While I’m toiling away in the workosphere, here’s some interesting reading from the blogosphere:
John at Blogenlust on the Iraqi Elections.
Culture Ghost on the agony of victory.
Linnet on being wanted by Uncle Sam.
PSoTD on a disturbing development in education in Tennessee.
Me4President on if he ran Iran.
And tell the Dark Wraith what your greatest fear of the Bush Administration is. (Poll in upper right-hand corner of main page.)
No Rest for the Wicked
You Can Run But You Can't Hide, Mehlman!
AMERICAblog reports that the RNC is attacking Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid based on his opposition to a Federal Marriage Amendment. (You can find the entire RNC hatchet job—err, press release here, which is so outrageous, it even attacks his choice of residence; I beg you to read it and post your favorite among the myriad of ridiculous attacks in comments.) The part relevant to his positions on gay issues includes the following:
Reid Opposes Federal Marriage Amendment:Why focus on this in particular? I’ll let John explain:
Reid Received 100 percent Rating From Human Rights Campaign (HRC) For 107th Congress. (Human Rights Campaign, "Presidential Candidates," Human Rights Campaign Website, http://www.hrc.org, Accessed 12/2/04)
-- HRC Endorsed Reid During 2004 Election Calling Him "A Leader We Can Count On." (Human Rights Campaign, "Candidate Profile: Harry Reid," Human Rights Campaign Website, www.hrc.org, Accessed 12/2/04)
-- "The Human Rights Campaign, The Largest National Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual And Transgender Advocacy Organization, Envisions An America Where GLBT People Are Ensured Of Their Basic Equal Rights, And Can Be Open, Honest And Safe At Home, At Work And In The Community." (Human Rights Campaign Website, www.hrc.org/, Accessed 1/31/05)
Reid Said Marriage Should Be Between A Man And Woman. "So marriage should be between a man and a woman, OK? I agree. But why do we need to have to amend the Constitution when we have the Defense of Marriage Act federally? We have the state Constitution, which has it in it." (Dave Berns, "Candidates See Religion's Role In Diverse Light," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/28/04)
-- But Reid Voted Against Federal Marriage Amendment. (S.J. Res. 40, CQ Vote No. 155: Motion Rejected 48-50: R 45-6; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/14/04, Reid Voted Nay)
[Head of the RNC Ken Mehlman] yesterday to gay-baiting Democrats for political gain.
In an RNC press release intended to discredit Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Mehlman's RNC made clear that the simple fact that a gay civil rights group endorsed Reid for re-election means that Reid is not fit for national service…
Which begs the question of what Mehlman's own links are to gay rights groups. Mehlman has been reported in the press to have had numerous contacts with gay Republicans in Washington, DC, going so far as to openly congratulate one senior DC gay republican on a recent victory. And Mehlman, 38 years of age and single, is now insisting on only answering reporters' questions about his own sexual orientation off-the-record. Kind of an odd position for a man running an organization that thinks gay issues are fair game - Mehlman himself has said that he thinks the gay issue is fair game. So if it's fair game, why is the media giving Mehlman a pass on this one, and not asking him on-the-record what his story is?
After all, if the RNC thinks that being on good terms with homosexuals means one is not fit to hold high office in Washington, DC, then the public has a right to know exactly on what terms Mr. Mehlman, the head of the entire Republican Party, is with America's gay community. Not to mention, I've not found in any research a single statement from Mehlman on what HIS position is on the Gay-Bashing Amendment. He does a good job of stating the president's position, but since Mehlman is bashing Reid for not supporting the amendment, we certainly have the right to know, on the record, whether Mehlman personally supports the amendment.
Ken Mehlman nee Munster
If you'd like to call the RNC and tell them their press release about Senator Reid's relationships with the gay community piqued your curiosity about Ken Mehlman's relationships with the gay community, here's their number: 202-863-8614.
And you know, something tells me the fundies wouldn’t be too happy if they found out Acme, Inc. had chosen a dirty little sodomite to run the Republican National Committee.
(Pam reports: There have been many calls made already, as the news of the release has been posted over at Eschaton as well. From the comments on [AMERICAblog], folks in the RNC office are hanging up on people and acting quite nervous, given Ken-babe's official/unofficial orientation leaves him wide open for questions.)
Heh heh heh.
Open Thread
Apologies for the paucity of posts this morning. I’m really busy at work today. Will hopefully manage to get something up during lunch… In the meantime, consider this our very first open thread.
Compassionate Conservatives are neither compassionate nor conservative. Discuss.
Raggin' on the Pres
The first time I ever heard someone raise a concern about a woman ascending to the presidency was when Geraldine Ferraro was the VP on the Democratic ticket when Walter Mondale challenged Reagan. I was 9 years old, and I remember hearing how it wouldn’t be safe to have a woman with her “finger on the button.”
After the years and years (and years and years and years) of hearing men say (even men on the Left, I might add) that you couldn’t trust a woman to have her finger on the button, especially during certain times of month (insert manly guffaws here), and being repeatedly put in the position of one of the (unfortunately) rare women who was passionate enough about politics to mount a defense on women’s behalf, I think I’ve earned the right to question the credentials of the person with his or her finger on the button for any reason I damn well please. And I have to tell you, two recent stories have got me thinking, This is the man with his finger on the button?!
Number One: FAIR reports that the NY Times decided to kill a story about the mysterious bulge appearing under Bush’s jacket during the three debates, despite there being credible evidence that he was, indeed, wired. Aside from the Times’ outrageous decision to withhold information that our president is likely a cheat days before the election, which is a whole other issue, the very real probability that he was wired raises some serious red flags, namely if he had help, why did he still suck so bad? Considering his exponentially better performance at the SOTU address, for which he was well-prepared and well-reheared (ergo more relaxed), the explanation comes down to his inability to perform well and/or think clearly under pressure, neither of which are particularly desirable shortcomings for a man who is daily required to make huge decisions, and sometimes not always with a generous surplus of thinkin’ time.
Number Two: Bush’s recent speech on Strengthening Social Security, given in Tampa, Florida. He explained his plans thusly:
Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.
Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.
Okay, better? I'll keep working on it.
He obviously has no idea what he’s talking about. He shouldn’t need to keep working on his ability to describe a plan he’s been promoting since he was running against Gore over four years ago.
Someone who is so demonstrably incompetent as to have to swindle his way through a debate and babble incoherently when faced with the proposition of giving a pre-scheduled address on one of the key policies of his current term is unfit to be trusted with the decisions we need our President to be able to make, clearly and decisively, at any given moment.
He should never have been given the opportunity to have his finger on the button—any time of month.
Koufax Awards
It’s your last chance to vote for the Koufax Awards semi-finalists. Shakespeare’s Sister is up for Best New Blog and Blog Most Deserving of Wider Recognition. I have no chance of advancing in either category, so go give me a pity vote, or better yet, vote for someone we love who actually has a chance. (You’ll know ’em when you see ’em.)
First Amendment Schmirst Amendment
The Fixer pulls this from Yglesias:
Yet another in a depressing continuing series. Josh Marshall notes that the Republican National Committee is now threatening legal action against media outlets and independent advocacy groups who criticize the president. The RNC, as I trust I needn't point out, is, at this point, rather intimately connected to the state apparatus of this fine nation of ours. Now to be fair, in Russia they prefer to silence critics with legal action unrelated to the substance of the criticism. Trying to make use of libel and slander laws to shield political leaders from criticism is more the sort of thing you see in Singapore or Jordan. Still, the basic point should, I think, be clear. But libertarians need no longer worry about President Bush -- after all, all of this is being done for the sake of gutting Social Security!and then pointedly notes:
And you know there are judges out there who'll rule in favor of these idiots. Don't say I didn't warn ya. Repeat after me, "Deutschland űber Alles!"Think it’s hyperbole? So did I, once upon a time. But now I think it’s Time to Make Some Noise.
Pay Per View?
{Ed. Note: I'm moving this post back up to the top, because we didn't give John much play the first time around.)
Kung Fu Monkey's John Rogers is doing some informal research, and I'm posting the question here on his behalf (in no small part because I'm interested to see what people have to say). He's looking for responses to the following:
Q: How much would you pay, per episode, for your favorite TV shows?
A buck, two bucks per, a quarter or 50 cents, or nothing at all?
As for me, about the only things I watch are C-SPAN, the Discovery Channel, and Law and Order re-runs. (There are people who would claim that I am irrationally and embarrassedly addicted to American Idol, too, but those people are clearly insane.)
If I started getting charged for any of the above, I'd probably just rely exclusively on my DVD collection, which includes most of my favorite television shows (Seinfeld, Six Feet Under, Twin Peaks, Sex and the City, etc.) already, anyway.
Muddying Our Efforts
While we’re busily slinging mud back home, some of our troops have apparently decided to wrestle in it:
U.S. military police threw a mudwrestling party at a prison camp in Iraq and a woman who took part has been found guilty of indecent exposure and demoted, the U.S. military said Monday.Here’s the not really amusing part: Camp Bucca was the destination for detainees being removed from Abu Ghraib—ya know, because of all the rampant sexually-related misconduct there. Apparently the sight of Iraqi detainees just drives our troops wild.
At least three female guards stripped to their underwear and wrestled each other in a paddling pool full of mud in the grounds of Camp Bucca, the biggest U.S. camp for detainees in Iraq, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said.
"It does not appear that alcohol was involved and there is no evidence to support suggestions of any type of sexual misconduct," Johnson told Reuters.So women were engaging in half-naked mud wrestling sober? Wow, war really does fuck with your head.
Dean-licious!
The AP reports:
Tim Roemer, the only remaining opponent of Howard Dean in the race to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Monday he's bowing out of the race …
Dean, the former presidential candidate and governor of Vermont, is expected to win the DNC chairmanship at the election Feb. 12.
Reuters Photo
No word yet on whether he's won the coveted role of "The Fonz" in Broadway's upcoming Happy Days Revival.
Critical Discussion
On Feb. 1, Democracy Corps’ James Carville, Stanley Greenberg, and Bob Shrum released their summary of a survey meant to provide useful information to Democrats in terms of framing party identity, called Toward a Democratic Purpose. (You can see the whole report here.) Information was gleaned thusly: “Democracy Corps conducted a national survey of 998 likely voters conducted January 16-20, 2005. The margin of error is +/- 3.1%.” (The entire poll can be viewed at www.democracycorps.com.) Their stated intent was: “We are not trying to be prescriptive at this point, rather to contribute to the critical discussions ahead.” Of which I intend this to be one. (Daily Kos’ Armando here; Matthew Yglesias here; Pam here, for others.) So that’s the background noise. Now to the findings.
What the report uses as its conclusion, I want to use as my starting point:
In this test, the Republicans say their most important principle is “self-sufficiency,” and everything else follows from that. The Democrats say their most important principle is “increasing opportunity and community,” and similarly, construct a framework of connected ideas.When the surveyors constructed competing frameworks built pivotally around the concepts of Self-Sufficiency verses Opportunity and Community, the participants favored the latter (Democratic) framework by a 6-point margin (51-45%).
This result is clearly indicative of the opportunity available to Democrats, if we can get our shit together.
The first step toward that end is examining what our advantages are, so we can play to them, and what their disadvantages are, so we can exploit them.
Simply being Not Greedy might, on its face, seem a bit lackluster, but the truth is, it’s very valuable, particularly when extended as a concept beyond our own borders. Being the party that best represents the spirit of American generosity (a point of pride among many Americans, despite the fact that we often don’t do much to earn it—see: Hotel Rwanda) is a great place to start, and in terms of its domestic usage, coupling it with our next highest advantage—being for the middle class—we have at our disposal another great American fallacy; there are very few Americans who don’t consider themselves middle class.
Generally speaking, we are seen as the party of doing right by people, fighting for equality, fairness, and the little guy. By contrast, the Republicans are seen as the party of strength and clarity. I believe once we begin to solidify and effectively communicate our vision, we’ll make grounds on the latter (which should also help close the Optimism gap—memorably promoting our own ideas in tandem with criticizing the other guys’).
There are certain advantages I believe we have to cede to the Republicans, and Respecting Religious Faith is one of them. There are, quite simply, too many conservatives who will never be willing to reconcile religious tolerance and support for gay rights or abortion rights, or any of a number of other social issues that are integral parts of our platform. I don’t believe it helps our cause to suddenly declare ourselves “praying people,” or try to awkwardly inject religious rhetoric into campaign speeches. It doesn’t sound authentic to my ears (I doubt I’m alone), and ticking off your god-lovin’ bona fides in the same speech where you support legalized abortion just doesn’t play to many religious people. When we talk about religion, we need to talk about a general respect for religious faith, as opposed to trying to out-maneuver the Republicans for the coveted Right Hand of God slot. The best we can do is try to reframe the argument so that it’s less about how religious a candidate is and more about how respectful of faith (or the lack thereof) a candidate is.
There are also a good number of attributes in which both parties fall close to or within the margin of error:
We can look at this chart one of two ways: A) that it is reflective of a divided electorate, leaving little room for headway in either direction; or B) that this list tells us exactly where we most need to look to differentiate ourselves.
The truth is, it depends on the line item. Some of these are very squishy; Reform and Change, Opportunity, Improving America…it all depends on one’s own interpretations. Some think partially privatizing Social Security would be an improvement; some think extending the assault weapons ban would be an improvement. Many of these answers would be, I imagine, more ideologically driven than some of the others, rendering them part of rationale A.
Rationale B then, must address those where redefinition and refinement are viable: Shares Your Values, Future-Oriented, and Ambition to Do Better. What this list has in common is that they are all completely unquantifiable. (Technically, I know Share Your Values can be reasonably quantified, but the idea here is not whether our party actually Shares Values, but whether our party is perceived to Share Values—a conclusion reached by voters viscerally, not by examination of historical legislation.)
One of our greatest assets as legislators is our penchant for nuance, for wonkiness, for the facts and the figures. It’s also our Achilles’ Heel come election time. It isn’t enough to actually Share Values with a majority of the electorate; we must learn to convey the notion that we want to Share Values with them, that we do Share Values with them, and that they Share Values with us. (As I recall, John Edwards was particularly adept at turning that one on its head, as well it should be—making people consider and question their party affiliation, rather than constantly appealing as an alternative. You might be a Democrat if… We might already be your real first choice…if you think about it.)
Also worthy of attempting to differentiate ourselves is Trustworthiness. The leadership of the two parties are not even in the same league, and yet we are virtually tied. This is the responsibility of the Congressional Leadership, to hammer home loudly and repeatedly the misrepresentations, miscontextualizations, and outright lies perpetrated by this administration on a regular basis. There’s no reason we should be ahead of the Republicans by a negligible margin on this issue, except for our lack of willingness to call a spade a spade (and a lie a damn lie). The D.C. Dems have been so lax in their responsibilities to the truth that when Mark Warner used the L-word, it was media worthy. A sad state of affairs, considering this administration’s nonexistent relationship with the truth, but also clearly in our favor at this moment in time; if we call them on it, the stories will follow.
Okay, this is getting a bit long-winded, even after severely editing myself, so I’m going to move on to one final point, and then wrap it up, leaving further discussion for comments.
This last chart seems to have captured most of the attention around the blogosphere, and probably rightfully so.
The consensus, I’ve been relieved to see, is that we shouldn’t move anywhere on the social issues: Support for Gay Marriage and Support for Legalized Abortion. (Big Government also arguably falls into this category, as many who regard it as a weakness likely do so because of federal social programs.) Not only would it be an affront to liberalism to weaken our support on any of the above, but it’s frankly pointless, as homophobes and right-to-lifers are never going to vote Democratic, anyway. In fact, moving center on these issues would likely be tantamount to political suicide, as the party progressives would be marginalized and the Right would (accurately) describe Dems as flip-floppers (a change we are well aware has sticking power and resonates with the American public).
No Strong Direction is the thorn in our side that must be immediately addressed. The one thing this report seems to suggest to me is that the direction is clearly not toward the center. We need a progressive, populist message, a candidate who believes in it, and a grassroots movement prepared to support, reinforce, and fund it.
Well, one out of three ain’t bad…
Hotel Rwanda
I saw Hotel Rwanda this weekend, and I keep trying to write something that would do justice to the powerful experience. Turns out, Scott already wrote it:
Countries in Africa, and even the pacific southwest don't matter. We say "never again" when we recall the NAZI's brutal murdering of 6 million Jews and countless others, but we really don't believe it. The Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, the Middle East ... the list goes on and on, and always will, unless there is a financial or military interest involved.Read the rest, and please, see this film.
The War at Home
Why does President Bush hate veterans?
President Bush's budget would more than double the co-payment charged to many veterans for prescription drugs and would require some to pay a new fee of $250 a year for the privilege of using government health care, administration officials said Sunday.I guess “Support the Troops” ends as soon as they need more than bumper magnets and lipservice.
[…]
Veterans groups attacked the proposals. Richard B. Fuller, legislative director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, said: "The proposed increase in health spending is not sufficient at a time when the number of patients is increasing and there has been a huge increase in health care costs. It will not cover the need. The enrollment fee is a health care tax, designed to raise revenue and to discourage people from enrolling."
In other military news, John’s got a good one on the disturbing trend of increased reliance on private military corporations (PMCs) to function in rolls traditionally taken by the United States military.
Tough Case
In a very unsettling case out of Illinois, a judge has ruled that a couple whose frozen embryos were inadvertently destroyed by the fertility clinic at which they were stored has the right to file a wrongful death suit.
In an opinion issued Friday, Cook County Judge Jeffrey Lawrence said "a pre-embryo is a 'human being' ... whether or not it is implanted in its mother's womb."I feel terribly bad for the couple to whom this happened, but as a pro-choice advocate, I am very torn about this decision. I don’t personally believe that a pre-embryo should be considered a human being; in a perfect world, the issue would be tied to viability. Do I think that a fetus, which would have lived if delivered the day before, dying as a result of an attack on the mother should be a criminal offense? Yes. Do I think a first-term abortion should be? No. Until I feel secure that appropriate lines can be drawn, however, I can't support fetus-protection laws (such as Laci’s Law), lest they end up slowly eroding abortion rights, as many of their supporters openly intend.
He said the couple is as entitled to seek compensation as any parents whose child has been killed.
And in this case, the embryo had not even been implanted. My feeling is that the couple to be entitled to damages for property loss, which sounds callous even to my own ears, but categorizing the destruction of a frozen embryo in the same way as the death of a living, breathing child seems absurd to me. It disproportionately elevates the status of the former, and diminishes the value of the latter. I doubt any parent who has lost a child would consider it the same, and I can’t, either.
Scallywag
Another depressing reminder of why this election was so important:
It was Justice Antonin Scalia's standard speech. He bemoaned the Supreme Court's growing political role in cases such as abortion, then joked about how Democrats are wary of a "Chief Justice Scalia" in a second Bush term.Hilarious.
But in an appearance one week after President Bush's re-election, Scalia elicited a particularly hearty roar and ovation from a conservative Federalist Society crowd with his kicker.
"Please," a clearly pleased Scalia said. "It was supposed to be funny!"
With Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist ailing with cancer, the irascible Scalia is doing nothing to discourage talk that he would like to be Bush's pick if Rehnquist steps aside this year.See, here’s another reason why Democratic opposition to, as examples, the appointments of Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales are important. Because the promotion of ideologues should always be expected to be met with a firestorm of opposition. However, we’ve got a problem, because:
Scalia's ascension is considered a long shot because the staunchly conservative justice would prompt a firestorm of opposition from Democrats, abortion rights supporters and others groups. Nonetheless, Scalia seems to be relishing, if not subtly encouraging, the speculation.
Scalia got an unsolicited boost in December from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. He suggested he would be open to elevating Scalia, calling the justice a "smart guy."Even if Reid doesn’t find Scalia’s positions objectionable, even if he does find him a smart guy, his willingness to consider Scalia for the position of Chief Justice should have been severed once Scalia brazenly ignored possible conflict of interest charges and went on a hunting trip with VP Dick Cheney while Cheney had a case pending before the Supreme Court. Whether it was indicative of a lapse of judgment or a sense of being above the normal guidelines of propriety really doesn’t matter. Even Liebertwat had a problem with it, and, back when he was still a Democrat, sought to find out if Scalia should be compelled to recuse himself from the case.
It’s troubling that our Senate Minority Leader is still open to the possibility of a Chief Justice Scalia. I really hope that, should that possibility present itself for debate, there are Dems willing to galvanize the fierce opposition their constituents expect.
You Bet Your Ass I'm an Activist
AMERICAblog’s John Aravosis writes this morning:
Only "Democratic Activists" want Dean as party chair?You know, if wanting some action makes me an activist, then I wear the badge proudly. What makes my belief in fighting to save Social Security (for example) worthy of an activist tag, as opposed to the administration, who want to radically change the program, is a distinction I don’t quite understand. Probably because it’s inane hyperbole of the sort with which shows like Stephanopoulos’ are riddled. I’m exhausted with the constant stream of mischaracterizations and random assertions such as this one being presented as if they had already achieved status as conventional wisdom, just to generate debatable topics.
That's what Stephanopoulos says. Sounds a bit demeaning to me. The "activist" word has always been used to belittle the guy it's thrown at. Is it only Democratic Activists who want Dean as chair?
I might be more forgiving if we lived in a near-utopian state of bipartisan cooperation, where every day didn’t produce a thousand issues worthy of discussion, but we don’t. And indeed, this topic itself could be reframed to generate a pertinent debate about the state of the left: What about the grassroots has made Dean so uniquely appealing? That, however, might actually require thoughtful commentary, a talent of which the hosts of political shows seem universally devoid.
As regards the use of “activist” as a means to denigrate someone, I find it a rather tedious habit. Considering the pervasive apathy toward all things political that plagues the American electorate, disparaging those who ardently pursue their political objectives seems little more than a snide admonishment to get back in line with the rest of the sheep. I’m not sure where we lost our notion to celebrate the individual, but this resentment of those who refuse to conform to a Rockwellian image of a passive and jolly red-cheeked constituent, waving the flag regardless of what it has come to represent, is the worst kind of disfigured patriotism.
I’m a Hoosier, dammit; Indiana is the home of James Dean, Kurt Vonnegut, Cole Porter, Eugene V. Debs, and half of the Wright Brothers (Wilbur, if you want to know)—proud and shameless activists all in their individual ways, and our culture is richer for each of their contributions. Pissing all over those who seek to make the world just that much better through realizing their passions is an endorsement of complacency and mediocrity, and a refusal to acknowledge what makes this country great.
That flag was forged with the blood and spirit of activists. I don’t want to hear it used like it’s some dirty fucking word ever again.
NY Ruling Update
The New York Times reports that Republican NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided to appeal the decision legalizing gay marriage in New York, despite it being in conflict with his personal beliefs:
Mr. Bloomberg told reporters that the city would try "to expedite the appeal directly to the highest court," the state's Court of Appeals, "so that people will have a right once and for all to know where they stand."Careful, Mr. Bloomberg. That sounds dangerously close to nuance; you might have your GOP card revoked.
With New York's highest court now likely to face an issue that has proved its political potency around the country, Mr. Bloomberg said he personally favored gay marriage. It was the first time, according to his aides, that he has so clearly stated his position in public.
He went further last night at a dinner held by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, where he told the guests at the Waldorf-Astoria that he would "work with you to change the law" in Albany if the lower court ruling - which he called "something to celebrate" - was struck down.
As for why he’s decided to appeal the ruling:
In his remarks in Chinatown, the mayor said city lawyers had told him that the ruling "was incorrect, that the current state Constitution does not permit same-sex marriages."I suspect the state Constitution doesn’t explicitly male provisions for construction workers yelling, “Yo baby, come hop on dis!” at female passers-by, or people making a living dressed as cats, or 6’2” drag queens walking down the street in nothing but a pink feather boa and black leather thong, either, but New Yorkers find as part of their world lots of things that might at first blush seem out of the ordinary, and I’m sure gay marriage will be no exception. There’s good reason I [heart] NY, you know.
History Repeats Itself
Ezra on Iran:
[T]he ingredients there were an Islamic power base in government, a vicious insurgency, and a starting moderation that helped the Islamists achieve power but that they never wanted in the first place. Connect the dots. And get depressed.Go read the rest. And bear in mind that Iran is now part of the designated “Axis of Evil.” I wonder if the term self-defeating ever occurs to Bush & Co.
Snarky McSnarkerson Examines the Bush Budget
Another bit of appalling news released on a day when no one will be reading it:
Bush has said his budget will assemble federal resources for war, domestic security and other priorities and cull inefficient or redundant programs. Administration officials have said he will hold overall nondefense spending — excepting domestic security — to less than next year's expected 2.3 percent increase in inflation, meaning the programs will lose purchasing power.You might be wondering, as I was, what the “inefficient or redundant programs” to which Bush was referring are. It turns out, his choices finally clear up what he really means by “compassionate conservative”—basically, conserving all your compassion in favor of pork barrel spending and unjust wars. Let’s take a look:
The budget, the toughest he has written since entering the White House four years ago, seeks about half the increase for school districts in low-income communities he requested last year and a slight reduction for the National Park Service.First of all, perhaps if he had written a reasonable budget in any of the last four years, or made any attempts to control the outrageous spending in Congress, we might not even be having this discussion. Secondly, I wonder if, per chance, giving less money to poor schools might actually end up leaving a child or two behind…?
The details obtained Saturday are the latest in a budget that will also seek savings from programs ranging from Amtrak and farmers' subsidies to Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor and disabled.Well, that’s fair enough. We’ve been spending way too much money on health programs for the poor and disabled for years. We probably ought to just euthanize them. Sure, the upfront costs for the crematoriums will be kind of hefty, but once they’re built, they’ll be paying for themselves with all the money they save us in funding health programs for the poor and disabled. One, two generations max, and we’ll probably be turning a profit.
According to figures obtained by the AP, Bush would slice a $600 million grant program for local police agencies to $60 million next year. Grants to local firefighters, for which Congress provided $715 million this year, would fall to $500 million.That’ll teach ya to make heroes of yourselves during a terrorist attack which will later be cynically used as the centerpiece of an opportunistic and exploitative presidential campaign.
He would eliminate the $300 million the government gives to states for incarcerating illegal aliens who commit crimes. It's a proposal he has made in the past and one that Congress has ignored. Also gone would be assistance for police departments to improve technology and their ability to communicate with other agencies.Dear Red States: How you feeling about your choice of who will keep ya safer now? Love, Shakespeare’s Sister
The Environmental Protection Agency's $8.1 billion would drop by $450 million, or about 6 percent, with most of the reductions coming in water programs and projects won by lawmakers for their home districts.Drinking water schminking water. Who needs it? Especially when the Kool-Aid is so widely available for mindless consumption.
The Bureau of Indians Affairs would be sliced by $100 million to $2.2 billion. The reduction would come almost entirely from the agency's effort to build more schools.Who needs schools when you’ve got tribal sovereignty?
The $2.2 billion program that provides low-income people — in large part the elderly — with home-heating aid would be cut to $2 billion.See: health programs for the poor and disabled. Also, with the polar icecaps melting, I’m sure there are plenty of little icebergs available on which we can send the elderly out to sea.
The park service's budget would drop nearly 3 percent to $2.2 billion, largely due to a reduction in its construction account.The problem with expanding national parks is that, if you ever want to drill for oil in one, it becomes, like, this huge hassle. So better not to build them at all anymore, in case we want to rape the land for its natural resources instead.
There is, as one would expect, some good news, too:
The Coast Guard — now part of the Homeland Security Department — will get $8.1 billion, $600 million over this year. Included will be a healthy increase for its plans to buy more oceangoing vessels, a boon to the new chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., in whose state many of the ships are built.That’s great. I’m really happy for Thad. And now when he’s puking up the gallons of cum he swallowed getting that “healthy increase,” he can just blame it on seasickness as he stands astride the decks of one of our brand spanking new oceangoing vessels.
Community health centers would grow to over $2 billion, an increase of $304 million, or almost 18 percent, over this year. Bush said he wants to every poor county to have one of the centers, which are used heavily by the poor.Because they don’t have jobs or insurance. But hey—a community health care center is just as good for treating malnutrition or patching up a slit wrist as a fancy schmancy hospital.
Many proposals face an unclear fate in Congress, where members of both parties are sure to defend favorite initiatives. Democrats blame the cuts on the tax reductions Bush has enacted and say that other items his budget omits — a Social Security overhaul and costs for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — will only make matters worse.Oh, these aren’t heavy cuts? Never mind then.
"What it will lead to is growing pressure for draconian cuts," Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the Senate Budget Committee's top Democrat, said Saturday. "It's inescapable, the course he's led us on, whether it's this year or next year, is for very, very heavy cuts."
Action Alert 2: Anti-Gay Legislation Being Pushed in Kansas
Pam’s House Blend reports that there is another constitutional fight over gay marriage happening in Kansas:
The Kansas House adopted a proposed amendment to the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. The vote was 86-3 -- three more votes than the two-thirds majority needed. The amendment states that only married couples of one man and one woman would be entitled to the "rights or incidents" of marriage. The statewide vote is slated for April 5, with only a simple majority needed.Richard Donner, PhD, the Executive Director of the Kansas Unity and Pride Alliance, requests the following:
1. Specific detailed media campaigns that have worked in the Midwest-especially mediaDuring the campaign, the standard Dem response to the issue of a Federal Marriage Amendment was "the States have always handled marriage; they've done a fine job so far, so there's no reason to change that." What's currently happening in North Carolina, and now in Kansas, highlights the problems with that position. First of all, there are gays and lesbians living in these states who will be subject to the provisions of this legislation. Do you want to be the person to look at someone and say, "Sorry—it was politically expedient to punt it back to the states"?
2. Ideas to make a few short dollars go as long a way as possible
3. The name of anyone who is interested in and has experience in doing a short term issue campaign starting immediately.
4.Anything else you think that would help us.
5. Money !!! Seriously we need you all to help us raise money outside of Kansas- contact me for more specific information or check out our web site at http://www.kansasunityandpridealliance.org/.
Email me directly at rdphd@cox.net. Please help us in Kansas.
Here are the other problems: by letting each individual state choose whether to enact bigoted legislation or not is continuing to give the federal government an excuse to withhold the same rights granted to straight married couples. While states may allow joint tax returns, the federal government does not, thereby refusing to extend rights to gays that they're getting in their own states. The only way we can force the issue is to fight against this kind of legislation and for marriage equality legislation in every state.
This is also creating a situation where gay couples are relegated to certain designated areas to get equal rights. It's great for a gay couple who lives in NY, but what if one of them has a job offer in Kansas that's too good to pass up? It's insane, not to mention cruel, to suggest someone should have to give up their civil rights in exchange for better employment. (Or for any of the myriad of other reasons that people move.) The elected Dems might not have a problem with essentially creating a gay ghetto, but I do.
Please help out however you can.
PLDPCRS
Poetic Leanings’ Scott has begun the whimsically named (and easily remembered) PLDPCRS: Poetic Leanings Democratic Presidential Contender Ranking System. It will be an ongoing analysis of the top contenders for the ’08 nomination. Here are the current Top 7, according to Scott:
1. Hillary Clinton - Can't win in red states, but she has the money and positioning right now.Scott’s looking for input. I suggested that Dennis Kucinich will run again, just to make noise, Tom Vilsack might throw in his lot, and Gephardt will run...again. And lose...again. I also think that we would be very lucky if Dick Durbin runs. (Not to dismiss Obama, because he’s just still green is all, but we’re looking at the wrong guy from Illinois right now.)
2. John Edwards - Can't win anywhere in my opinion, showed he was not up to it in 04 (would have lost re-election bid to Senate had he run). However, as a former Veep candidate he is well positioned and has name recognition.
3. Evan Bayh - A moderate liberals can like. Can take a red state or two.
4. John Kerry - By virtue of his network and money. Think he will drop out of top seven over time.
5. Wesley Clark - If he had been better organized, he could have been a force in '04. Will move up or disappear completely.
6. Mark Warner - Similar to Bayh, but not as experienced or connected. A force in the south?
7. Bill Richardson - Has the connections and southwestern appeal. Could be better as a Veep.
If you’ve got thoughts, go give Scott your input.
