Fretting Democrats

“I’m worried. I mean, everyone, absolutely everyone has put Obama on such a high pedestal and he’s bound to make a big mistake, and then everyone is going to hate him, and everything will be AWFUL.”

I hear worried speeches similar to this over and over again, generally from people who voted for Obama, but who have now decided that fret is the new hope. Optimism? I mean, that’s just so three months ago.

Based on the number of times I’ve heard this same speech, I can promise at least this to you who are worrying: you aren’t alone. In fact, if just those people who I’ve talked to about this in the past few weeks would give me your names and phone numbers, you’d probably already enough have members to wait list part of your new support group.  

Yes, yes, I’m horribly biased towards presidential optimism. I was just seventeen in 2001, so this is the first time in my adult life that I’ve had a president other than Bush. It still blows my mind on a daily basis that when I hear the president has ordered this or that overturned I’m elated, not disappointed. Starting to close Gitmo? Excellent. Rescinding the gag rule? Fabulous. Reaching out a friendly hand to other countries? Amazing.

I suppose I still share some of your worries. Of course he’s going to make mistakes. Of course people will jump on those mistakes as proof that Obama is too inexperienced, too elitist, or too liberal. Yes there will be plenty of political drama. However, this new political beginning strikes me as similar to the beginning marriage. It’s good to understand there will be rough patches down the road. On the other hand, if you begin your marriage imagining your divorce, you’re probably subscribing yourself to unnecessary misery.

Oh, this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t look forward: planning for the future is essential to any relationship, president-to-supporters or otherwise. Yet, I think we can look forward while still savoring the honeymoon. There will still be plenty of time to argue over whose turn it is to do the dishes, take out the trash, or reduce the national deficit.

In the end, my sustained optimism comes down to this: when I look Obama’s plans and policies, his ideas and ideals, I see a country I want to be a part of. For me, that’s enough to keep the early glow of this relationship fresh for quite a while.

Obama calls for halt to Gitmo prosecutions

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- In one of his first acts in office President Obama has ordered the U.S. government to suspend prosecutions of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay for 120 days, military officials said Tuesday.

-Obama calls for halt to Gitmo prosecutions

I am thrilled. Bush, maybe not so much. From the same article:

At his final White House press conference on January 12, Bush was asked whether the military prison and harsh interrogation tactics have damaged America's standing in the world.

"I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged," he said. "It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom; that America is a country that provides such great hope."

Yes.  Such great hope.  Like the hope that if you were a non-citizen, you wouldn't be held in Gitmo for years and years without charge.  Oh, and maybe tortured.  Yes, that is a reason for hope.

Also, the word "elite" has apparently been once again redefined.  Now it includes not just those who eat arugula, but also those who oppose torture.  Or, maybe it's just been redefined to include any qualities that a certain prominent Democrat might possess.   

No worries on my part. That elitist, arugula eating, torture ending guy is now my president.  My president.  Now THAT is a reason for hope.

Free Doughnuts > Abortion on Demand

This week’s This American Life included a segment where cute children read cute letters to Obama. In a quest for more cute kid recordings, I randomly stumbled upon clear evidence that Krispy Kreme is pushing Obama’s EXTREME PRO-CHOICE AGENDA by, horrors of all horrors, using the word ‘choice’ in their inauguration-day free doughnut campaign. (swoons from shock)

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet "free" can be.

Just an unfortunate choice of words? For the sake of our Wednesday morning doughnut runs, we hope so. The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that "choice" is synonymous with abortion access and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand.

President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda.

Celebrating his inauguration with "Freedom of Choice" doughnuts only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy.

- KRISPY KREME CELEBRATES OBAMA WITH PRO-ABORTION DOUGHNUTS

So…. Choice of Free Doughnut > Pride and Freedom of Choice > Obama > Tacit Endorsement of Abortion Rights > Mockery of a National Tragedy?

Even with my occasional (okay, frequent) misuses of the transitive property in the pursuit of being ridiculous (and linguistically yoga-like), I don’t think I can stretch that far.

Regardless, while I failed to find further recordings, you can still celebrate tomorrow’s inauguration (!!!) by reading some of the letters (just imagine the cute kid voices in your head as you read), ordering the full book of letters (it’s by and for a good cause!), or listening to the This American Life episode that inspired my original search.

Or, like Krispy Kreme, you can further ruin the world with free doughnuts. Shame. Shame!

Celestial Post-It Notes

Kentucky law puts God in charge of security? Atheists appalled

As an atheist and a Kentuckian, Edwin Hensley was rather put off to learn that the God he has spent decades not believing had been put in charge of keeping the Bluegrass State safe from terrorism.

Turns out a stealthy legislative move by a Baptist preacher-turned-politician led to the passage of a 2006 bill requiring the state's Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge formally that safety and security in the state "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God." The language in the bill only recently came to the public's attention, leading Hensley and some like-minded Kentuckians to file a lawsuit against the state.

(skip a few paragraphs)

The law in question also required the state's homeland security office feature a plaque that reads, among other things, "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh in vain."


- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-081204-atheists,0,6784488.story

Apparently, god might get angry if his role as divine protector is not properly acknowledged. Or, perhaps god is simply disorganized, and the law is the equivalent of a celestial post-it note. As god is rummaging around his work desk, he runs across the note and groans, “Oh right! Kentucky! How could I have forgotten?” and poof, offers his divine protection.

Frankly, with his current track record, I’m not so sure this particular almighty god is the right one for the position. If the state of Kentucky insists on legislating a protective deity position, perhaps they should be required to solicit the resumes of other deities to ensure that they have found the best candidate for the job role. Homeland security? Frankly, I might go with Ares for maximum intimidation factor.

For Rep. Kathy Stein, who says she's the lone Jew in the Kentucky House of Representatives, the law itself, and the lawsuit she knew would follow, is a silly waste of time.

"It's a waste of taxpayer dollars, and we're in a significant budget crunch here," Stein said. "I believe the man" - and by that she means Jesus - "would rather us spend the money we used for a plaque in the homeland security office on insurance for an un-insured child."

Exactly. In all his omnipotence and stuff, I’m sure god would understand.

Palin Passive Aggressive

I won't be posting for a few weeks, but this time I have a good excuse- I'm going to South Africa!

In the meantime, I would like to coin a new phrase: Palin Passive Aggressive. This shall hence-forth be used to describe statements meant to subtly insult a Democrat, while feigning friendliness. Accompanying wink and "you betcha" are optional, but suggested.

See example below:

"I don't have fear, I have optimism," Palin said. "Barack Obama is going to surround himself with those who do have executive experience.

- http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/palin.obama/index.html

Post-Election Glee

When I was thirteen, my stepfather told me that he hoped I’d someday be able to vote for a candidate who I truly believed would be an excellent president. When I voted for Obama, I fulfilled that vision. Even better: he won.

I am sure there are at least 1.2 billion blog posts today waxing poetic about how Obama is going reverse oh-so-many of the policies of the last eight years, recover our country’s reputation in the eyes of the world, and rescue lots of cute, fluffy rabbits from the evil dragon in the tower. And, frankly, I am twitterpated enough with Obama to dance around the room in gleeful agreement for at least the first year of his term. However, for the sake of my feet, I will try to contain my glee. A little.

Though I no longer live there, I am really, really proud of my home state of Ohio for voting for Obama. Now, when I’m backpacking around Europe and mention Ohio, Europeans will possibly no longer grimace in a manner directly translatable to, “oh, right, that’s the state that screwed up the 2004 election.” Now, I have hopes that these same Europeans will return to their pre-2004-election response of an entirely blank look, directly translatable to, “where the fuck is Ohio?” Blankness is bliss.

I was so excited about the presidential election, that I didn’t pay much attention to the three issues on Massachusetts’ ballot until right before the election. However, all three were vote-worthy:

Issue 1: I voted to continue taxing my income. Of all the various forms of taxes, I find income tax the fairest. Also, as Joe the Senator said, paying taxes is patriotic. Or, since it’s a state income tax in this case, Massachusetts-atic. Or something silly like that.

Issue 2: I voted to decriminalize being caught with an ounce or less of marijuana. I rarely smoke marijuana. In fact, I have several favorite books that I have read and reread more times than I have smoked marijuana in my entire life. Regardless, while I didn’t feel like I personally had much at stake, I’m happy that the penalty has been reduced to a $100 fine in Massachusetts. I find it pretty ridiculous that cigarettes, alcohol, and semi-automatic weapons are generally legal substances, while marijuana is thoroughly demonized.

Issue 3: I voted to end greyhound racing in Massachusetts. The way the greyhounds are treated is pretty sad stuff, and this was an easy choice for me. I also would have also voted for Proposition 2 in California but, alas, I am on the wrong coast for such.

Also in California, I am very disappointed that Proposition 8 probably passed. As a resident of a state that does allow same-sex marriage, I must admit that I enjoy the snotty feelings of progressive-latte-liberal moral superiority when I think about the rest of the country (that’s how Massachusetts liberals think, right? I’m still practicing my technique). However, I don’t enjoy these feelings nearly enough to glad that most of the country is busy putting up barrier after barrier for two people who love one another to be legally recognized as married.

At this point, every time I talk about same sex-marriage, I feel like I am mimicking one bumper sticker or another. Minority rights should not be put to popular vote. If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, than don’t YOU marry someone of the same gender. Save marriage: ban divorce! Regardless, I think Proposition 8 is utterly unfair, and I am heartily disappointed by California. And Florida. And Arizona. Not to mention the billions of other states that previously amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. It’s not a particularly new phenomenon, but it’s still disheartening.

After a generally exhilarating election, I don’t want to end my post on a sour note. I’m still optimistic that same-sex marriage will be legal throughout the country within the next few decades. Oh, and Obama is going to be president (gleeful dancing). In the end, that’s almost enough for an election.

I (don’t heart) Huckabee

"Unless Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain to tell us something different, we need to keep that understanding of marriage," Huckabee said, referring to the movie about two gay cowboys.

How clever. A merged pop-culture/biblical reference. In reality, the existing ten commands don’t address homosexual behavior or marriage though they do forbid adultery, often interpreted as any sex outside of marriage.

Really, if fundamentalist Christians are oh so concerned with reducing the amount of sex by unmarried couples, perhaps they should consider supporting same-sex marriage. Currently, Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex couples even have the option to be considered a-okay by those pesky stone tablet edicts.

Huckabee also expressed his opposition to heterosexual couples living together, calling it "demeaning. . . . I reject it as an alternate lifestyle."

- Huckabee's views on gays under greater scrutiny

Unfortunately it appears that I, in my deviant heterosexual live-in relationship, will still be damning myself to hell on a regular basis. Oh well.

For those of us unsure of our degree of personal sinfulness, Huckabee appears to have created a helpful continuum of “aberrant behavior.”

As first reported yesterday by David Corn at Mother Jones, Huckabee said the following in a 1998 book he co-wrote called Kids Who Kill:

It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.

When we asked Carter if Huckabee stood by this quote, he didn't disavow the comment. But he sought to clarify its meaning, denying our suggestion that the quote equated homosexuality and necrophilia:

"He's not equating homosexuality with necrophilia," Carter told us. "He's saying there's a range of aberrant behavior. He considers homosexuality aberrant, but that's at one end of the spectrum. Necrophilia is at the other end."
Carter added: "No way is he saying that homosexuality is like having sex with dead people. That's not it at all."
Asked how one measured what rated where on this spectrum of aberrant behavior, Carter said: "He was talking about aberrant sexual behavior. Sado masochism and necrophilia are on the further end of the spectrum."

- Huckabee Adviser Clarifies Remark About Homosexuality And Necrophilia: They're Both "Aberrant Behavior," But They're At "Opposite Ends Of The Spectrum"

I suppose this means if Huckabee becomes president, I’ll never be permitted to enter into a civil union with my handcuffs. Such a pity.

Polls: Sarkozy elected French president

PARIS - Energized French voters chose Nicolas Sarkozy as their new president on Sunday, giving the U.S.-friendly conservative a comfortable margin for victory and a mandate for change, result projections from four polling agencies showed. His Socialist opponent conceded minutes after polls closed.

- Polls: Sarkozy elected French president

I think my favorite line about the election (from another article) was one where Sarkozy was quoted as calling Iraq a “mistake” whereas Royal called it a “disaster.” The French idea of conservative is certainly already less far right than that of in the states*. That being said, from what little I knew of the election (mostly via Snoow), I was definitely crossing my fingers for Royal. Apparently, crossing my fingers had little effect.


* The French apparently typically refer to the US’s political parties as the right and the far right.

Ethics of Common Courtesy

"They" of the traditional religions claim that they hold absolute knowledge and comprehensive ethics provided by their scriptures. All knowledge is contained in the scripture and from the scripture one can find all knowledge. Ethics are also fully contained, and all secular ethics arise directly from and can not stand without the ethics of scripture... so they say.

Now it seems to me that some extremely important points of modern ethics are totally overlooked by the ancient scriptures. Any Just God would by all means take care while collecting the basis of all ethics to make such notes as, "Be quiet" and "Quiet down, you rude SOB." Unfortunately, Ye Olde All Powerful Creator was somewhat vague.

Now, as we enter spring, and the birds chirp, and the sun warms the Earth, the motorcycles, hot rods, and sound systems come out. Rev the engine and pump up the volume, then go cruise down Main St, USA pissing off all the natives. We secular types can deduce by clear logic and empathy for our fellow beings, that it is uncivilized and downright rude to make available, purchase, or use to the detriment of others such things as mega sound systems and loud exhaust pipes.

Maybe I just have a personal vendetta against those who disturb me. That having been said, I think that we can objectively say that going to the store to find something that will be heard clearly by everyone within a 100-foot radius, and annoy the crap out of them, is unethical. It requires one to actively subordinate others for small pleasures despite the opportunity to get those pleasures in less-objectionable ways.

So there you have it, new secular ethics. We look at the world and make an assessment of right and wrong. No cheat sheets, no super-cops, no postmortem trials, just an effort to live together and make the best of the short life we have.

"Above all, this is a question of conscience. Using the initiative process to give a minority fewer freedoms than the majority, and to inject the state into fundamentally private affairs, is a dangerous precedent, and an unworthy one for this Commonwealth. Never in the long history of our model Constitution have we used the initiative petition to restrict freedom. We ought not start now."

"We have work to do over the next year to turn this around. I am heartened by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Legislature - a margin of over 2 to 1 - voted to move on. I pledge to do what I can to build on that momentum, so that our Constitution will continue to stand for liberty and freedom, and not discrimination."

- Deval Patrick, Massachusetts Governor-elect on the Massachusetts Legislature's decision to vote on a measure to advance a gay marriage ban to the ballot. Patrick is pro same-sex marriage.

Separation of Church and State, No Excuses!

(While this post is technically by dday76, I couldn’t quite keep my fingers out of it. Aviaa-ian inserts are marked with italics. BTW- this post is almost entirely facetious.)

I was in Rome the other day and thought I would pop over to the Vatican to make sure there was no mischief. I walked into the courtyard, saw the people, a big fountain, and some enormous, really expensive looking buildings they built after solving world hunger... and, oh, what's this? A nativity scene? This is government-owned land! How dare they! This huge display flies in the face of Church-State Separation. Angrily shaking my fist, I vowed to follow up with a stern letter to the local magistrate.

Yes, I’m sure the Pope will be very interested in hearing such concerns. Heaven forbid the Vatican promote religion or religious displays! Perhaps he just wasn’t aware such clear conflict of interest was occurring on the property?

By the way, if you haven’t followed the link to look at the picture, you absolutely should. Facetious or not, we were really there…

On the other hand, if these were pious people, maybe I could also benefit from their blessings. I went over to the fountain, tossed a coin in, and wished really, really hard for world peace and just a few small things for myself, Amen.

Clearly, your time at the Vatican was better spent than mine. I just wandered around pondering the items one would include on a Rome/Vatican purity test:

__ had sex on an ancient monument? (3 pts)
__ had sex in a cathedral? (5 pts) with a nun/priest? (10 pts) with the Pope? (50 pts)

… and so forth.

When talking with a local resident later, I found this wasn't the correct way to do one's wishing, or as they call it "praying" at the Vatican. They said something about kneeling and clasping one's hands together, so I noted that for the next time. I'm not sure how well it works though. I came across a young girl literally in the shadow of the Vatican, on her knees, hands clasped, head bowed, just praying her little heart out. But her plastic cup barely had one Euro in it. Almost an hour later, she was still on the same sidewalk and her god's grace hadn't made much headway in filling the plastic cup. Hmm... she perhaps should have been wearing only one sandal or offering up a gourd or such.

God works in myssstttteeerious ways. It makes perfect sense that all present-day miracles are indistinguishable from chance and coincidence, while reports of past miracles of floods, plagues, and the like were so much more… well… miraculous! Helping beggars at the Vatican? Clearly too obvious a miracle for the new, “subtle” version of god.

Save (Same-Sex) Marriage

Romney said he would file a legal action this week asking a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers don't vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the final day of the session.

Romney, an opponent of gay marriage who decided not to seek re-election as he considers running for president, made his announcement to the cheers of hundreds of gay marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps.

I’m constantly amazed at the gaggle of “gay marriage opponents” that rally oh-so often. Don’t they have something, anything better to worry about?

"One of the tenets of the Constitution is that you do not put the rights of a minority up for a popularity contest," said Mark Solomon, campaign director of Mass Equality, a pro-gay marriage group. "It is one of the very principles this country was founded upon."

- Mass. governor wants gay wedding vote

Indeed.

Since change is allllwwwaaaayssss bad, I think it clearly falls on the conservatives to protest Romney’s radial decision to redefine the current definition of marriage in the state of Massachusetts.

Deer, Oh Dear

On my way from work to tango yesterday, I managed to hit a deer. For over four years, I lived in the middle of the woods where deer and other various critters abound, yet managed to never hit one. Really. I even dodged toads in rainy weather. Then, on the edge of the city I now live in, BOOM, a deer! On my car! Ek!

Okay, I’m done whining. However, I see this as a serious drain on my “getting what is coming to me” fund and thus require a Democratic sweep at tomorrow’s election to make up for the physical (well, to my car and the deer) and emotional (ahhh!) trauma of last night. (nods) All interested higher powers should take note and act accordingly. If Democrats do win both the House and the Senate, it shall be known throughout the land that sacrificing a deer (and an insurance record) is the proper way to metaphysically rig an election.

Smmmmear

Millions spent on negative political ads
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - So far this campaign, the political parties have exposed voters to nearly $160 million in ads attacking congressional candidates. How much spent painting a positive image? About $17 million.

And how much spent on actually informing voters of your actual views on actual issues? I’d imagine that amount could be labeled as proportionally infinitesimal.

Negative ads are the coin of the realm in politics. With one week left in the campaign, voters will continue to be bombarded on television, in the mail and over the phone as political strategists make their closing arguments to a shrinking pool of those who haven't made up their minds.

I don’t really watch TV and thus don’t have to subject myself to such on a regular basis. For the few shows I do watch, my significant other has purchased some sort of magical fast-forward feature that allows me to not watch commercials. Ever. It’s an advertiser’s nightmare, but certainly keeps me significantly saner.

Anyway, even taking into account my extreme inexperience with the gamut of television ad techniques, I can still see a clear difference between:

The NRCC tried to place an ad in New York against Democrat Michael Arcuri, the district attorney in Oneida County, accusing him of calling a sex hotline while on county business. But records show that the call to the 800 number lasted only seconds and that the number has the same last seven digits as the phone number for the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. The Arcuri campaign said a colleague of Arcuri's mistakenly placed the call.

and

One ad airing in Pennsylvania cites October as the bloodiest month in Iraq and accuses Republican incumbent Rep. Jim Gerlach of blindly following Bush.

- Millions spent on negative political ads

Come on now. A misdialed number? We can get over this, yes? Please?
As for the negative ads linking Republicans and Bush… well… erm… you are pretty linked, eh? If you don’t wished to be linked with Bush's policies, you may wish to not support his policies that you don’t wish to be linked to. This brings me to my second point: critiquing policy decisions is not in itself smear. It's an essential part of democracy. Building strawmen out policy decisions (or random phone calls), on the other hand, is indeed smear.

***

On a more positive note, I love Project Vote Smart’s NPAT, which allows voters to view the self-report positions on a wide variety of issues, from abortion to election funding to health care to the war on drugs. Unfortunately, many politicians refuse to complete the survey (let the voters know how we actually feel about actual issues? Heaven forbid!). However, with continued pressure from voters I have confidence that this can continue to be a value tool to assess what candidates actually belief… rather than just how they feel about their oppenent's alleged phone calls.

Abstinence-Only Reasoning

Abstinence message goes beyond teens

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

(blinks)

(blinks)

(blinks)

(blinks)

(blinks)

So, essentially, to prevent 20 to 29 year olds from having children, we are going to spend money on NOT telling them how to prevent having children. What a brilliant plan!

"The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children,' " Horn said. "The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."

Yes, and the only 100% effective way of preventing car accidents is to not drive. Life is about calculated risks. My calculated risks include various sorts of birth control. Thus far, I've had better luck with preventing pregnancy than preventing car accidents.

For last year's state grants, Congress appropriated $50 million. A similar amount is expected for 2007, but the money has not yet been allocated, according to the Administration for Children and Families. - Abstinence message goes beyond teens

(sighs)

This just raises the idoicy of abstitence only sex-education by a few more points.


****

On a more positive note:

New Jersey announced last week that it will not accept $800,000 in federal funds to teach abstinence-only sex education. Sex education programs in states that receive the federal funds are not allowed to teach students about contraception, must describe sex before marriage as “potentially mentally and physically damaging,” and must teach that “sex within marriage is ‘the expected standard of sexual activity’,” the Associated Press and Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy report. According to the Associated Press, New Jersey officials wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt that the requirements tied to the federal money violate the state’s sex education and AIDS education programs.

- NJ Says No to Abstinence-Only Sex Ed

Mis-Representation

I recently moved and thus switched congressional representatives. Seeing as my former representative was Bob Ney of the recent Abramoff scandals, I really didn’t see much potential for going anywhere but up. Then, over the weekend, I received the following letter:

Dear Mrs. Warner:

Thank you for contracting me in support of H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA). It was good to hear from you.

On September 26, 2006, the House of Representatives passed, with my support, the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005. Introduced by Congressman John Hostettler (R-IN), H.R. 2679 ensures local officials and communities do not face financial ruin to defend their rights to free speech under the Constitution. The legislation provides that when state or local officials are sued over public expressions of religion, no monetary damages, costs, or attorney’s fees may be awarded. This bill is now pending in the United States Senate. As such, I would encourage you to contact our Senators, Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, to express your support.

Again, thank you for being in touch. Please continue to let me know when I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

David L. Hobson
Member of Congress

(blinks)

(blinks)

(blinks)

I wrote to Mr. Hobson about PERA, but I sure as hell didn’t write to him expressing my SUPPORT of the bill. It’s not that I’m angry that he voted for the measure (though it frustrates me). I’m angry because it in no way appears that he (or some random staff member) actually read the contents of my letter.

I’m going to have to carefully consider which representative I prefer: openly corrupt Mr. Ney, who would personally speak to me on the phone yet generally make, in my opinion, poor voting decisions or Mr. Hobson who apparently doesn’t actually read my letters but instead just assumes that if I’m writing about PERA, I must be supporting it. (sighs)

PS. It’s Ms. Warner not Mrs. Warner. Whatever. We'll take this one step at a time: first you start reading the content of my letters, then we'll talk prefixes.

If You Give a Mouse a Cookie

If you give a mouse a cookie, he’s going to ask for a glass of milk. When you give him the milk, he’ll probably ask you for a straw. When he’s finished, he’ll ask for a napkin. Then…

- If you Give a Mouse a Cookie, by Laura Joffe Numeroff

To sum up the entire plot (yes, I’m using the word “plot” loosely) of the children’s book quoted above, a boy gives a mouse of cookie, who then demands milk, then a straw, then a napkin, then a mirror, then nail scissors…. etc, etc. etc, etc. etc. Our sweet hardworking protagonist is left exhausted and messy-housed as the mouse demands more and more. The moral of the story: woe to he who gives the mouse a cookie, for who knows what awful things the mouse might put you through as a result.

This is a classic slippery slope and a common fear; if we give in on one matter, are we setting off a long chain of doom and disaster. After all, we don’t want to give up our milk or nail scissors, but how do we stop once we’ve offered the cookie?

My answer is that we just do. Feet are remarkably good at planting themselves in one spot.

For a review of the slippery slope argument, visit here. Note that you’ll only fall down the slippery slope if there is actual independent justification that one event will necessarily lead to another. Giving away cookies doesn’t necessitate giving away milk.



Of Mice and Men (Marrying Other Men)

One of the most common arguments I hear against same-sex marriage is that, if we allow it, we’ll also have to accommodate those who wish to practice polygamy or marry their cat, Fluffy. However, it’s already been shown that it’s entirely possible to grant the first without either of the second two. Want examples? I have five of them: The Netherlands, Belgium, Massachusetts, Canada, and Spain. All of these countries granted same-sex couples the right to marry between the years of 2001 and 2005.

As another note, these were the some of the same arguments used against interracial marriage years ago. As of 1997, polls have found a majority of Americans have apparently conceded that interracial marriages are acceptable (yes, not until 1997- I was shocked as well). Even with this expansion of social tolerance, Fluffy the cat is still spouseless.

In the end, a cookie can just be a cookie.


Of Mice and Minneapolis

A minor issue at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) has potentially major implications for the future of Islam in the United States.

Some Muslim taxi drivers serving the airport declared, starting about a decade ago, that they would not transport passengers visibly carrying alcohol, for example, in transparent duty-free shopping bags. This stance stemmed from their understanding of the Quran's ban on alcohol. A driver named Fuad Omar explained: "This is our religion. We could be punished in the afterlife if we agree to (transport alcohol.) This is a Quran issue. This came from heaven." Another driver, Muhamed Mursal, echoed his words: "It is forbidden in Islam to carry alcohol."

For the record, I think their refusal to carry alcohol is silly. However, also for the record, I see all religious superstition as silly. I don’t find it any more ridiculous that someone would fear god’s retribution for transporting alcohol than I do that someone else would fear the same for working on Sunday or using his name in vain or whatever other random religious law you want to invoke at that moment. Any Christians who find this particular interpretation of Islamic law particularly silly may want to consider that their own religious traditions were instrumental in creating blue laws, including those that still prohibit alcohol from being sold at certain times (or at all) on Sundays in some states.

The issue emerged publicly in 2000. On one occasion, 16 drivers in a row refused a passenger with bottles of alcohol. This left the passenger, who had done nothing legally and morally wrong, feeling like a criminal. For their part, the 16 cabbies lost income.

(skip a few paragraphs)

"Travelers often feel surprised and insulted," Hogan added.

Yes, this wouldn’t be particularly pleasant. However, the taxi drivers are discriminating against the alcohol rather than the person. At the Minneapolis airport at least, drivers have not refused to carry passengers who drink or even those who are currently drunk—just those who are currently carrying alcohol. Silly, yes. Hateful towards a particular group of individuals? No.

With this in mind, MAC proposed a pragmatic solution: drivers unwilling to carry alcohol could get a special color light on their car roofs, signaling their views to taxi starters and customers alike. From the airport's point of view, this scheme offers a sensible and efficient mechanism to resolve a minor irritant, leaving no passenger insulted and no driver losing business. "Airport authorities are not in the business of interpreting sacred texts or dictating anyone's religious choices," Hogan points out. "Our goal is simply to ensure travelers at (the airport) are well served." Awaiting approval only from the airport's taxi advisory committee, the two-light proposal will likely be in operation by the end of 2006.

(shrugs) This all seems quite reasonable to me. As asserted above, I think it’s somewhat ridiculous to believe that your status in the afterlife will be in jeopardy if a passenger is carrying a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon in your vehicle. However, I do think it’s even more ridiculous to mock someone else’s superstitious traditions when you hold on to superstitious traditions of your own, as most of those in this country do.

The bottom line: the taxi drivers are currently refusing to carry passengers with alcohol, resulting in some passengers having to tote their duty free bag from taxi to taxi. This is annoying and inefficient. MAC developed a solution to allow their staff to direct passengers with alcohol to taxis who will carry them with their alcohol. This seems as if it would save everyone time and effort, eh?

But on a societal level, the proposed solution has massive and worrisome implications. Among them: The two-light plan intrudes the Shariah, or Islamic law, with state sanction, into a mundane commercial transaction in Minnesota. A government authority sanctions a signal as to who does or does not follow Islamic law.

What of taxi drivers beyond those at MSP? Other Muslim hacks in Minneapolis-St. Paul and across the country could well demand the same privilege. Bus conductors might follow suit. The whole transport system could be divided between those Islamically observant and those not so.

(glances at feet to see if she’s being shoved down the slippery slope yet)

Why stop with alcohol? Muslim taxi drivers in several countries already balk at allowing seeing-eye dogs in their cars. Future demands could include not transporting women with exposed arms or hair, homosexuals and unmarried couples. For that matter, they could ban men wearing kippas, as well as Hindus, atheists, bartenders, croupiers, astrologers, bankers and quarterbacks.

(yes, definitely being shoved down the slope!)

MAC is trying to solve a specific, pre-existing problem with a specific solution. The above is a different issue. Independent taxi drivers already have the right to refuse passengers with alcohol; this isn’t some special privilege MAC is granting them. Taxi and bus companies who don’t wish to confront this problem can make transporting passengers with alcohol part of the job duty. Poof! No necessary slide down that slope.

(re-secures feet)

MAC has consulted on the taxi issue with the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society, an organization the Chicago Tribune has established is devoted to turning the United States into a country run by Islamic law. The wife of a former head of the organization, for example, has explained that its goal is "to educate everyone about Islam and to follow the teachings of Islam with the hope of establishing an Islamic state."

It is precisely the innocuous nature of the two-light taxi solution that makes it so insidious, and why the Metropolitan Airports Commission should reconsider its wrong-headed decision. Readers who wish to make their views known to the MAC can write it at publicaffairs@mspmac.org.

- All quotes are from Don't Bring That Booze Into My Taxi

Insidious? Goodness. (swoons) Why is it that whenever anyone starts talking about how the Muslim population is trying to take over this country that I feel like I’ve entered a broadcast of Fox News? Perhaps I just don’t scare easily enough to buy that refusing to transport my alcohol is the first step towards an Islamic state. Or perhaps that it just seems like I’m always fighting with the Christian right, rather than any Muslim group, for reasonable legislation in this country.

By the way, though I’ve included the email in the quote above, there is no need to add to the many letters MAC already received; they’ve announced that they will not be implementing the program due to upset letters from around the world. Back to the drawing board, I suppose. Just watch for those “bright” ideas… apparently, the public doesn’t approve.

In the end, a cookie can just be a cookie, even if it has a crescent on it instead of a cross.

Two more reasons to NOT vote for a Republican Congress

Reason One:

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.

(skip a few paragraphs)

The detainee bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but it would grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.

- Senate OKs detainee interrogation bill

Reason Two:

WASHINGTON - The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions.

Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.

"The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.

"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said.

Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.

"It is ceding the president's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (news, bio, voting record), D-Md.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., that give legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.

- House approves warrantless wiretap law

PERA-noia, PERA-noia, the ACLU is coming to get me…

Please excuse my awful pun of a title. It’s a pera-dy (see that was a worse pun! I bet you didn’t think it could get worse than the title!) of the first line of Harvey Danger’s Flag Pole Sitta. Their version was a bit more sing-able than mine.

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- After impassioned debate on the separation of church and state Sept. 26, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would make it harder to sue the government for violations of church-state separation.

House members voted 244-173 in favor of H.R. 2679, called by supporters the "Public Expression of Religion Act." In cases involving the First Amendment's establishment clause, the proposal would prevent federal courts from requiring government entities to reimburse the legal costs of the individual or group that sued the government agency -- even though the agency was found in violation of the constitution.

The establishment clause bars the government from endorsing or inhibiting religious groups or doctrines. Currently, federal judges routinely require the government entity to pay the legal expenses of a plaintiff who successfully asserts an establishment-clause violation.

Supporters contended that the bill would keep special-interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union from "abusing the system" when filing challenges to government actions that may endorse religion.

The ACLU is not abusing the system. The government, when it violates the establishment clause, is abusing the system. The House, when passing this bill, just abused the system. The ACLU helps police the system. See the difference?

"Too often today, overzealous courts have infringed an individual's right to worship," Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a supporter of the measure, said on the House floor. "These attacks on our religious heritage are frivolous."

No. The courts have maintained our right to not have our noses shoved in your religious whatever. They aren’t frivolous lawsuits. They’re lawsuits to defend the rights of religious and nonreligious minorities.

But opponents said it would have a chilling effect on the ability of religious minorities to defend their freedoms.

"Mr. Speaker, let's be clear -- there's nothing benign about this bill. This bill makes it more difficult to enforce the First Amendment to the Constitution and the very words thereof designed to protect the religious freedom of every American," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas).

Without such reimbursements, many church-state separationist groups and other civil-rights groups could not afford to file such lawsuits in the first place.

Yes.

The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), said some such groups file lawsuits and use the threat of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to pressure municipalities and states into settling before the case reaches court.

"Without that ability for the ACLU and others to go into these closed-door sessions and say to the mayor…we're going to sue, we're going to win, and you're going to have to pay our attorneys' fees, these cases will go to court," Hostettler said, referring to the American Civil Liberties Union.

(rolls eyes) Yes, yes, let’s drag the ACLU into it. Everyone likes to bash the ACLU! A note: you only have to reimburse the legal fees if they show you’ve violated the establishment clause. Don’t violate it, and you’ll be fine.

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked the bill's supporters if they would feel the same way about limiting attorneys' fees in such cases if government agencies were being sued for advancing other religions.

"Let's assume in some town Sunni Muslims became a majority. And let's assume that everyone in that town…was forced to recite 'There is but one God, and Allah is his name,'" he said, quoting Islam's most common affirmation of faith.

"They think that only the majority religion is ever going to be in the position to dominate the local government or any government. Maybe so, but the whole reason we have the First Amendment is because you can't be sure."

(nods) Yes. However, I don’t think that’s the main issue. The main issue (for me at least) is that it’s not fair to squish the rights of minorities even if you have the power to do so.

Although a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate, that body is virtually certain not to address it before Congress ends its current term.
- House passes measure to chill establishment-clause lawsuits

I hope not, as I still have hope that Dem’s might gain a Senate majority for the next term. Either way, write to your Senators!

***


On the same topic, but from slightly less sane sources:

… all of our veterans cemeteries and memorials on public property are at risk – unless PERA passes.

Oh! Oh! Veterans cemeteries! Veterans cemeteries! Emotional, non-touchable patriotism-related issue!!!!! ACLU! BAD! ANTI-AMERICAN! ANTI-AMERICAN! DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY!!!!!!!! ALCU! BAD!!!

AHHHHHHH!!!!!

What a great choice of issue to exploit to scare people into supporting this bill. ACLU ATTACKING FALLEN VETERNS! It’s ridiculous propaganda.

As a clarification, I’m certainly not bashing veterans. I support our former troops… especially in bed. As a clarification of my clarification, I suppose I only actually support one of them in this manner. However, this seems like a contribution at least on par with buying a few plastic flags or patriotic bumper stickers or the like, yes? ;)

(shrugs) Anyway, let’s continue. So, why do these lovely people believe veterans cemeteries are under attack?

The ACLU has claimed nationally that gravestones have been “deemed” constitutional because families, not the government, choose the religious symbols. However, the truth is no court of precedent has ever “deemed” that it is constitutional for the government to allow and pay for gravestones bearing religious symbols at veteran cemeteries, on the basis that families, rather than the government, chose the symbol. The ACLU has cited no such decision; and none has been found to exist.

So, seeing as the ACLU feels these displays are constitutional, it has just declared that it doesn’t feel the need for litigation, correct?

Second, the ACLU has never taken that position in litigation; rather, it insists that religious symbols are unconstitutional if on public property.

The ACLU defined why it felt this was a different issue: family choice of personal expression of personal religion on a personal gravestone.

Third, the ACLU has not stated it will not sue the freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols or expressions that exist at veterans cemeteries.

I can see a clear difference between freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols and gravestones bearing religious symbols. While it isn’t an issue of utmost concern to me, I think the random, non-person-or-people-specific religious memorials should probably be removed from public grounds if they are causing upset. The cemeteries would still be there.

Fourth, there are thousands of grave markers, including 9,000 at the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach, which the government decided upon, not families.

Erm, the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach in France? Somehow, I can’t picture the ACLU suing over this.

Fifth, the ACLU is hardly the only entity representing a threat of such lawsuits. Nothing in the law currently prevents others, including Islamist fanatics, from filing Establishment Clause lawsuits against veterans cemeteries, and then demanding court-awarded, taxpayer-paid attorney fees.

- ACLU’s Disinformation On Public Expression Of Religion Act Exposed

Yes, because clearly this is how Islamist fanatics spread their message. Many congratulations for managing to raise your propaganda level at least a few points with the inclusion of the phrase, “Islamist fanatics.” Your target audience is now at least 32.452% more likely to write a letter to his or her congressman.

To see the ACLU’s response to the House passing PERA, read their press release. And write to your Senators!

Expanding Values (yeah right)

Determined to break the links binding partisan politics and faith, growing numbers of religious moderates are uniting and organizing in an unprecedented bid to challenge the Christian right and broaden the values agenda beyond the issues of abortion and gay marriage.

(skip a paragraph)

This new coalition of moderate and progressive Christians underscored its intentions with a flurry of activity last week, as prominent conservative Christian leaders and politicians converged on Washington for the Family Research Council's first annual Values Voter Summit, which ends today.
- Moderates finding a voice

So, if these lovely, moderate people expanded the conversation beyond abortion and gay marriage, what did they talk about? Well, apparently gay marriage and abortion (see how different it is if you switch the order?):

The gathering, which concludes today, featured Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress, and seeks to mobilize evangelical voters this fall by focusing on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Focus on the Family has started voter registration drives in eight states, according to its Web site.
- Baylor study debunks the ‘religious conservative’ and ‘secular liberal’ stereotypes

Bipartisan, huh? This all sounds like an awfully red shade of purple to me. “Oh, we’re bipartisan… there must be at least one Democrat here! Democrat? Where are you? Oh well, he must have wandered off for a moment.”

Speaking of “bipartisan”, at this same summit:

"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell said, according to the recording. "She has $300 million so far. But I hope she's the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton."
Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

(skip a few paragraphs)

"He was calling Hillary Clinton a demonic figure and openly arguing that God is a Republican," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, director of the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "It's hard to know whether people thought he was joking or serious, but once you start using religious imagery and invoking a politician in this way, it's not funny."

An aide to Falwell said Saturday the Lucifer reference was an "off the cuff" comment and Falwell "had no intentions of demonizing her." In the past, Falwell has described Islam's prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and said abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians were to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Falwell's remarks about Clinton were part of a 40-minute address at a private breakfast that included assurances that God would preserve a Republican majority in Congress and that moderates such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani cannot be allowed to win the GOP presidential nomination.

- Hillary Clinton could outdraw the devil, Falwell says

I must concede that Falwell is almost as much fun as Robertson. Then again, until Falwell claims to bench-press 2000 pounds, he’s still a second-rate crazy in my book. If the Democrats do obtain a Congressional majority in the November elections (as I hope they do), then did Falwell’s oh-so-Republican god fail?


At another recent “values” rally, in Pittsburg:

All the speakers said they wouldn't tell people how to vote.

But if a politician shares his principles on issues from judges to marriage "and is committed to the God of the universe, and from my perspective, Jesus Christ his only begotten son ... it would be a sin not to go to the polls and vote for him or her," Dobson said.

A sin! But we are not, of course, telling you how to vote.

Attendees were encouraged to "pray, prepare and participate" by, among other things, taking bulk packages of voter guides prepared by the conservative Pennsylvania Family Institute to distribute at their churches and asking pastors to hold voter-registration drives.

(skip a few paragraphs)

Gay-marriage bans are on the ballot in eight states this year, including three with close Senate races: Arizona, Virginia and Tennessee.

"When you have a marriage amendment on the ballot, it makes it that much easier" to motivate conservative Christian voters, said John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "And on balance, they'll vote for the Republican candidates in those states."
-
"Disappointed" activists pushing values buttons

Aww… how sweet. Let’s lure ‘em in with the discriminatory legislation and keep ‘em around to vote for the Republicans. Erm, the bipartisan Republicans, of course.