Imagine for a moment that my (and likely your) dreams come true and Tom DeLay gets the big boot outta the beltway. Which senator or congresscritter would you like to see go next, and why?
(This is not necessarily predicated on there being a legal justification. My choice, for example, is Joe Lieberman, with the reason being he’s a twat.)
Question of the Day
Priorities
The newest addition on my ever-growing list of favorite bloggrrls, erinberry, who is also married to a Scotsman and runs the amusingly blunt-titled Jesus Was Not a Republican blog, comes out with this little tidbit which she found in yesterday’s Parade Magazine:
The government spent more than $40 million for the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations but only $15 million for the 9/11 Commission to examine the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001.By way of further comparison, $50 million was provided to investigate the Columbia shuttle crash which killed seven people.
And, lest we forget, the original funding earmarked for the commission, the creation of which the administration fought until they were backed into a corner by victims’ families, was a measly $3 million, with the victims’ families forced to make more noise before the administration granted additional funding, even after it had been repeatedly requested by Commission Chairman Tom Kean.
Sheesh
Bolton Pledges to Help Strengthen U.N.
Oh really? Is that so it won’t spontaneously lose 10 stories?
What a jerk.
A Corporation with a Heart
So, American Airlines has given DeLay $5,000 toward his legal defense, because:
We were told that Mr. DeLay, a member of Congress from our headquarters state was facing substantial legal bills that he was unable to pay personally because of their size and his limited resources.Cool.
Dear American Airlines,
I’m not from your “headquarters state,” but I have given you significant amounts of money in the form of international airfares in the past. Currently, however, I’m unable to pay personally for an overseas ticket, because of its size and my limited resources.
Knowing that you generously contribute $5,000 to people with such problems is awesome. I’m really looking forward to traveling to Edinburgh business class for a change! It’s nice to know you feel that my ass is too precious for coach, too.
Love,
Shakespeare’s Sister
Now if only I can find someone who will pay for a round of golf at St. Andrews while I’m there…
Joementum
Uh oh. Looks like the other side is starting to realize that Joe Lieberman is a twat one of their own, too.
Go ahead—take him. We don’t want him.
(Via Atrios. Related reading: His constituents don’t want him, either.)
Question of the Day: Eye for an Eye Edition
From a BuzzFlash editorial:
House Republican stalwarts and DeLay's consultants are blaming the Democrats for DeLay's woes. They sure do know how to play the victim, don't they? DeLay -- who is maddeningly, perhaps psychotically hypocritical -- is like the legendary boy who shot his parents and then pleaded mercy from the court because he was an orphan.Snicker.
Actually, DeLay is trying to rouse the fundamentalist "end-times" Christian right to his defense by declaring an attack on him is an attack on them. Come to think of it, that's not a bad two-for-one, except DeLay is being accused of crimes and unethical behavior, not religious zealotry worthy of the Salem witch trials. Although, he's guilty of that too.
Without advocating or invoking violence of any description, and bearing in mind the crimes for which it should be befitting, to what punishment would you sentence Tom DeLay?
That is, if and when he's found guilty, of course, because he's presumed innocent until then. Ahem.
Monday Blogwhorin'
Open thread to use to promote your blog, other blogs, news stories, etc. What's going on?
[Moved back to the top for awhile.]
Ahh, Memories
Join me, won’t you, for a little stroll down memory lane, courtesy of Democratic Underground’s Top 10 Conservative Idiots of the Week:
I'm sure most of you are aware that average gas prices have been topping $2.50 per gallon recently, with San Franciscans recently reporting more than $3 per gallon for regular unleaded…Well, who wouldn’t pay $2-$3 a gallon for that? I mean, if we can get this activist judiciary under control, too, I’d be willing to go four, five bucks a gallon!
Now let's take a look at what some of those Republicans had to say in 2000, when gas was around a full dollar cheaper per gallon than it is today:
Rep. Terry Everett: "The Clinton Administration has failed in its duty to develop a policy to deal with our national energy supply and is therefore directly accountable for the higher prices Americans are now paying at the gas pumps."
Dennis Hastert: "House Speaker Dennis Hastert accused the Clinton administration Friday of misleading members of Congress about the causes of skyrocketing gas prices in the Midwest."
Rep. Wally Herger: "Congressman Wally Herger recently denounced the Clinton-Gore Administration's complacency during the current gas price crisis. 'Northern Californians are being held hostage at the gas pump,' Herger said. 'The Clinton-Gore Administration has demonstrated a complete and total lack of leadership in preventing this problem. It is a clear failure of domestic and foreign policy.'"
Larry Kudlow: "The Clinton-Gore administration’s hapless and incoherent management of foreign policy is nowhere as evident as in their bungling on OPEC’s oil-price hike. ... While crude oil prices could drop to $25 per barrel, they will stay well above the average $20 real price of oil registered over the past ten years. And way above the $10 worldwide average marginal cost of producing new oil. Meanwhile gas prices at the pump are likely to be upwards of $2 per gallon well into the summer."
Glenn Spencer: "In recent weeks, gas prices have surged to their highest level in a decade. Prices for home heating oil and natural gas are expected to rise by about 30 percent this winter. ... With the Clinton-Gore administration's policies largely to blame for the pain being felt by consumers, Vice President Gore's camp has pulled out all the stops to shift blame away from his own administration."
Various Repubs: "Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls), Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac), Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), and Mark Green (R-Green Bay) today blasted Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and the Clinton-Gore Administration for their failure to implement a comprehensive energy policy to deal with staggering gas prices Wisconsin consumers continue to face at the pumps."
So, gas is about 60-75% per gallon more at the pump and oil is about 100% more per barrel than it was when these moaning minnies were whining about how much Bill Clinton and Al Gore sucked, but now George W. Bush is the president - why, his shit don't stink. Perhaps they're still waiting for him to "jawbone" OPEC? Either that or they don't care about gas prices now that he's, y'know, got the gays on the run.
So, okay, it costs me a lot more to get to and from work, even though inflation is outpacing my earnings, and my contribution to my healthcare costs have increased, even though my deductible’s higher, and it was more expensive to stay warm this winter, even though I set the thermostat lower. And I do get the niggling sense that the war in Iraq has not only contributed to the increased cost of oil, but that we’re probably actually less safe than we were before. But my marriage is protected from the radical homosexual agenda. I can rest assured that there are no fags busily wasting my tax dollars sitting around translating Arabic intelligence. And my mind is at ease knowing that the teenagers in many communities, maybe even in mine!, are learning that sex is all about not having sex, and that if the horny little buggers want to do something other than good, old-fashioned oral, there are plenty of pharmacists who will not give them birth control under any circumstances. Plus, they’ll be better prepared for the real world than ever, now that they will be armed with the knowledge that evolution is just a theory, but creationism is an equally valid theory—critical thinking skills are really important these days.
As evidenced by Mssrs. Everett, Hastert, Herger, Kudlow, Spencer, Sensenbrenner, Petri, Ryan, and Green, above.
Recommended
For all the bitching that’s done around here about liberal Christians who don’t take a vocal stand against the wingnuts, there is one man who most definitely is, and who embodies everything I admire about liberal Christians: Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, whose name may be familiar because he is the first openly gay person to serve in that role.
Pam has an incredible post at the Blend and Big Brass Blog about Bishop Robinson, which she insightfully introduces thusly:
Considering the controversy that Robinson has been embroiled in since his election, you'd think he'd play it safe. On the contrary, he speaks out strongly for progressive views at a time where most religious leaders on the left are silent.Pam excerpts an interview Bishop Robinson gave to Planned Parenthood, and then follows it up, in her inimitable way, with a slew of Freeper quotes that will, as always, simultaneously turn your stomach and increase your blood pressure.
Bishop Robinson’s fighting the good fight. Check it out.
Sirota Nails It
David Sirota has found my intellectual g-spot. Go on, talk dirty to me, baby:
The Washington Post reports that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) needs to "lay out what he did and why he did it" if "he is going to put an end to questions about his travel and dealings with lobbyists."YES! That response to Santorum’s posturing is so right it makes my spine tingle and my toes curl.
It's true, DeLay needs to answer these questions. But then again, these very same questions should be swirling around Santorum as well. Santorum has run the so-called K Street project in which he "vets the hiring decisions of major lobbyists" at weekly breakfasts in the Capitol, despite the Senate Ethics Committee questioning Santorum's behavior. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on 8/12/02 that contributions to Santorum's campaign and political action committee "have come from some of the same lobbying firms that attend his breakfasts." That same campaign and PAC, according to a very recent Newhouse News Service story, is funding charter planes for Santorum's own personal travel "to the tune of nearly $83,000 in two years."
Is Santorum shaking down lobbyists to make them pay for his jet setting and lavish lifestyle? And what favors are those lobbyists getting from Santorum in return?
One of the frequent moans I’ve seen in the Lefty blogosphere about the Tom DeLay debacle is that it isn’t happening closer to the ’o6 midterms. It’s a fair concern; the only thing with a shorter attention span than a goldfish is the American electorate. But such resignation is predicated on the assumption that DeLay is a one-off, and anyone who believes he’s the only member of the GOP who can be legitimately called on the carpet for corruption is probably the regretful owner of a couple of bridges and a swamp in Florida.
Instead, DeLay should be seen as the first in a series, keeping this story in the news for as long as it needs to be there, as the Hammer’s shady cohorts are outed one by one for their own sleazy dealings (and prevented from hiding their own complicity in the administration’s far-reaching radical agenda, scapegoating DeLay to protect their own deplorable skins).
If the Dems had any sense, they’d be saying the same thing Sirota is. Or, have they, too, succumbed to the same temptations of the ruling party, leaving them too vulnerable to deliver a proper attack anymore?
Question of the Day
Ezra shares an interesting little what if from a biography of John Kenneth Galbraith:
Supremely adept at maneuvering, and aware that he was actually trailing in the polls, Roosevelt privately took a new tack. His frustration with conservatives in his own party by then was at the boiling point, and he resolved on an unprecedented strategy to be rid of them. He decided to approach Wendell Willkie -- the republican he'd defeated four years earlier -- to see whether together they could create a new liberal party made up of progressive Democrats and Republicans and shorn of the antediluvian elements in the South. "We ought to have two real parties," FDR told his aide Samuel Rosenman, "one liberal and the other conservative." When Rosenman, on FDR's instructions, broached the idea to Willkie at a secret meeting in New York, the Republican responded instantly. "You tell the President that I'm ready to devote almost full time to this, " he said. "A sound Liberal government in the U.S. is absolutely essential." But the news of their plan then leaked out, and both men, greatly embarrassed, were forced to back off, though they secretly agreed to take up the issue immediately after the November elections. American politics for a brief moment seemed poised to head in a remarkable directions, but then Willkie suddenly died in the fall of 1944 and Roosevelt himself was gone the following spring.Part of the reason I find it interesting is because we’ve discussed here at Shakes Sis several times in various comments threads the notion that a “progressive” is really someone who’s taken the best pieces of both the Democratic and Republican platforms and knitted them into a single philosophy—social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. (Of course, in the progressive model, fiscal conservatism does not favor the industrial-military complex and corporatism over social programs, but instead seeks to fund the latter by readjusting defense spending and closing corporate tax loopholes.) It’s part of the reason Dean was so appealing; he perfectly embodied this brand of progressivism.
While the Green Party comes quite close to this ideal, I fear their status as a viable third party will be impeded for some time by their unfortunate, if fleeting, romance with the increasingly bizarre Ralph Nader.
So let’s imagine, for a moment, that we have begun this new third party, a progressive party of socially liberal fiscal conservatives. What shall we call it?
Bear in mind, from a marketing standpoint, it’s best to stay away from the word “progressive,” which has connotations that turn off the average American. I was kind of thinking of the Reclamation Party…you know, Reclaiming America and all that. But there’s no good nickname really. The Reclaimers? Kinda stinks. Whaddaya got?
A Modest Proposal
Kenneth Quinnell of T. Rex’s Guide to Life is proposing a very good idea: a group blog dedicated to the non-political writing many of us do in our free time—poetry, short stories, novels, etc. KQ says:
If this is something in which you’d like to participate, leave a comment here or at T. Rex, or send Kenneth an email.A group of us should get together and create our own online magazine for the purpose of publishing our fiction, poetry, drama and other literary works. Theoretically, we would push it in the direction of becoming a legitimate publication that amateur writers would submit stuff to and the like, maybe we'd even appear in literary market and things like that. We could also include articles and essays on literature, reviews, and stuff about getting published or the art of writing. We would run the show and we could take advantage of something we're all familiar with, blogging software, in order to organize and run the site.
If you are interested in this idea, I'm thinking we would have a very open-ended project with no particular commitment to regular publishing. If you have something, you publish it, if not, you don't. But if you did, you'd have an audience. I'd even want a comments section on my stories, although some authors might not. I think MT can handle such a thing, right?So, who's interested?
I personally love the idea of serialized novels. It’s so Dickensian! (Or, for fans of modern lit, so Bridget Jones!)
Sunday Morrissey Blogging
I felt this was an appropriate number, what with religion dominating the news lately. Enjoy!
I was minding my business
Lifting some lead off
The roof of the Holy Name church.
It was worthwhile living a laughable life
To set my eyes on the blistering sight
Of a vicar in a tutu.
He's not strange;
He just wants to live his life this way.
A scanty bit of a thing
With a decorative ring
That wouldn't cover the head of a goose.
As Rose collects the money in a canister,
Who comes sliding down the banister
But the vicar in a tutu.
He's not strange;
He just wants to live his life this way.
The monkish monsignor
With a head full of plaster
Said, "My man, get your vile soul dry-cleaned."
As Rose counts the money in the canister,
As natural as rain
He dances again, my god!
The vicar in a tutu,
Oh yeah.
The next day in the pulpit.
With freedom and ease,
Combating ignorance, dust, and disease.
As Rose counts the money in the canister,
As natural as rain
He dances again and again and again
In the fabric of a tutu,
Any man could get used to.
And I am the living sign.
The Vicar of Shakes Chapel
New Feature: Bloggrrlz Gallery
The ever more brilliant Dark Wraith has done it again.
In the righthand sidebar, you'll see an icon for the Bloggrrrlz Gallery, which is a new feature just launched in conjunction with my other blog project, Big Brass Blog. And now I'll turn it over to the Dark Wraith to explain:
Shakers are welcomed and encouraged to contribute suggestions as to which other rockin' bloggrrls should be included in this project, all of which will be taken under advisement by the Big Brass Bloggers. Please note, however, that there are already a few sites we wanted to include but were unable to because they are written in code that is incompatible with the portal. If that's the case with a suggested site, we'll let you know.Big Brass Blog, in association with The Dark Wraith Forums, is proud to announce The Bloggrrrlz Gallery, a portal meta-site featuring some of the best bloggrrrlz blogs on the Web. A graphical permanent link can be found in the far right-hand column of our blog.
Click on the link, and you'll find yourself at a Website that has a string of bloggrrrlz blogs listed across the top. Now, you might be thinking to yourself, "Ah, this is just a list of links"; but you'd be missing the big feature. Notice that below the listings is a giant window. Watch what happens when you click on a blog link. After what happens has perhaps impressed you, click on another link; click on a third. Go through the whole list if you like.
That's right: one site, The Bloggrrrlz Gallery, from which you can look into a portal window and see the world of feminist blogs. The Bloggrrrlz Gallery is a one-stop meta-site where you can park every day to watch the Blogosphere unfold through the words and images on the hottest, fastest-growing, most dynamic part of the Blogosphere today.
By providing this new service, the Big Brass Blog continues its tradition of giving voice, forum, and opportunity to those who have been ignored, turned away, turned down, and set aside for too long. Perhaps one day, the extremists of the Right will have the world of violent men and cowering women they want. Perhaps one day, the fascists of religions across the world will return the wrath of their angry and false gods to those who would dare to question. And perhaps one day, the mainstream news media and the giant graffiti blogs will be able to once again decide who matters and for how long.But we here at Big Brass Blog don't think so. In fact, we here at the Big Brass Blog intend to make sure the past stays buried.
It's one thing to talk the talk;
it's quite another to blog the blogs.
The Big Brass Blog most definitely blogs the blogs.
Now, go have a look at the future.
The Fink and the Turd Blossom
Yesterday, I wrote about a prominent Republican consultant, Arthur J. Finkelstein, who, after spending a lifetime driving the careers of conservatives, demonizing liberals, and supporting anti-gay candidates, recently married another man in Massachusetts, with whom he has adopted two children. Although he was defended by other Republicans as having distanced himself from social conservatives as their anti-gay rhetoric has amplified, he’s still actively engaged in trying to destroy liberals, even as he takes advantage of the progressive laws they alone champion.
Mr. Finkelstein, a longtime adviser to Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, is setting up a political action committee to mount a campaign offensive against Mrs. Clinton in 2006, when she is up for re-election, according to Republicans familiar with his plans.What possesses a man, the legal structure of whose family is only possible because of liberal policies, to dedicate his time, energy, treasure, and talents to attacking those who would fight for his right for full equality? It can’t possibly be an unyielding support of other conservative principles, such as fiscal conservatism or environmental protection; the GOP has left these ideals behind, and they have become the property of progressives.
Mr. Finkelstein, who is known to be reclusive, would not comment for this article. But Republicans who know of his intentions say he is moving behind the scenes to line up donors to help the committee, called Stop Her Now, reach its goal of raising as much as $10 million to finance an independent campaign against her.
His plan includes financing an advertising assault against her similar to the one orchestrated by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that attacked Senator John Kerry's Vietnam service during the presidential election, according to the Republican officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
[…]
Republicans are warning that Mrs. Clinton will be in a position to run for president in 2008 if she is not defeated in New York next year.
[…]
Republicans familiar with the project said that Mr. Finkelstein is just weeks away from publicly launching the committee, having established a Web site and put a direct-mail operation in place.
Republican officials say Mr. Finkelstein is hoping to model his committee after the National Conservative Political Action Committee, a group he helped lead in the early 1980's in its campaign to, among other things, unseat liberal senators.
As inexplicable as the Fink is, he is only one of many GOP operatives who reap the benefits of liberal policies while simultaneously making their livings trying to undermine the liberals who dedicate their lives to expanding them. It is a peculiar feeling I have about these people. They anger and perplex me, but more than anything else, I feel a sense of betrayal, strangely similar to a broken heart.
Tangentially, last night, I watched the documentary Bush’s Brain, based on the book of the same name, about Karl Rove, in which he is often cited as co-president. (You’ll recall, in February, Rove was appointed as deputy White House chief of staff, and put in charge of coordinating policy between the White House Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council, National Security Council, and Homeland Security Council, in addition to continuing to advance Bush’s agenda, making him, in fact, closer to an official co-presidency than ever before.) The term limits imposed upon Bush, however, don’t mean we have seen the end of Rove; a man whose life has been darkly dedicated to the pursuit of power is unlikely to rest after reaching such a startling level of influence. The depths to which he has stooped in this endeavor are nothing less than jaw-dropping, and yet, many of those over whom he has trampled, pick themselves up and dust themselves off only to drop back to their knees to service him like ten-dollar whores (see: John McCain).
That Rove’s career does not necessarily end with Bush’s presidency, coupled with the seemingly interminable number of men and women like the Fink, who are unapologetically willing to sell their souls to the GOP machine, is truly depressing. Meanwhile, our strategists are writing love notes to them. I despair for our future.
Chris Shays Runs for the Hills
Or, more accurately, runs away from the lunatic on the Hill.
"[Tom DeLay] is an absolute embarrassment to me and to the Republican Party," U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Bridgeport, told more than 50 Greenwich residents yesterday morning at Town Hall. He was in Greenwich to host a public forum, open to all political parties, on whatever pressing issues attendees were interested in discussing.Amusing. However, I’m not convinced that DeLay is somehow more uniquely corrupt, radical, bad for the Republican Party, or deserving of rebuke than a number of other current GOP officeholders, right to the top. DeLay is, perhaps, exceptional in his bravado, making him, well, ripe for the picking. But I’d be more impressed if Shays would denounce the entire cancer of extremism that is crippling the GOP and the country, rather than focusing his ire on a single, easily removed tumor.
[…]
"He knows that . . . if he ever runs for speaker, I get to vote on the House floor, and my 'No' vote combined with the Democrats means he will never be speaker," Shays said, drawing applause from the room. "One of the things I want to say here is that Tom DeLay will never be speaker in Congress."
"With all due respect, I can be accused of a lot of things, but supporting Tom DeLay is not one of them," Shays added.
Attack on the Judiciary Continues (and Escalates)
This is simply unbelievable. I actually can’t remember the last time my stomach turned quite so thoroughly when reading a news story, and considering the amount of crap I read every day, that’s really saying something.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.Matriarch of Professional Wingnuts, Phyllis Schlafly, led the charge against Kennedy (an appointee of that world-renowned zany liberal Ronald Reagan), by saying that his refusal to support the death penalty for juveniles “is a good ground of impeachment.” So much for the culture of life, eh, Phyllis?
Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy…should be impeached, or worse.
Not to be outdone by the Duchess of Delirium, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said:
Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."What a superb idea. Let’s just impeach the whole of the House, the Senate, and the judiciary, and then Bush’s ascension to dictator will be complete.
The competition for Grand Minister of Inflammatory Vitriol continued with a statement from “lawyer-author” Edwin Vieira, who:
told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."I doubt this is the only issue on which Vieira and I disagree, but I’m kinda thinking that a bunch of fucknuts congregating to declare war on the judiciary is a bigger mess than the judiciary itself. One wonders how many judges (or judges’ families) will be killed as a result of this increasingly aggressive rhetoric before something is done to curb this mania.
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.
The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."
[…]
Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who wrote "How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary," escalated the charges, saying a Politburo of "five people on the Supreme Court" has a "revolutionary agenda" rooted in foreign law and situational ethics. Vieira, his eyeglasses strapped to his head with black elastic, decried the "primordial illogic" of the courts.
Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."
"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday. One worker at the event wore a sticker declaring "Hooray for DeLay."Backed up against a wall maybe, where they’ll be frisked (with any luck by a huge, mustachioed leather daddy wearing nothing but a thong and a dog collar) and then handcuffed and carted off to jail where they belong.
The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.
Got that?
Brought with official delegation to Pope’s funeral.
Honorable, altruistic, Nobel Peace Prize winner:
Excluded from official delegation to Pope’s funeral.
Anyway, back to the story.
The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a "radical secularist relativist judiciary." It turned more harsh from there.These people are the faces of the conservative movement in America. This was no collection of fringe characters. As we as a country become increasingly tolerant of this radical agenda, in no small part due to its proponents’ using religion as a defense shield and our willingness to defer to such madness despite the conspicuous and resoundingly hateful motivations behind their actions, this extremism continues to gain legitimacy. Where are the Dems, who ought to be demanding the president denounce such rubbish? Where is the media, who ought to be drawing the obvious comparisons between the rise of this radical movement and its historical counterparts, which have been the undoing of other nations?
Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.
Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."
Farris then told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected." A better-educated citizenry, he said, would know that "Medicare is a bad idea" and that "Social Security is a horrible idea when run by the government." Farris said he would block judicial power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions, and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of conservative ire. "If about 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring," he said.
It feels as though I am screaming into the darkness, but, of course, if this antidemocratic element is left to fester unchecked, as I fear it will be, the real darkness is yet to come.
I wonder if the Supreme Court might be regretting that Bush v. Gore decision at all—including Justice Kennedy, who was one of the seven finding equal protection violations and one of the five voting to cease all recounts. Complicit in handing the election to Bush, he now discovers firsthand what a dreadful decision that was, and the depth of the wickedness it unleashed.
Cat Blogging (Saturday Afternoon Edition)
Big Jim wants to know:
Will you scratch his head?
Princess Matilda watches the birds.
Baby Olivia sits with her arms folded,
contemplating the universe.
Question of the Day (Still Fun, but Slightly Less Goofy)
If you could pass any three bills, what would they be?
Mr. Shakes and I figured we had six between us, so we passed the following legislation:
1. Election Reform
2. Comprehensive Energy Independence Plan, including National Public Transportation initiative
3. Realignment of Defense Spending (which would pay for #2)
4. Gay Rights Bill, including immigration reform re: fiancée visas
5. Universal Healthcare
6. Corporate Castration Bill, including reinstating lost workers’ rights and adding new protections, and closing tax loopholes (which would pay for #5)
Hey, a couple of progressives can dream, can’t they?
Question of the Day (Fun)
Last night, while sharing hot Singapore chow mai at our favorite local restaurant, Mr. Shakes and I challenged each other to come up with a presidential ticket so bad that we would vote for Bush/Cheney instead.
The winner: Hitler/Stalin.
Other contenders included the Madonna/Paris Hilton ticket, the PeeWee Herman/Michael Jackson ticket (“I’d vote for them,” said Mr. Shakes. “The worst thing they’d do is turn Utah into a theme park.”), the Anna-Nicole Smith/a banana ticket, and the Donald Trump/a monkey ticket.
So, what presidential duo would be so horrifying that, if compelled to vote, you’d cast your ballot for Bush/Cheney instead?
