myself and some others have been, so give it a look for another perspective.

One of the quotes she had culled from the transcript that I hadn’t particularly noted before was Reid’s comment on Bill Frist. Reid’s assessment was: "I think Bill Frist is one of the finest persons I've met."

The inclination toward issuing such verbose praise toward the Republicans is the thing I most dislike about Reid's approach. One of the finest persons you’ve met…really? Even if that's true, it's not something that I particularly want to hear our Senate Minority Leader say. An accusation of partisanship would be an accurate response to my claim, but I don't deal with Bill Frist on a daily basis; I only know him through his politics, and so hearing that he's a fine person doesn't mean much to me.

It means even less once one starts looking into some specifics about Frist. Just for a start, see here, which nicely documents Frist’s love of animals (certainly not his biggest ethics problem, but informative nonetheless):

Frist admitted in his 1989 book that, while a student at Harvard Medical School, he adopted cats from animal shelters and practiced surgery on the animals. In adopting the cats, however, Frist told shelter staff members he wanted the animals for pets. All of the cats died as a result of the surgeries.

"It was a heinous and dishonest thing to do," Frist wrote in Transplant: A Heart Surgeon's Account of the Life-and-Death Dramas of the New Medicine.

Frist explained that the pressure to perform well at the school was unbelievable, and that he believed at the time that he needed more animals to practice on than were provided.

"I was going a little crazy," he added.

I guess when he was young and irresponsible, he was young and irresponsible. And a cruel, sadistic opportunist.

Does Reid not know about Frist’s ethics problems? One hopes that a man in his position would be well familiar with Frist’s documented conflicts of interest and creative accounting. If he does know about them, and still refers to him as a fine person, then that either speaks volumes about the sorry state of the Senate, or Reid is being incredibly disingenuous. (I suppose the chance that he is being ironic is too much to hope for.)

The other part of my annoyance is simply that you won't hear Bill Frist saying the same about Harry Reid. The Republicans use every chance they're given to demean the Democrats, and continuing to refer to any of them in such lofty terms really gets my hackles up.

Reid is a former boxer, and I wish he'd bring a fighting stance to the political ring. Boxers might be friends outside the ropes, but inside, they're not waxing rhapsodic about what a marvelous human being the other is. They're bashing each other's heads in trying to win the belt, and that's the mentality the Republicans have, so we need to effect the same.

I'm not suggesting Reid turn to insults, but he doesn't need to be quite so effusive with the compliments, either.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Tie a Yellow Ribbon

So Rummy hits the bricks and gets his ass over to Camp Buehring in Kuwait to host a fun little Q&A with the troops. I image he wasn’t expecting this:

In his prepared remarks earlier, Rumsfeld had urged the troops — mostly National Guard and Reserve soldiers — to discount critics of the war in Iraq and to help "win the test of wills" with the insurgents.

Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own — not of the war itself but of how it is being fought.

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the start of the war that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.

Now, a man of honor might have acknowledged the surprise he obviously felt, and probably even offered a profuse apology. A man of strength might have told those soldiers that he would spend every waking moment and every last breath until he had made sure every one of them and each of their vehicles was outfitted with the best armor money could buy. But, of course, Donald Rumsfeld is neither honorable nor strong.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

What an incredible asshole.



U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld speaks to U.S. military Special Operations personnel at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2004. Rumsfeld, who was among those who attended the official inauguration ceremony for Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, is scheduled to travel to Kuwait for the evening. (AP Photo/Larry Downing, Pool)

With this story in mind, it’s no wonder that CBS is reporting that over 5,000 soldiers have deserted since the beginning of the war, rather than serve in Iraq:

The men, who have violated military orders and oaths, tell 60 Minutes Wednesday that it isn't cowardice, but rather the nature of the war in Iraq, that turned them into American deserters.

[…]

One soldier, Pfc. Dan Felushko, 24 [says], "I didn't want...'Died deluded in Iraq' over my gravestone."

It was Felushko's responsibility to go with the Marines to Kuwait in January 2003. Instead, Felushko slipped out of Camp Pendleton, Calif., and deployed himself to Canada.

[…]

"I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it, and I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do," says [Spc. Jeremy Hinzman, from Rapid City, S.D.].

[…]

He later adds that his contract with the military was "to defend the Constitution of the United States, not take part in offensive, preemptive wars."

Hinzman was denied conscientious objector status.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Brownie-Eating Grin

World O’ Crap’s s.z. points us to a charming tale of parental guidance, as shared by the daughter of Focus on the Family führer extraordinaire, Dr. James Dobson. Danae Dobson, who is now in her 30s and evidently has yet to seek the psychological counseling she must desperately need, recounts how her dear old dad taught her that avoiding certain films (like Shark Tale, I guess) is so important:

Not long ago I became interested in foreign films. I began renting various titles, selecting those that had been applauded by the critics. Not surprisingly, I found some of the videos pretty trashy. The Lord brought one word to my mind: discretion. I was not exercising good judgment when renting these foreign films; I needed to be more discerning.

You might be asking, "What's the big deal, anyway? It's only entertainment-why does it matter what we expose ourselves to?" Let me try to explain with a story.

A father of three teenagers set a rule that the family could not watch R-rated movies. This created a problem when a certain popular movie opened in local theaters. All the teens were bent on seeing the film, despite its "R" rating.

The teens interviewed friends and even members of their church to compile a list of pros and cons about the movie. They hoped that the list would convince their dad that they should be allowed to attend.

The cons were that it contained only a few swear words that misused God's name, only one act of violence ("which you can see on TV all the time," they said), and only one sex scene (and it was mostly implied sex, off camera).

The pros were that it was a popular movie-a blockbuster. If the teens saw the movie, then they would not feel left out when their friends discussed it. The movie contained a good plot and two hours of nonstop action and suspense. There were fantastic special effects! The movie also featured some of the most talented actors in Hollywood. The teens were certain that the film would be nominated for several awards. And Christian friends at their church who had seen the movie said it wasn't "that bad." Therefore, since there were more pros than cons, the teens asked their father to reconsider his position just this once.

The father looked at the list and asked if he could have a day to think about it before making his decision. The teens were thrilled. Now we've got him! they thought. Our argument is too good! Dad can't turn us down! So they agreed to give him a day to think about their request.

The next day the father called his three teenagers, who were smiling smugly, into the living room. They were puzzled to see a plate of brownies on the coffee table. The father said he had decided that if they would eat a brownie, then he would let them go to the movie. But just like the movie, the brownies had pros and cons.

The pros were that they had been made with fresh walnuts and the finest chocolate. These moist frosted brownies had been created with an award-winning recipe. Best of all, they had been made with care by the hands of the teens' own father.

The brownies had only one con. They had a little bit of dog poop in them. But the dough had been mixed well-the teens probably would not even be able to taste it. And their father had baked the brownies at 350 degrees, so any bacteria or germs had probably been destroyed. Therefore, if any of his children could stand to eat a brownie that included "just a little bit of poop," then they also would be permitted to see the movie with "just a little bit of smut." By now the teens had lost their smug expressions. They turned down the tainted brownies, and only Dad was smiling smugly as they left the room.

Now when his teenagers ask permission to do something he is opposed to, the father just asks, "Would you like me to whip up a batch of my special brownies?"

Oh, ha ha. Danae, you kook. How lucky you are to have a father who would rather you eat dog excrement than see an R-rated film. Heaven sounds like fun.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Reason #1,382,967 Why I Hate Bill O’Reilly with a Red Hot Fiery Passion the Likes of Which Have Never Before Been Seen This Side of Hades

Media Matters has the scoop:

CALLER: […]When I was growing up -- I'm Jewish, but I was not in a very Jewish area. There were some Jews there but, I was kind of -- grew up with a resentment because I felt that people were trying to convert me to Christianity --

[…]

O'REILLY: All right. Well, what I'm tellin' you, [caller], is I think you're takin' it too seriously. You have a predominantly Christian nation. You have a federal holiday based on the philosopher Jesus. And you don't wanna hear about it? Come on, [caller] -- if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then. I mean because we live in a country founded on Judeo -- and that's your guys' -- Christian, that's my guys' philosophy. But overwhelmingly, America is Christian. And the holiday is a federal holiday honoring the philosopher Jesus. So, you don't wanna hear about it? Impossible.

And that is an affront to the majority. You know, the majority can be insulted, too. And that's what this anti-Christmas thing is all about.

There is so much wrong with that, I don’t even know where to begin. So instead I’ll just end with this: America was not founded on Judeo-Christian principals, but on the Rule of Law. If you don’t like that, Bill, you can go to Israel, Islamabad, Istanbul, Iceland, or back to whatever putrescent rock it was you crawled out from under. I don’t care where—just fucking go, you sanctimonious, obnoxious, bloviating prick.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This Land is Jesus's Land?

If you haven't already, you should read this powerful post on Democratic Underground. Essentially taking the Christian right to task on its hypocritical treatment of gays and other oppressed people, the author balks at their use of Christ as a mascot. Read it - my words don't do it justice.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

From the Spitzer Files

It’s official:

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, whose investigations of white-collar crime have shaken the nation's financial institutions, said Tuesday he will run for governor in 2006.

[…]

"The state is at a point of crisis," the Democrat told The Associated Press. "We are bleeding jobs. We need reform in the process of government."

In his two terms, Spitzer has won national and international attention with groundbreaking investigations of Wall Street investment houses, mutual fund managers and, most recently, the insurance industry.

Awesome.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!