4&20 blackbirds

New location!

2006-03-30T11:16:00.000-07:00

4&20 blackbirds has now moved to new site! It's hosted by WordPress and is still pretty raw, but I thought the formatting problems I'm having on the current site was a good kick in the pants. Keep your eyes peeled for format and content changes! Hope to see you over there!

Links...

2006-03-30T10:30:00.000-07:00

Abramoff sentenced: five years, ten months. Anybody want to start the over/under on Burns? From the archives: The Stranger claims that liberalism should be an urban movement. How do you explain Montana’s shift to the Democrats? I’m with John Cole on immigration: seems like amnesty is the obvious, practical solution. Red State’s “Crank” reminds us that one Democrat (versus zero Republicans) has been convicted of illegally wiretapping a political opponent. Two observations. (1) The key word is “convicted.” (2) Notice no Democrat is blathering on about how the Congressman should be above the law. Bush blames Saddam Hussein for sectarian violence in Iraq. Uh, Mr. President? We captured Saddam a while back... New Iraq war documentary premiering at the Tribeca Film festival. What’s cool, is that it was shot by the troops themselves. Follow the links for clips. Good stuff. Sirota thinks the free trade pushed on other countries by the WTO actually makes some countries poorer. Ankle-Biting Pundits heard a rumor that Card resigned to work on Masssachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Krauthammer replies to neo-con defector, Fuyukama. Matt Singer and Jon Tester get a little love over at the Daily Kos. The Daily Kos also thinks Lamont is for real, not just a byproduct of the blogosphere. Jane at Firedoglake weighs in on the “monument to pro-life”: “who thought a statue of some erstwhile Hooters hostess lying spread-eagle on a bearskin rug with a kid’s head popping out of her cooter was a tribute to anything but velvet Elvis high camp?”

Technical difficulties...

2006-03-30T10:11:00.000-07:00

Looks like my formatting got...er...removed from my posts last night, which may be related to a redesign of the blog over on a new Word Press hosted site. Bear with me as I try to fix some of the posts....

Why does Conrad Burns hate Native Americans?

2006-03-29T16:06:00.000-07:00

Okay, we all know about how Conrad Burns pandered to a Michigan Chippewa tribe and Abramoff client, getting them a $3-million federal grant in exchange for $75,000 in campaign contributions. Old news. But what newspapers and politicians haven’t challenged is Burns’ statement that he has been a long supporter of Native American tribes. As usual with the Senator, nothing could be further from the truth. What’s his record with Native American issues? I’m so glad you asked:

• In 1998, Burns drafted legislation that would exempt all non-Indian land on Montana reservations from tribal jurisdiction. That’s like saying all non-federal or state land shouldn’t be under jurisdiction of state or federal authority. • In 2003, Burns raised a procedural point that killed $2.9 billion for tribal programs. • In 2005, Burns led opposition to a bill that would have provided $1 billion for tribal health services. • Last week, Burns voted against an amendment proposed by North Dakota’s Sen. Byron Dorgan that would have given $220 million towards tribal education.

Burns' record on voting for appropriations for Native Americans is so poor, it makes the grant for the Michigan tribe doubly suspicious. The more I learn about the junior Senator, the more he reminds me of one of those street performers that moves only when you throw coins in his can...

The Slog: Montana created Kyle Huff

2006-03-29T11:49:00.000-07:00

I admit it: my Montana blood boiled a little when I read Eli Sanders’ post on Slog about the recent shooting in Seattle. In the post, Sanders tells of his contacts with Whitefish police about an incident involving shooter Kyle Huff six years ago in which Huff shot a fiberglass moose with a shotgun. The basic gist is this: the Whitefish police let Huff off the hook, enabling him to six years later to go on a murderous rampage in Seattle. This is, of course, completely useless speculation. Even if Huff had been convicted of a felony in the moose-shooting incident and, therefore, had two guns used in the Seattle shooting taken from him, it’s probable he would have gotten more guns. It’s also silly speculation: shooting a roadside plastic moose is hardly worthy of a felony conviction. Sure it was stupid – but it’s hardly worth anybody’s while to stuff jails with teenagers for crimes like vandalism. But if the post weren’t bad enough, delve into the comments. There you will see the Huff shooting depicted as a clash of cultures, between “red” and “blue” Americans. Commenter “Daved”:

Gun nuts: We that live in the city are not attacking your piece of crap farm. You that lived in rural America are attacking our cities. You attack it with your dumb[*]ss redneck psychos like Kyle Huff, you attack it by voting for dumb f[*]cks like George Bush, you attack it by leeching tax money for projects only a handful of people need. Meanwhile cities generate the economic might of this country, and the thanks we get is you sending dumb f[*]cks like Kyle Huff into our communities downtown with his intolerant redneck "gotta blow sh[*]t up cause thats all I know how to do" shit. Then you defend this culture like its some high achievement, bubbas and beer and pickups and football. Did it ever occur that the reason we live in cities is we wanted to get the f[*]ck away from this stuff? Tell you what, when armed gangs of ravers and gays and metrosexuals drives out to BFE and starts shooting at god fearing law abiding redneck losers, whose only crime was voting for George Bush, then you can have reason to gripe or feel like you're being persecuted. Right now, you stupid f[*]cks, its you that are attacking us, you made America dumber, more likely to invade other countries, and more likely to be able to go off for no reason like Kyle Fat Country F[*]ck Huff went off. I don't own a gun. If I lived on a farm, I'd own rifles for hunting and THATS IT. There was no legitimate need for the guns Kyle Huff was allowed in this society to own. Stop defending the system when the system you support was, just like your president, a miserable failure.

Admittedly, this is the most extreme post of them all. Most of the accusation against Montana in this incident has been subtle. Sanders’ post, for example, implies that Montana has lax policies towards guns and encourages gun behavior and, therefore, homicides. But basically the gist is the same: Montana created Kyle Huff. This is, of course ridiculous. Montana is just like any other place on the planet: its citizens are human. Some of its citizens are mentally ill, a few might be even be capable of mass murder, like Kyle Huff. But the same is true of any place, any where. The real problem is the attitude expressed, not only in Daved’s comment and by other city residents, but by Montanans here in Montana, too. How often do you hear – or say – that Montana’s problems are the result of Californians moving to the state? How much of right-wing hyperbole blames the effete qualities of blue-state big-city dwellers for our country’s problems? Newsflash: as someone who’s lived in rural and big-city communities (yes, I lived in Seattle and San Francisco) Americans across the country are more similar than different. Yes, big-city folks are more tolerant of racial, ethnic, and sexual-preference differences; yes, small-town folks form closer communities. But in the end, virtually no one wants violence or mayhem in their or anybody else’s communities. The people that do are sick, like Kyle Huff. Period. Ultimately, we can place blame for how this perception of "cultural warfare" got started. Blame domestic religious fundamentalists and their GOP supporters. Daved's rhetoric is ultimately radical conservative logic that claims that any conflicting ideology (i.e., liberalism) is "infecting" our culture and must be eliminated. This is the language that was introduced into the mainstream at George W Bush's inauguration in January of 2001. Daved's response is obviously an outbreak of frustration at being the recipient of such language for the last six years. That, or he's a total *sshole. Or both.

Links...

2006-03-29T10:32:00.000-07:00

Okay, this is yesterday’s news, but another British memo reinforces the fact that the Bush administration had planned to go to war all along. Recovering liberal: “There is no room in America for Hate.” 4&20 blackbirds: “Not familiar with U.S. history, eh?” Budge found an interesting article criticizing the Bush administration’s attempts at sweeping societal change, which, according to Budge is very un-conservative-like. Guess he hasn’t been paying attention to the fundamentalist Christian movement. And I’d argue that the left I know isn’t interested in massive societal change, but is interested in protecting individual liberty, maintaining Constitutional law, and checking the power of the alliance of corporate and government power. Homeland security protects the country, er pharmaceutical companies...by stopping the flow of prescription drugs into the US from Canada. Alec Baldwin disses Sean Hannity, on air! Crooks and Liars has the feed for you. MadTV has been doing some awesome political satire. Dump SNL! If you don’t believe me, check out “Bush Slump.” Tom Delay whines about how Christians don’t get enough respect. Give me a break. I’m with John: “after dominating all three branches of government and encompassing 80% of the population,” what more is there to do for Christians? BoingBoing reports that Iran is censoring blogs with US filtering software. So capitalism leads to freedom? Um...when?

Pete Geddes conversation: globalization

2006-03-29T09:53:00.000-07:00

Here' the first part of the conversation with Bozeman free-market environmentalist, Pete Geddes. Check out the intro if you haven't yet. In your literature at the website of your organization, Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment, you write that globalization actually helps eradicate poverty and promotes environmentalism. Can you explain how that is? First let’s define our terms. Here’s what I mean when I describe the process called globalization: It’s the international movement of human and financial capital. The process of globalization is not new. Indeed the dispersal from a few centers, of culture, language, political ideas, and material goods is an ancient phenomenon. What’s new is that our modern technologies (e.g., telecommunications and the Internet) combined with steep declines in transportation costs, allow individual entrepreneurs and businesses real-time access to global markets. This makes one’s physical location ever more irrelevant. Hence, industries once sheltered from competition by geographic isolation are no longer. Montana agriculture is an excellent example While consumers reap the benefits, our dynamic, open, globalized economy creates opportunity for some and hardship for others. So a key question is how can societies cope with the rapid technological and social change that a globalized economy creates? Second. We have decades of empirical measures of both human well being and environmental progress. Both strongly suggest that on balance, peoples lives and environmental quality are improving. The only tragic exception seem to be in the countries of Sub-Saharaian Africa. Speaking at the 2000 World Economic Forum, President Bill Clinton said, “We have to reaffirm unambiguously that open markets are the best engine we know of to lift living standards and build shared prosperity.” This is especially true in countries that have embraced entry into the global marketplace. A technologically robust, market-based economy raises living standards ever higher, faster, and more inclusively than any other system. Developing countries make as much progress in thirty years as industrialized nations did in a century. And here’s a key point: Economic progress is a prerequisite for improving environmental quality. The real enemy of the environment is poverty, not affluence. • The World Bank notes that globalization is responsible for a “spectacular” decline in poverty in East and South Asia. In 1990, there were roughly 472 million people in the East Asia and Pacific region living on less than $1 a day. By 2001, the number living in such extreme poverty had dropped by half. At current projections, by 2015, there will be only 19 million Asians living under those conditions. In one generation Asians will witness a 95 percent reduction in extreme poverty. • Over the past 20 years, 200 million people have left absolute poverty -- defined as living on the equivalent of less than $1 a day. • Advances in medicine, improved public health policies, and greater food supplies have lowered infant mortality and lengthened life expectancy. In developing countries in the 1950s, 178 children per every 1000 live births died before reaching their first birthday. By the late 1990s, the infant mortality rate in these countries had declined to 64 per 1000. Life expectancy increased from 44 years in 1960 to 59 years in 1999. • Child labor declines as a country’s income increases. As trade promotes economic growth, globalization results in less child labor over time. In 1960, children made up 32 percent of the labor force in low-income countries. Forty years later, following the massive expansion in international trade, child labor in the same countries had declined to 19 percent. • Though inequality remained more or less constant, or possibly increased, during the 1970s, it declined substantially in the 1980s and 1990s. As a result, the shape of the income distribution curve has changed, from a bimodal distribution with a peak of poor people and a peak of rich in 1970, to a smoother distribution in 1998, suggesting the emergence of a “world middle class.” • Increased wealth is, of course, a key predictor of environmental quality. The environmental sustainability index (ESI), produced by Columbia and Yale Universities, allows cross-national comparisons of rates of nonrenewable resource use and other environmental policies in countries worldwide. The index scores range from 0 to 100, with 100 being optimal sustainability. • Countries such as Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland, with high ESI scores (73.9, 72.6, and 66.5, respectively), also rank among the countries with the highest annual per-capita income ($25,130, $27,140, and $38,140). The U.S. has an ESI of 53.2. (Our low score is due to the index’s heavy weighting of greenhouse gas emissions.) • Countries ranking in the middle range of ESI scores (around 50), such as Algeria, Russia, and Egypt, are poorer (per-capita incomes of $1,580, $1,690, and $1,490, respectively). • At the lower end of the scale are impoverished countries such as Haiti, Ukraine, and Turkmenistan (per capita incomes of $510, $690, and $750, respectively). Driven by the rapid democratization of information, technology, and finance, globalization is turning out to be a remarkably progressive, liberating force. Globalization helps break the regressive taboos responsible for discriminating against people on the basis of gender, race, or religious beliefs. It is an antidote to the intolerant fundamentalism that oppresses millions of the world’s poorest. When these people see how their counterparts in the West are treated, they see a better future and begin to demand it. Globalization offers hope for the world’s poorest, hope that one day they may enjoy the fruits of the West’s liberal traditions. Globalization helps break the regressive taboos responsible for discriminating against people on the basis of gender, race, or religious beliefs. It is an antidote to the intolerant fundamentalism that oppresses millions of the world’s poorest. When these people see how their counterparts in the West are treated, they see a better future and begin to demand it. Globalization offers hope for the world’s poorest, hope that one day they may enjoy the fruits of the West’s liberal traditions. In your articles, you've criticized the left for opposition to globalization. While I can't speak for everyone, I admit I have concerns with organizations like the WTO that operate without transparency, aren't democratic, and can compel member countries to overturn democratically based legislation. I think the IMF and the WTO have at times acted in counterproductive ways. For more on this I suggest these books by William Easterly: (1) The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics and (2) The White Man's Burden : Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. The WTO seems ready to compel the European Union to accept genetically-engineered food despite local laws and regulations banning such products. To me, it seems like US and Canadian agricultural corporations are using the WTO to lower local environmental and health standards in democratic communities. How does the WTO fit into your vision of globalization? What do you think of the GE crops dispute? And I'd love to hear musings on the clash of democracy and free markets... (1) Do you believe the science behind climate change is compelling and “settled?” If so, you can’t be opposed to GE crops on any scientific grounds. The scientific consensus regarding the safety to human health and the environment benefits of GE crops is overwhelming. There is much more agreement on this issue than on climate change. (2) Opposition to GE crops from some EU member states is based partly on cultural grounds (i.e., food is very important to the French) but mostly it’s used as a trade barrier to protect EU farmers from global competition. (3) Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman wrote, “Fundamentally, there are only two ways of coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction ... [with] coercion -- the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary cooperation of individuals -- the technique of the marketplace.” Ironically, Friedman is denounced for lecturing in Pinochet’s Chile. But his advice was to institute market reforms, which ultimately helped undermine Pinochet’s regime. Why? Because inevitably free markets destroy centralized control. Any society with even a modicum of political freedom uses the market process to organize its economic activity. Putting aside the safety of GE foods -- which could easily consume its own interview -- your statements linking free markets to politically free societies seems to be contradicted by the imposition of WTO control over the issue of GE foods. The WTO is an organization of centralized control exerting its authority over democratic communities in the name of free markets, regardless of how unreasonable or unscientific the legislation is. This might be a good time to bring up China. The Chinese government has reliquinshed much control over its markets, but its authority has increased since the 1980s. Also American companies like Yahoo have shown that they would gladly assist a centralized government in subjegating its people if it shows a profit. And to use my own source, Mussolini said that fascism should be called "corporatism," because fascism was a blend of state and corporate power. So I reject the notion that free markets naturally lead to political freedom. Or am I misunderstanding what a "free market" is? Rebuttal? I wrote “Any society with even a modicum of political freedom uses the market process to organize its economic activity.” Can you think of a counter example? Why is this the case? (1) free markets require secure, defined, and transferable property rights. This is the fundamental bulk work protecting the weak from the strong and citizens from the power of the state. Don’t confuse the WTO as an advocate for free markets. They are much more likely to be responsive to corporate concerns rather than any free market ideal. Remember, free market capitalism is a radical, not an conservation notion. That why many business lobby to insulate themselves from the free market (and why we get so little corporate support!). Here’s a piece to consider: MLK, the Marketplace, and a Legacy of Freedom By Dwight R. Lee 01/19/2004 While commemorating the contributions of Martin Luther King, we shouldn't overlook the connection between freedom and the economic progress possible only in a market economy. The expansion in freedom brought about by the civil rights movement under King's inspiring leadership receives far too little credit for improving the prospects and prosperity of all Americans. And our free-market economy receives far too little credit for helping move us toward King's dream of freedom for all our citizens. The more freedom people have, the better markets work. Market prices convey information on what people most desire as consumers and how they can best serve others as producers. This market communication is distorted when some are denied opportunities to shop where they choose, get the education they need, and take jobs for which they are qualified. Markets depend on freedom. Freedom also depends on markets. We can tolerate the freedom of others when market prices are informing and motivating them to pursue their own interests in ways that promote the general interest. No one argues that this "invisible hand" of the market works perfectly, or that it eliminates restrictions on freedom motivated by senseless prejudice. If it did, we would not have needed the civil rights movement, and few people would have heard of Martin Luther King. But neither can sensible people deny that freedom is best served in economies that rely on markets. Does any one really believe it is accidental that the freedoms we take for granted in market economies are routinely suppressed, often brutally, in economies relying on state ownership and socialist planning? Not just minorities are denied basic freedoms under socialistic regimes. Except for the politically privileged few, freedoms to travel, get the type of education one chooses, pick one's occupation, shop where one wants, express political opinions, read what one wants, and worship as one chooses don't exist. Market economies disperse authority, making it less likely that, as happens under socialism, power will become concentrated in the hands of a few who use it to suppress freedom and perpetuate their control. Markets also make it easy to extend and protect freedom by making it a force for general economic prosperity. This explains why Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement enriched America economically as well as morally. The civil rights movement expanded freedom for African Americans who had long been denied opportunities taken for granted by most of us, opportunities to pursue their goals and dreams by making the fullest use of their talents and energies. This expansion of freedom deserves national recognition because it benefits us all far more than most of us realize. We all recognize the value of having more opportunity for ourselves. What is often ignored is that in a market economy it is not just our freedom that enriches us, but the freedom of others as well. In fact, most benefits we receive from expanding freedoms are not from those we take advantage of ourselves, but from those taken advantage of by others. When African Americans -- or anyone else -- take advantage of freedom to get the education, work in the jobs, and start the businesses that do the most to improve their own lives, they are also improving the lives of the rest of us. It's not just additional wealth that we realize from expanding opportunities for minorities, although more wealth is always welcome. But more important, the opportunities we each have to realize our full potential as human beings increase in market economies as the same opportunities are increased for others. We are all diminished, economically as well as morally, when some are denied those opportunities. We may disagree on some of the legislative and policy details that have evolved from the civil rights movement, but we should all agree that King's legacy both enhances and is enhanced by the tremendous benefits we all realize from freedom and markets. Dwight R. Lee is Ramsey Professor of Free Enterprise, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia. Interesting stuff. I guess, then, I'm confused by exactly what you advocate. What exactly is a "free market"? What company or industry do you see as working closest to your ideals? I certainly understand the benefits of free markets -- in some cases. In others, like in the case of WalMart, I see a giant conglomeration creating a monopoly to reduce competition, set prices, and pay low wages. Or like Microsoft, which uses its size and power to create a monopoly apparently used to protect its inferior product. In some cases, the free market seems to create more bureaucracy and ineffeciency than a centralized industry, like with health-care insurance. Many of the countries you identify as having the highest ESI and per-capita income also have socialized medicine... And then there's China... Maybe this clarification about free markets and etcetera should have started the interview, which I guess will now have to be called a "conversation"! Briefly: (1) China is terrified of free markets (2) Very few situation of monopoly exist-you most likely to find them as a result of government protection, e.g., the USPS. Microsoft and Wal-Mart are in the two most competitive market around. They simply can’t “reduce competition, set prices, and pay low wages.” (3) The free market is a process, not a thing. Rather its the result of million of individuals expressing these desires and produces scrambling madly to meet these demands.

American atrocities in Iraq?

2006-03-28T18:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Time Magazine published a chilling story about an alleged massacre of Iraqi civilians in Haditha by US forces in November of 2005. According to Time:

...the details of what happened that morning in Haditha are more disturbing, disputed and horrific than the military initially reported. According to eyewitnesses and local officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks, the civilians who died in Haditha on Nov. 19 were killed not by a roadside bomb but by the Marines themselves, who went on a rampage in the village after the attack, killing 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes, including seven women and three children.

After Time handed over its report to military officials, the military re-investigated the incident.

According to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military's initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents. The military announced last week that the matter has been handed over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), which will conduct a criminal investigation to determine whether the troops broke the laws of war by deliberately targeting civilians.

Still, the administration and the military are still stonewalling:

Lieut. Colonel Michelle Martin-Hing, spokeswoman for the Multi-National Force--Iraq, told TIME the involvement of the NCIS does not mean that a crime occurred. And she says the fault for the civilian deaths lies squarely with the insurgents, who "placed noncombatants in the line of fire as the Marines responded to defend themselves."

I’ll leave you to judge whether shooting unarmed civilians – including women and children – is justified under these conditions. But I say – resoundingly – no. I will say this: even if officials discover the shooting was not justified, they will never admit wrong-doing. Not under this administration. This administration does not admit to mistakes. This administration will not acknowledge that extending the tours of troops, that putting under-trained and –armored personnel in the field, that failing to define a war objective puts troops in a severely compromising position: they must battle fatigue and despair in a war with mysterious causes and no discernable end. And you can bet that Democrats don’t want this massacre to turn out negatively, either. They’re already under the impression that any objection to the war and to the military’s methods is analogous to weakness. They’re terrified of appearing to be “against” our troops. I say military discipline and behavior is an institutional trait. It comes down from the top. And remember, this is the same administration that approved of and encouraged the torture of Iraqi detainees. Do I think the administration and top military officials are encouraging US troops to kill civilians? No. But it should be painfully obvious to anyone by this point is that the Bush administration is interested in only the ideological theory of war in Iraq. I suspect that the administration and Pentagon officials are unconcerned by the day-to-day execution of military operations and by the mundane details associated with morale. I suspect that the command is chaotic, and that the discipline and morale of troops varies by location. Accusations of another massacre over the weekend of Iraqis by US troops have surfaced, this time of worshippers in a mosque. US officials blandly state that the evidence supporting the massacre was faked, but the allegations are causing a rift between the Iraqi and US governments. That the administration is treating the alleged massacre so cavalierly, likely playing to domestic politics, is endangering the “mission” – whatever that happens to be – in Iraq.

Creep: Joel Olinghouse

2006-03-28T13:03:00.000-07:00

Ugh. I don't know why ignorant rants like Hamilton's Olinghouse's bother me. The letter he wrote to the Missoulian is obvious tripe on every level:

"Liberals see the glass half empty "At one time I thought liberals heard with the same kinds of ears that I have and saw with the same kinds of eyes I have. I no longer believe this to be true. "When liberals see George Bush, they see a man with an arrogant swagger. I see a man who walks like one who is focused and has kept his word, a man who is not swayed by polls."

Hm. So unresponsiveness is now a virtue? In other news, black is white. I don't see an "arrogant swagger" when I see Bush. I see an easy stiffness that hints at true uncertainy at his core. It takes courage to 'fess up to mistakes. It takes strong self-reliance to change course. Refusal to admit to wrongdoing or an inability to be influenced by others is a sure sign of uncertainty.

"When liberals see and hear only what the liberal press wants them to, they see an Afghanistan and Iraq mired in a hopelessness brought on by the Bush administration. I see 50 million liberated to freely work and worship as they like. I see thousands of schools and hospitals open for business. I see about a million immunized children."

Where's this liberal press? I want in on it! Um...I guess Olinghouse missed the news bit that a man is going to be put to death in Afghanistan for converting to Christiantity, or that Iraq's government is likely to be dominated by Islamic fundamentalists. Of course, reading all the pesky news articles about Afghanistan or Iraq might actually affect his worldview, and we can't have that. Certainly that's why George Bush doesn't bother following the news, tho' it might have come in handy during Hurricane Katrina.

"Liberals who said that Bush did not 'connect the dots' prior to 9/11, now see a chance to attempt to impeach him for trying to connect the dots through surveillance of suspected enemies."

Um...the problem isn't that he wasn't getting enough info -- the administration had plenty of information available prior to 9/11 to at least go on heightened alert. They just didn't have the manpower or interest to actually parse the information. And why not get warrants? It's not like they're difficult to acquire...unless the NSA is doing something it shouldn't, like data mining. Which would be bad. Very bad.

"When liberals see a mentally or physically challenged child they see someone who should have been aborted. I still am able to see God's handiwork in this child, a child who while still in his mother's womb cried out, 'Take my hand, not my life!'"

I must have missed the liberal newsletter that week when we were instructed to abort handicapped children. Moron.

"This is just too good! As I was trying to figure out how to finish this off, I read Pat Williams' March 21 Missoulian diatribe. Dripping with left-wing elitism, he blamed everyone else for the failure of liberal talk shows. He sees the fact that Rush Limbaugh dropped out of school as a blight. I see a man who worked hard to succeed. Thanks, Williams, you are a gift that just keeps on giving!"

I agree with Williams: Limbaugh's every "rhetorical" flourish cries out for education. But then reason is not what Limbaugh is after. Olinghouse is a complete and utter dud. His letter was an attack, not a discussion. And it's funny how character traits like "honesty," "integrity," "open-mindedness," and "competency" in his world have become the property of "left-wing elites." Hey, I agree!

A conversation with Pete Geddes

2006-03-28T11:55:00.000-07:00

Over the past few days, I've begun an interview with local free-market environmentalist, Pete Geddes. I've read some of his material and was fascinated by his unique take on a lot of issues, like the environment, oil, and market forces. Unfortunately the "interview" morphed into a "conversation," as I butted in with my opinion, challenged some of his statements and made a general ass out of myself. In short, it's a big mess. Well, never one to shirk publishing messes here on "4&20 blackbirds," I thought I'd go ahead and put down our conversation. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. I'll publish parts of the conversation over the next few days. I have no idea how many posts it will consume, so heads up! Today, I'll just post the introduction to the man. But before we begin, I want to thank Pete for his patience. He's been a gracious and willing participant despite my inane blathering. Anyhoo... Pete Geddes Pete Geddes is the executive vice president of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE). He is responsible for developing new programs, planning and supporting FREE’s fundraising efforts, and representing FREE at special events, professional conferences, and through opinion editorials. Prior to joining FREE in 1996, Pete spent five years teaching middle school science and was a member of the senior faculty at the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS). Pete received his bachelor of science from St. Lawrence University and his master of science from the University of Montana School of Forestry where he was awarded a Gloria Barton–Wilderness Society Scholarship. He is co-editor with John Baden of “Saving a Place: Endangered Species in the 21st Century” published by Ashgate Press. He writes regular opinion editorials for the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. His writings have also appeared in the Journal of Forestry, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, The Wall Street Journal, the Seattle Times, and on the Internet at the National Center for Policy Analysis’ Policy Digest, Tech Central Station, the Commons, and A Better World. Pete is a member of the Ecological Society of America and was a member of the executive committee of the Forest Stewardship Council’s Northern Rockies regional working group. He and his wife Julie live in Bozeman, Montana, with their three boys. You can find some of Pete’s papers at FREE’s website.

Links...

2006-03-28T11:44:00.000-07:00

The Brittney sculpture/monument to “pro-life” was so popular with 4&20 readers yesterday, I’m posting it again! In fact, the link got me some new visitors, like the person searching Google for “nude teen.” Ed Kemmick’s hilarious take on President Bush’s “aw shucks” act yesterday when talking to Montana voters. The commenters over in Seattle’s The Stranger blog are debating whether all Montanans are naturally violent, or just the one guy who shot a bunch of people at a Capitol Hill party. White House shakeup about six years too late. Andrew Card resigns. This a cool story about mobilizing for a mass rally: Spanish-language DJs helped get 500,000 L.A. protesters to march against recent House immigration legislature. College student spends 41 hours in a WalMart as an expirament. Of what? (Hat tip to Blogenlust.) Plastic on Club Libby Lu, which hosts parties for little girls, treating them like pop divas, including “slutty catwalk modeling.” The timeline of everything...that happened in movies. Um...these people need to find something better to do with their time.

Baseball! AL predictions...

2006-03-28T10:17:00.000-07:00

Part Two! Yesterday I pleased a couple of baseball supporters, but heard nothing -- NOTHING -- from the teams I 'dissed, like the Braves. Oh, wait! That's because the Braves don't have any fans. Anyhoo...on with the predictions: AL West: The winner: The Oakland A's have got arms, arms, arms. Rich Harden, Danny Haren, and Joe Blanton all did well enough last year, but expect better. Harden is healthy, and Haren and Blanton will have an additional year's experience. Huson Street is a lights-out closer, and Barry Zito and Esteban Loaiza aren't too shabby either. Oh, and the offense is good enough. Barely. Runners-up, but ugly doing it: The LA/Anaheim/California (circle one) Angels have always relied on their bats. The bats are now dry outside of Vladimir Guerrero. Darrin Erstad and Garret Anderson were never that good anyway, and now they're a year older. Chone Figgins, Casey Kotchman and the other young players just don't get it done. And adding Edgardo Alfonzo isn't much help. The pitching will again rely on the bullpen, and don't expect heavyweight Bartolo Colon to repeat last year's success. The Texas Rangers will mash the ball, but their pitching will, as always, dry up and wither come July. Kevin Millwood was a nice addition, but won't come anywhere near his numbers last year in the Rangers' launching pad of a ballpark and in the heat. Think 4.85 ERA. Pickups Adam Eaton and Vicente Padilla couldn't get it done in the pitcher-friendly NL and spacious home parks, so they won't get it done in Texas, either. Ugh: The Seattle Mariners will lose 85 games this year -- at least -- and everybody will be happy about it. Other than Felix Hernandez, Richie Sexon, and Ichiro, nobody's fun to watch on this team. AL Central: Winner: Duh. The Chicago White Sox. How could you not pick them? They won the whole last year then got better in the offseason by dumping Aaron Rowand on the Phils for Jim Thome, and they nabbed Javier Vazquez, who's got nasty stuff -- nasty, nasty stuff -- for the fifth spot in the rotation. Sure the bullpen is iffy, with headcase Bobby Jenks, but this is a strong, solid confident team. Also-rans: The Minnesota Twins will edge out everybody's darlings, the Cleveland Indians. Here's why: Johann Santana and Francisco Liriano. They've also got a great bullpen, and Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, and Jason Bartlett can't do any worse than last year. Their only direction is up. The Indians on the other hand, will falter. Other than Pronk, the vaunted hitters tend to swing and miss a lot. And Grady Sizemore is too good lookin'. The starters don't impress me -- is CC Sabathia finally ready to step up? (God, I hope so, because he's on my fantasy team.) The bullpen is decent, but lacks a good closer. Too many holes. And how often have we seen a team finish strong the year before, get picked the next preseason as the Second Coming, then fall flat on their faces? Meet your 2006 Cleveland Indians. U-G-L-Y: The Detroit Tigers and Kansas City Royals. In Detroit, the Jeremey Bonderman/Nate Robertson rebuilding period is officially a dud. Pudge Rodriguez is done, Maglio Ordonez will never be the same. The only consolation Tigers' fans have is the Royals, who were happy to sign Reggie Sanders and Mark Grudzielanek, and if you're happy signing Sanders and Grudzielanek, you can forget getting a lengthy blurb in my predictions post. AL East: As I mentioned yesterday, I'm a fourth-generation Red Sox fan, so I know waaaaaaay too much about the teams in this division. Prepare to be shocked!!! Winners: The Yankees. This is it. It's over after 2006. Enjoy it Yankee fans. The Bombers will win fewer than 95 games and will again be the most annoying team in baseball. Johnny Damon adds to an already potent offense, but the pitching is in tatters. Randy Johnson and Mike Mussina look old. Carl Pavano and Jared Wright look hurt. If Gary Sheffield and Jason Giambi have quit the juice, expect some offensive falloff. If not...a little controversey this year in NYC? But the bottom line is that Boss Steinbrenner won't be around much longer. There's rumors of poor health. The Yankees will soon be up for sale: expect the chants of "year two-thousand" to continue for some time... The muddled middle: The Red Sox, Blue Jays, and Orioles will slug it out for second place. But each of these teams could win it all. If the Sox' Becket, Schilling, and Keith Foulke pitch at their best, the Sox will cruise. If Toronto's AJ Burnett wins twenty -- watch out! If Leo Mazzone harnasses the talent of Daniel Cabrera and Eric Bedard, they could win the AL East. None of these things will happen, of course. The Red Sox will slug, Beckett will get blisters, and one of Foulke's two gimpy knees will fold like an accordian before the Fourth of July. The Blue Jay's will hit around .280, but with no walks or power, Burnett will win 8, Halliday will return to the DL. The Orioles Cabrera and Bedard will show flashes of brilliance, but the surly infighting and general indifference on this team will sabotage the season. The Devil Rays: The Devil Rays will, as always, finish last.

Baseball! NL predictions...

2006-03-27T18:32:00.000-07:00

It’s almost time for baseball season! I admit, baseball is my favorite sport to follow, mainly because I like napping with a game on the radio. I’m a fourth-generation Red Sox fan, so I’m half-crazy, too. Here are my predictions: NL West The winner: The San Diego Padres will take the division. Mike Cameron makes the difference. In spacious PetCo, he makes Peavy even better. Piazza was a nice acquisition; he’s an improvement over whoever he replaces, either at the plate or at first, now that Klesko looks dinged up. The also-rans: The Dodgers just don’t have the pitching, although Furcal was a nice pickup at short. Garciaparra will get 200 ABs, if he’s lucky. With an excellent farm team, they’re a couple years away. The Giants could win this division if Barry plays 120 games. He won’t. The doping scandal will catch up to him before the year’s out. Otherwise the team is too old and fragile to expect much without Barry. The never rans: Neither the Diamondbacks nor the Rockies are even worth writing about. I will pay little or no attention to these teams. NL East: The winner: Everybody’s picking the Braves because they’ve been burnt by prematurely predicting their end. This year is different. The jig is up. The difference? Leo Mazzone is in Baltimore. That’s why I think the New York Mets will take the division this year. Carlos Beltran is due, David Wright will mash the ball, Carlos Delgado will be...well...Carlos Delgado. After Pedro the rotation is mediocre but will be propped up by a very good bullpen. The bridesmaids: Finally the Braves will collapse and we’ll discover how important Mazzone is to the organization. (Hint: fantasy players should invest in Eric Bedard and Daniel Cabrera.) Plus they’ve got no bullpen, Tim Hudson looks like he’s ready for a major breakdown and after Andru Jones, there’s not much to talk about in the lineup. The never-weres: The Phillies and Nationals will continue their string of mediocrity. The Phils can’t throw the pill, and the Nats don’t have the bats. Put ‘em together, and they might contend. Bringing up the rear: Actually the Marlins might be the most entertaining 110-loss team in the history of baseball. Watch Wunderkinder Miguel Cabrera, Jeremy Hermida, and Dontre Willis electrify fans throughout the summer. NL Central: The winner: Last time I checked, the St. Louis Cardinals still have Chris Carpenter, Mark Mulder, Jason Marquis, and Jeff Suppan rounding out a solid rotation which will allow Pujols, Rolen, and the rest of the gang to slug their way to another 100-win season. Runners-ups: Houston and Milwaukee display why this will be the toughest division in all of baseball. Houston will edge the Brewers unless Ben Sheets is healthy all year, which is why I’m picking the ‘Stros. Looks good on paper, but paper can’t pitch: The Cubs will continue their steady decline thanks to the tender shoulder ligaments of Mssrs. Wood and Prior, although Carlos Zambrano has the stuff to win the Cy Young. The ‘pen sucks and Greg Maddux is older than dirt. Outside of Derrick Lee and Aramis Ramirez, these guys don’t hit enough to carry a one-armed rotation. Looks terrible on paper, but watch out: The Pirates might just be the feel-good story of the league. They’ve got some good, live arms – Zack Duke, Oliver Perez, and Mike Gonzalez – and maybe the best all-around player – Jason Bay – in the game. With Sean Casey and Jeromy Burnitz added to a team that was already scrappy, these guys might surprise the league and win the affection of fans who like guys with dirt on their uniforms. Or they could stink. The little red caboose: Despite good hitting, the Reds pitching is abysmal. That Boston’s Bronson Arroyo was considered a good pickup is a sign of the state of the rotation. (And Arroyo is throwing like a guy with arm problems.)

GOP extremists acting up

2006-03-27T17:30:00.000-07:00

So now there’s a fight within Republican party brewing, and it looks ugly. The latest incarnation is over immigration. In LA, there’s been a surprisingly high turnout of protestors angry over the recently-passed House bill criminalizing illegal immigration. Other protests have dotted the nation. Currently the Senate is considering the legislation. Bush and some moderates are lining up in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Rep. Tom Tancredo and a bunch of other...well...loonies...are on the other. But this fight represents a larger clash between the radical edges of the Republican party and its “moderate” counterpart, over social and fiscal issues. Despite the administration’s wandering into radical foreign policy territory, despite its slashing of federal government and tax-cutting sprees, despite the ur-conservative appointments to SCOTUS, extremists don’t think the mainstream of its party is going far enough. There’s the radical fiscal conservatives attacking the administration Republicans known for profligate spending. In Nevada, for example, Bob Beers is campaigning for governor on the back of his “Tax and Spending Control (TASC)” initiative – Nevada’s version of the infamous Montana “SOS” initiative – against Rep. Jim Gibbons, whose supported Bush on nearly every request for appropriations. Similar battles are shaping up in Colorado, Maine, Montana, and Oklahoma. There’s the extremist “values” camp plowing on with its utopian fundamentalist social policies despite nervous hurrumphing from mainstream conservatives with a disdain for social engineering. South Dakota’s state representative, Bill Napoli, was not only a part of his state’s recent ban of abortion, but he wants to ban birth control, too. The Missouri state legislature passed a series of bills designed to bring back “Christian values” to the state, including a bill to help ease the transition of women back into the home. Apparently these steps aren’t enough for social conservatives, who think the GOP doesn’t go far enough to promote a Christian agenda. Then there’s immigration, which pits Bush, McCain and Ted Kennedy against Tom Tancredo, who believes that immigrants pollute our essential American-ness. Tancredo, an opponent of multi-culturalism, was quoted (no link available) by the “New Republic” as saying:

America is wrestling with an identity crisis. Part of it is a result of what I call the 'cult of multiculturalism.' The idea that there is nothing—nothing—of value in Western civilization, that we have nothing to offer the world, that we have nothing to offer as a viable society, that everything we have is bad and ugly.... If we are truly in a clash of civilizations... which I happen to believe, then it is important for us to understand who we are. What does it mean to be part of Western civilization? Are there inherent values that are worth anyone's allegiance?

If I am to maintain a semblance of good rhetorical skills, I should explain what’s wrong with this quote instead of just letting it speak for itself. But...do I need to? This guy is a nutcase! And that, in a nutshell (heh heh), is the essential clash within the Republican party. Those GOPers in power – the “mainstream” politicians – are feeling some pressure from the extreme wings of the party to get on with a fundamentalist social agenda and fiscal policy that few reasonable Americans agree with. That’s the thing: if you drive to the dance in the girl’s car, she’s going to expect to take you home before the night’s through.

Ballot initiative 152 is anti-democratic

2006-03-27T12:06:00.000-07:00

Ballot 152 is a proposed initiative that would change the rules of eminent domain so that a property owner could receive compensation if the value of the property diminishes because of a government regulation. Does this argument sound familiar? It should! It's the same argument Canyon Resources Corp. used to say it deserved compensation for its property after the ban on cyanide "heap-leach" gold mining was enacted in Montana. So...after the citizens of Montana got together and decided -- in two separate elections -- that heap-leach mining should not be performed inside state borders, the mining company wanted its money for the loss of value on its property. Luckily the SCOTUS thought this a foolish argument and refused to hear Canyon Resources' plea. In effect, if the mining corporation did get its money, it would overturn the ban. The state can't afford to recompensate all businesses for income lost because of regulation. If 152 passes, that would mean an end to state regulations. That means that our representatives and our ballot initiatives would no longer have the power to decide the operational standards for business in our state. Update: It looks like Budge is unequivocably in favor of 152, which doesn't surprise me. Seems like those that favor "free markets" also feel disdain for the electorate. That is, business is a better and truer vehicle for free societies than democracy. I can't help but feel that these neo-libertarians that decry government and big corporations in the same breath take their position largely because it's against everything those on the left and right believe in. In other words, it helps them feel right or honest in a world where all the other positions have been compromised at one time or another. But let's face it. This free-market ideology is about as realistic towards the marketplace as neoconservatism is towards foreign policy. Left unfettered, business prefers to conglomerate and build monopolies that eliminate competetion, so that their profits are predictable and safe even if their products are inferior. In other words, the free market is self-defeating. Government works when used as a check to the power of large corporations. Remember: our forty-hour week and two-weeks vacation (not to mention child-labor laws) were not enacted as a result of market forces, but rather by workers' groups allied with political parties to enact legislation. Maybe I just don't understand what a "free market" is. In any case, initiative 152 would remove one of the few tools Montana's citizens have to decide for themselves how their communities should look and act.

Links...

2006-03-27T10:24:00.000-07:00

You see what I mean about anti-abortionists? Here’s a “Monument to Pro-Life” on display in Brooklyn, New York. It’s a sculpture of a nude Britney Spears giving birth. Attention, women readers: this is how anti-abortionists want you. Does anyone still doubt that Republicans are the party of money? While Bush’s approval rating is in the 30s and Cheney’s in the teens, they still manage to raise millions in funds. I guess somebody likes the job they’re doing. Pogie’s first (and last, we hope) annual “GOP Mouthpiece” contest. Do you have what it takes to ride point for Conrad Burns? Forty-nine percent of New Yorkers believe “some of our leaders knew in advance attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and consciously failed to act.” Forty-nine percent! You think Bush has credibility problems in New York? And why do people have a problem with the Bush administration? Maybe it’s because they value profit over security. No, I’m not rehashing the port-Dubai deal. I’m talking security at chemical plants. Speedkill on Montana’s Constitutional Party. What is it with radical conservatives? Why do they always give their organizations and legislation names opposite than what it actually means? A better name for these people would be “Citizens for American Theocracy.” Or “Wingnuts for War.” Or... NPR is muscling in on Conrad Burns. See its full-length feature on our dipstick Senator and his dirty business. Will the fun never end? Stanislaw Lem died. He’s most well known in this country for having written “Solaris,” the novel that was turned into a mediocre movie. But like many other Soviet-era science fiction writers, his work was actually subversive in a culture where the only fiction that could criticize was heavily cloaked in allegory. Check out his short stories... Flathead man kills six at a Seattle house party. I know this is something the local television news would lead with, but...why? Why did this guy to Seattle with a truckload of guns and ammunition?

Talking point: Bringin' home the pork

2006-03-24T22:02:00.000-07:00

I’ve been thinking a little bit lately about some of the talking points being bandied about in Montana’s Senate race, the hottest race in the state and possibly the nation this year. So now and then I’ll examine what’s being said under a 4&20 microscope... All observations are free; you may steal any ideas found here for the good of Western Civilization. The rhetoric: Conrad Burns has brought $2 billion in federal funds to Montana. With seats on powerful committees that influence where federal funds go, he’s provided for Montana. Our state is among the leaders in return for our tax dollar: we receive far more funds from the federal government than we contribute. Without Conrad Burns, that will change, and Montana will suffer for it. The message: Sure he’s a crook, but he’s only snacking off the crumbs that dropped of Montana’s banquet table, which he provided. The reality: Much of what Burns includes in his amount he claims he brought to Montana is actually money the state’s other and more senior Senator accounted for. Included in Burns’ $2 billion figure is transportation funds -- which Baucus won for the state. Also what Burns doesn’t talk about is the money he’s diverted away from Montana and towards well-paying lobbyists’ clients, like the Michigan Chippewa tribe and Abramoff client for whom Burns won a $3-million grant over needier Montana tribes. Still the reality is that, as a three-term Senator in the party of power and someone who’s known to change his vote for money, he has and will doubt continue to provide pork for the state. However, if a Democrat wrests the seat away from Burns and, in doing so, helps win a majority in the Senate for the Democrats, you can bet your sweet *ss that Montana is going to benefit. As a swing state, as a state providing a blueprint on how to win moderate to moderate-conservative Western voters, a state with a charismatic and exceptionally popular Democratic governor in conservative geography, you can be sure that the Democratic party will put the new junior Senator on some very important committees and continue to provide for the state’s voters. If a Democrat is elected to Senate from Montana, the party will give us a big, fat thank-you kiss. In 1992, Arkansas became the center of political speculation as it provided for the emergence of a new kind of Democrat after the Reagan years. In 2006 and beyond, Montana might very well be the next small state to land on the big stage.

McDonald quits over failed promise; party not likely to accept his resignation

2006-03-24T15:45:00.000-07:00

Chairman of the Montana Democratic Party, Dennis McDonald, announced his resignation Thursday. Why? Because he left four seats unfilled in the upcoming state legislation slate for the 2006 race. He had promised to fill them all.

"When you say you are going to do something, you get it done. I committed myself to filling them all. I didn't quite make it," McDonald said. "I am sorry for Montana families, farmers and ranchers," he said, "but when you commit to roping a calf by two legs, you got to do it."

Of course what McDonald doesn't mention is that getting 96 state House candidates and 25 state Senate candidates was a record for Montana Democrats. Our Montana right-wing bloggers were thrown for a loop, and saw internal conflict and conspiracy at work:

BigSky thinks he quit because the Montana Democrats are out of touch with Montana families, farmers and ranchers and the party has brought in so many folks from back east (mudslingers, hired guns) that Mr. McDonald no longer can stomach it.

I can understand why. That's the way their candidates operate. Republican operatives don't understand that an honest man might offer to take responsibility for his actions and quit over a failed promise. They have been jaded by their own candidates' corruption. They have watched their party flog the state and federal governments for personal gain for so long that they forget what civic duty actually entails. The gossip in Democratic circles is that McDonald quit precisely for the reasons he stated. They also say that Schweitzer and Baucus will insist he stay on the job.

The Missoula Starbucks

2006-03-24T13:25:00.000-07:00

It's rare these days when I agree with a Missoulian editorial -- seems like they're letting their high school intern pen them lately -- but I, er...that is...I...how do I say this? Agree? With the editorial on Starbucks?

It's an encouraging reflection of how well things are going in Missoula these days that little else is causing as much teeth-gnashing among the local intelligentsia than the impending opening of a downtown Starbucks coffee shop. Oh, the horror!

The Missoulian is...er...right. Starbucks started as a little independent coffee shop and is responsible for introducing the country to good coffee. It's big because it's good. It's not barging into the market of cafes, it invented the market. Sure, it's been taken over by a greedy corporate mindset and has spread its tentacles across the nation. But I remember the world before Starbucks, and it wasn't pretty. Watery truckstop coffee. Instant coffee. Lipton Tea, for God's sake! And to be fair to Starbucks, they do respond to criticism. In response to a drive to get the company to sell fair trade coffee, they now offer such coffee at many of their stores. I can't help but, er, agree with this last point, too:

Now a confession: Some of us haven't darkened a Starbucks' door for years. There's no shortage of good coffee to be had in these parts, and most of it is a good deal more conveniently obtained than by traveling to the nearest Starbucks. The opening of its downtown shop won't change that by much. We don't much fear for the survival of our favorite coffee vendors - they're not about to roll over and play dead. They'll compete, some of them fiercely, and most of them will find a way to succeed.

Break Espresso is probably the cafe most threatened by the new Starbucks. But it's just bought the adjacent space and knocked down the seperating wall to make a very kick-*ss cafe, twice as large as before, now with lots of light and tables. And Break patrons are loyal. At least my wife is loyal. I guess my only regret about the new Starbucks is that Missoula doesn't have many chain outlets on the main drag. There's a "Jamba Juice." And the Bon Marche. Or Macy's, whatever it's called nowadays. But that's it. Hopefully the new Starbucks doesn't represent a trend.

Creep: Ethel Fay Jordan

2006-03-24T12:31:00.000-07:00

I seem to reseverve my "creep" awards to Montana homophobes...why is that? Why can't I just let them walk away? Why is the issue obviously so important to me? It's not like I'm affected in any way by discrimination against gays: I'm a middle-aged straight white guy, I'm sitting on top of the power pyramid. What do I care? It just irks me when people go out of their way to put others down, not for what they do or say (like Republicans or letter-writing homophobes), but for who they are. And it double-irks me when they use Christianity -- a religion that, in theory, is all about forgiveness and love, fer chrissake! -- as the basis for discrimination. Enter Billings Gazette writer Ethel Fay Jordan:

Condemning sin according to Bible I read with interest a spine-chilling article in the Saturday, March 11, Gazette, written by the Rev. Erik Thorson, pastor of Bethlehem Lutheran Church in Billings, in which he attempted to redefine and modernize the entire subject of homosexuality. The Christian Bible definitely teaches that we should love the sinner but hate his sin. However, my interpretation of Thorson's manuscript is that according to him, we now in this day should also love the sin -- well if not love and embrace it deeply, then to condone and accept it as an A-OK alternative lifestyle at any rate. But sin is sin -- no matter how you slice it. But the Bible also states that in the last days, "Good shall be termed evil, and evil good," and this situation is Exhibit A of this particular prophecy. I also need to know why there are the six verses in the Bible which Thorson referred to that explicitly condemn same-sexual activity, if indeed homosexuality is not a sin and a problem? In that case, just why are these six verses contained in the Bible in the first place? Meanwhile, may God forgive us again, and also in the meantime, I shall attempt to redeem the time by speaking out and taking a stand against such evils as homosexuality with whatever time, strength and will I may have remaining.

I admit Ethel's letter lacks the usual vitriol found in your standard anti-gay outcry. I picture some old nanny in a rocking chair shaking her cane at the people walking by her front porch. So maybe she's not a "creep," per se. Maybe "misguided." Or "delusional." Here's the thing: maybe the Bible contains six versions railing against hot man-on-man action. I don't know 'em off hand. But it seems that these six verses get a disproportionate amount of attention over the, oh, dozens...hundreds?...of passages on charity, class injustice, the redistribution of wealth, etc. Take Nehemiah's passionate outburst against landlords, the system of credit, and usury (Nehemiah 5:3-13):

For there were those who said, "We, our sons and our daughters are many; therefore let us get grain that we may eat and live." There were others who said, "We are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards and our houses that we might get grain because of the famine." Also there were those who said, "We have borrowed money for the king's tax on our fields and our vineyards. "Now our flesh is like the flesh of our brothers, our children like their children Yet behold, we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters are forced into bondage already, and we are helpless because our fields and vineyards belong to others." Then I was very angry when I had heard their outcry and these words. I consulted with myself and contended with the nobles and the rulers and said to them, "You are exacting usury, each from his brother!" Therefore, I held a great assembly against them. I said to them, "We according to our ability have redeemed our Jewish brothers who were sold to the nations; now would you even sell your brothers that they may be sold to us?" Then they were silent and could not find a word to say. Again I said, "The thing which you are doing is not good; should you not walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the nations, our enemies? "And likewise I, my brothers and my servants are lending them money and grain. Please, let us leave off this usury. "Please, give back to them this very day their fields, their vineyards, their olive groves and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money and of the grain, the new wine and the oil that you are exacting from them." Then they said, "We will give it back and will require nothing from them; we will do exactly as you say " So I called the priests and took an oath from them that they would do according to this promise. I also shook out the front of my garment and said, "Thus may God shake out every man from his house and from his possessions who does not fulfill this promise; even thus may he be shaken out and emptied " And all the assembly said, "Amen!" And they praised the LORD. Then the people did according to this promise.

So...where's the outcry about landlords, credit, and usury from contemporary Christians? How many are storming MasterCard/Visa's offices and tearing down their walls? Heck, how many Christians have credit cards? To me, the Bible is a radical book because it establishes the value of a human above anything -- money, possessions, and property, especially. That modern Christians chase around gays, evolution, and abortion, which have little or no presence in scripture, seems like maybe someone's trying to distract the faithful from what the Bible really says.

Links...

2006-03-24T10:14:00.000-07:00

Coach K will eat your child. Are all the Bush brothers a pack of corrupt incompetents? (Be sure to check out the video of Pierce Bush, the president’s nephew, who manages to make his uncle look like a genius.) South Park kills off “Chef.” Take that, Scientology! It’s official: airport security sucks. So why do we have to knuckle under an arbitrary, time-consuming process while the president gets to break whatever inconvenient law he sees? New York state Attorney General candidate, Sean Maloney, is campaigning on a platform to challenge Dinky’s warrantless wiretapping of New York citizens. Online RPG, “Roma Victor,” crucifies players who exhibit bad game behavior. Weird. Yet compelling... IMAX censors the word “evolution” from its movies. In a recent poll, Americans are shown to prefer Muslims to atheists. South Dakotans: take back your uterus! Even Krauthammer thinks it’s a civil war in Iraq.

Thoughts on "Burns Burden"

2006-03-23T16:09:00.000-07:00

The Missoula Independent is featuring its cover story on the Burns-Abramoff scandal. There's little new in the article, but it's a nice summary of the maze of allegations and in-state hubbub generated by Conrad's close association with "Casino" Jack. If you feel like re-immersing yourself in the dreck that is Conrad Burns, check it out. Here are some gems:

Last spring, when stories about Burns’ Abramoff connections began gaining traction, state Republican Party Executive Director Chuck Denowh predicted, “this whole thing is going to roll over relatively quickly.” “It’s a pretty short-lived story,” Denowh said then. Since then, Burns’ Abramoff dealings have been continually and widely reported in the national and state media, and according to Roll Call, the U.S. Justice Department is investigating his involvement with Abramoff.

Heh heh. Nice call, Denowh! That's one interesting thing about the Abramoff affair: the GOP spin has been relentless...and completely ineffective. In fact, the rhetoric from Burns mouthpiece, Jason Klindt, has been so grotesque and divorced from reality, it might actually classify as comedy. Blog-pal David Sirota gets in a good theory for the story (and a pic!) that might explain why Republican messages falter:

“The most dangerous scandals are the ones that confirm the suspicions the public already had,” says Helena author David Sirota...“People already suspected that Conrad Burns is a little bit of a shady character…now what we’re seeing is a full-blown scandal that simply confirms those suspicions.”

An interesting point the story makes is that the reason Democrats can be so aggressive in attacking Burns and keeping the story focused on Abramoff, and were able to start doing so nearly 14 months before the election, is that Montana, as a small state, is inexpensive for TV ads. And Montana's size allows almost everybody who participates in the election this year to have a substantial role, whether they blog, do grassroots work for a candidate, or contribute financially to a race. And, of course, this is an important race, not just for Montana, but for the United State, democracy, war, and peace:

“The stakes are high for Montana and for the country in this U.S. Senate race,” says the Dems’ [Jim] Farrell. “There are many scenarios this year under which the outcome of the race in Montana will determine [which party] controls the U.S. Senate next year. That’s big stuff for the country and certainly for Montana.”

There's already a lot of national attention on the Montana race, and as the summer winds down, the scrutiny will intensify. Wheee!

Um, Mr. Governor?

2006-03-23T12:58:00.000-07:00

I do think Schweizter's success here in Montana can be used as a blueprint for winning back the Rocky Mountain states to the Democrats, but I'm not crazy about the governor's recent comments about how to do that:

"In fifth grade, we didn't choose the smartest kid or the most handsome kid. We chose the most likeable. The Republicans have figured that out. We need good ideas and present them in a way that people will believe. We haven't done that."

Um, Mr. Governor? Look what that thinking got us...

Links...

2006-03-23T11:09:00.000-07:00

Scientists’ test results finally likely to get old white male politicians interested in global warming. Gerik found a cool color-coded map representing Bush’s approval rating over the last year. Watch the country go from pink (favorable rating) to blue (unfavorable rating)! Warning: gazing at the map may be addictive. Runner-up “hero”: the Billings Gazette for speaking out against the war. But then I realized it’s kind of pathetic to reward somebody for realizing now what was obvious 3 years ago. Another runner-up “hero”: South Dakota tribal leader, Cecilia Fire Thunder, vows to open an abortion clinic on tribal lands. She’s runner-up mainly because I already posted today’s Hero. Joe Lieberman is cracking up! BTW, he blames bloggers. Yay, us! News of the weird: an American set off two bombs in Bolivia. You think I was harsh on Bush? Check this out: “A vicious, core-less, rudderless dry-drunk who simply cannot function in power without acres of cotton-batting yes-men and reality-dampers to giving him a nice, fat, soft cushion against The Real.” Russ Feingold rocks the house on The Daily Show. Digby, as always, nails it. Feingold’s censure movement was a good thing to do. Democrats need to be agressive.

Hero: The Rev. Tim Meyer

2006-03-23T10:11:00.000-07:00

Today’s hero is a Billings minister who speaks out against Christian prejudice.

No need to be bigoted against gay Christians In response to the Rev. Johnson's Sunday letter, all Holy Scripture is an inspired sound (Genesis 1:3). But when it comes to Biblical interpretation, few if any this side of eternity hear with perfect pitch. While both Hebrew and Christian canons have similarities, their tone and emphases are strikingly and wonderfully different. Johnson seems to believe that the Hebrew writings exist to harmonize with his own tonal preferences. That alone is a sizable error, requiring serious reconsideration. When love of one's neighbor is of equal importance to love of one's God, there is no quarter for the kinds of bigotry being expressed against our faithful gay sisters and brothers. The ones I know are deeply committed individuals who, by personal observation, serve their communities with passion and their God devoutly. Let those who have perfect Biblical pitch be the first to condemn them.

Tolerance stems from empathy, not sympathy. The difference between those words is clearer in German. In German, “empathy” is Mitgefuehl, or “feeling with” someone. “Sympathy” is Verstaendnis, or “understanding.” Empathy, then, is the ability to live in someone’s skin, to experience harmony in feeling and spirit with another. Sympathy is intellectual. You understand someone’s position, but from the outside. Tolerating gays means feeling compassion for their humanity. It means realizing that they’re people, like you and me. It means recognizing the personal harm done by the institutionalized hatred set against them. To be intolerant of outsiders seems to be the antithesis of the spirit of Christ. To me, empathy is Christ’s essential core, it’s what makes him unique in the Bible. His empathy for the outcast, for the outsider is what sets him apart. He challenges institutions that create the insider/outsider dichotomy and urges empathy for the downtrodden. That the Reverend Meyer used hearing as an allegory for tolerance and empathy seems extraordinarily appropriate. Empathy arises out of awareness. You have to see, you have to listen, you have to feel your surroundings in order to experience empathy. But there’s a limitation on awareness. No mortal has “perfect pitch,” as the reverend says. And that’s where it gets tricky. We’ve got to remain flexible of mind and change our views when we realize we’re wrong. Or something. Anyways, kudos to Reverend Meyer for his courageous acceptance of gays in the face of conservative Christian outcry. It tells me that the reverend's heart is open and loving and not filled with hate and fear.

On alcoholism, privilege, and George W Bush

2006-03-22T14:06:00.000-07:00

Today Dave Budge called me out for referring to Bush as a "drunk" in my post deliberating on his position in history:

But I have a question for Touchstone - do you have any f[*]cking clue what it’s like for an alcoholic to stop drinking? I do. If there is anything I give George Bush credit for is the fact that he did stop and judgmental schmucks that haven’t done it have no goddamn currency in the discussion. I’ll also note a couple of other points of fact: A) there is no proof that Bush was ever an alcoholic but that we know he quit drinking and B) if he was an alcoholic he’s still an alcoholic but in recovery. So until I hear “My name is Touchstone and Im an alcoholic” I’m going to call you “The Judgmental Touchstone.” Like I said, I’ve got no issues with people saying that they are dissatisfied on whatever level with George Bush. But I think this pathology where anything that might be OK for someone else is a negative only for Bush is rank hypocrisy.

Er...Budge is right – in his last remark. (H*ll, do you think I’d agree I was completely wrong? This is a blog!) I admit that I (a) used Bush’s alcoholism and probable addiction to drugs as a means to slur his character, and (b) failed to show how his alcoholism contributes to his competency – or lack thereof – in his current job. I hereby apologize to all recovering alcoholics out there reading this blog. As someone who isn’t alcoholic (albeit with plenty of alcoholic history in the family) I realize I can’t speak as an alcoholic, I don’t know what it’s like to be an alcoholic, and I’m probably not very sympathetic to alcoholics in general. (See the note about alcoholics in the family.) That said, I imagine alcoholism manifests itself differently in different people. Some of the recovering have no problem with living their daily lives, others do. Some react to stress positively, others may not. Still, I can’t imagine that an addiction to a drug like alcohol leaves the addicted unaltered in some fundamental way. How does this relate to Bush? Enter the theory of the “dry drunk.”

Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.

This is old hat, maybe even a stretch, but it is definitely true that the current president suffers from rigidity of mind, overblown self-importance, impatience, childish behavior, etc & co – the traits of a dry drunk. Is it right to condemn Bush for being a recovering alcoholic? No. Is it right to condemn Bush for having the mindset of a particular alcoholic? Certainly it’s fair to criticize a politician’s personality, especially if it interferes with his job and our safety, and probably fair to note that this personality is related to his history with alcohol and drugs. To answer Budge’s rhetorical question about Ted Kennedy...I’m not sure if I would want him in the White House, either. And, yes, I suspect his drinking and other “proclivities” would interfere with his duties as president. And then there’s the privilege thing. Budge:

Who else came from privilege? Let’s name some: Kennedy, FDR, Washington, Jefferson and Wilson to name a few. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that Touchstone voted for the privileged John Kerry. So I wonder what his penchant is for bringing this up.

Again, I used this to slander to Bush’s character without making any further comments. Of course not all politicians born to privilege (most of them, now) are necessarily incompetent or unsympathetic. However, I would argue that inherited privilege does confer challenges to its recipients. For example, how can the nation’s leader understand the worries and needs of the majority of his constituents if he’s never worried about his mortgage payments, never lived from month-to-month, never struggled to make a living? In my post I assumed my audience was familiar with the negative qualities associated with Bush that are directly related to his privileged background. I assumed my readers knew that Bush never earned with merit his schooling, his money, his jobs, and his career, and that he failed at every level of his life. Yet he shows no empathy or humility in his person or policies. He seems to have no emotional connection to the people outside his economic class, which manifests itself in his disinterest in low-income university students, pensioners, the Katrina victims, Iraqi war casualties, etc and co. So while not all alcoholics and inheritors of privilege are incompetent, alcoholism and privilege can contribute to the unfitness of a person in power. Update: Wulfgar! addresses the privilege issue in Budge's comments much better than I ever could:

I’ve little to say about the dry-drunk part, except that niether care that Bush drank, nor that he currently doesn’t. The drugs, on the other hand, and the way that his past with them and alcohol has been covered up, shunted to the side by angry cries of “character assasination”, and Bush’s own dismissal of his past as a strength speak clearly to his mindset as a “child of privilege”. Rose Kennedy was a hard old bat, but she taught her boys well, that with privilage comes service and responsibility. Kerry proved his worth in Vietnam. Lie all they want, the swift-boaters can’t argue that Kerry used privilege to keep himself out of harms way. Using the phrase “child of privilege” as an insult may cut too broad a swath for your tastes, but it is open to value judgements, when the privilege is used in innapropriate ways. Your examples, Dave, have used privilege in public service. Since his boyhood, GW has used privelege to cover his own ass from one phenominal failure to the next. It’s a consistent pattern with his life, one that shocks me blind that so few people were willing to acknowledge the fact, and they foisted him to a position of power he didn’t deserve … because he was a child of privilege. I don’t think touchstone was out of line with that wisecrack at all.

Montana Republicans like bullies

2006-03-22T13:17:00.001-07:00

Friday, Montana’s Board of Education decided to require anti-bullying policies in all of the state’s school districts. As the Missoulian notes, the policy is needed largely as protection from liability if a student is injured or inflicts injuries as a result of bullying. Make a state policy to forbid bullying a no-brainer, right? Who would oppose such a thing? For starters, the state’s Republican legislators. Why? Because there’s some mighty disagreeable language in the policy, that’s why!

One of those features says the policy should “acknowledge that victims of (bullying) are often targeted because their perceived vulnerabilities,” which can include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”...

According to the Billings-Gazette, conservatives dislike the language because they’re afraid it will promote gay rights.

The issue of sexual orientation has been a hot-button element of the school bullying debate, as opponents argued that a bullying policy could be used to advance homosexual rights and causes. Harris Himes, pastor at the Big Sky Christian Center in Hamilton, predicted Friday that the policies would "give fodder to the American Civil Liberties Union" or others to "promote gay causes."

So...what does this say to Montana’s gay teens? It sure looks like Republicans are advocating bullying gays, doesn’t it? When I was a kid, using homophobic slurs against the weak or different was a valued weapon in the arsenal of a bully. That there were no openly gay students in my high school was no surprise: the threat of violence always lurked behind the insults. But that was the 1980s. Shouldn’t we be beyond that? Shouldn’t gay students have the right to go to school without fear of being beaten? If the morality police of the state have their way, Montana bullies could still be used to enforce conservative social standards. But then, bullying has always been an important tactic of the GOP.

Links...

2006-03-22T12:10:00.000-07:00

Tired of hearing only South Park’s view of the Scientologists’ universe? Check out the “Children’s Scientology Pagaent.” Intelligent Discontent is keeping up with the Senate race so I don’t have to: (1) Burns goon, Jason Klindt’s reaction to Bob Keenan filing for Burns’ seat. (2) Wingnuts against Burns. (3) And the latest gossip about Burns and the possibility of him dropping out... Meanwhile there’s a House race on and Wulfgar! really likes the Democratic candidate, Monica Lindeen. Blogenlust notes the new trend of newspapers hiring inexperienced right-wing bloggers to balance “liberal” views. Apparently facts are now “liberal.” Like the fact that things in Iraq are actually worse than they appear. Which didn’t stop Bush from lying about the reason he invaded Iraq or whipping his straw men. More on the WaPo’s new wingnut blogger: Digby notes his daddy works for the White House. The Daily Kos has a stunning indictment of the wingnut and a link where you can register your disgust. The IRS considers a regulation to allow accountants and other tax-return workers to sell your tax returns to “marketers and data brokers.” Just when you thought the GOP couldn’t get any worse... I hate to appear to be a left-wing elitist snob, but ugh! Look at the crap “Duke” Cunningham bought with his bribe money! BoingBoing reports on a law regarding obscenity and the Internet: “Online sexual materials is obscene if any community in US objects.” This law could probably affect more than porn: think information about contraceptives or STDs, not to mention art and literature. Last, but not least, the video “Apocalypse Pooh.”

The Worst President

2006-03-21T21:15:00.000-07:00

It's stunning that Bush is on a campaign to promote the Iraq war. He's like a 300-pound man promoting a diet. In a recent poll, two top words Americans chose to describe him were "incompetent" and "untrustworthy," and this tour is doing nothing to change their minds. Is Karl Rove in a coma? What genius decided to let the buffoon out of his cage? Comically enough, as Bush claims the US will remain in Iraq for at least three more years, members of Congress quietly conspire to formulate a new plan for the war. Republicans need a more realistic policy than Bush’s if they want to survive the upcoming midterms. Heck, Congressional Republicans might even be genuinely concerned about Bush’s competence. So as we watch this former alcoholic and child of privilege talk up the “successes” of the Iraq disaster, the blogosphere oddly finds nothing of substance in his speeches to discuss. Instead, they look to place him in history. The debate is simple. Is he the worst president of all time? Or merely the worst president of our lifetime? Joshua Mica Marshall has a lovely post up comparing Bush to Reagan. Conservatives would have us believe -- as demonstrated by their posturing at his funeral -- that Reagan was the best president, ever. The facts say otherwise: the 1980s economy stuttered, he dumped thousands of the mentally ill onto the streets, the deficit grew rapidly, and his administration was riddled with scandal. Oh yeah, he lost his mind midway through his second term. His greatest accomplishment -- cracking the Soviet Union -- he helped bring about in spite of contemporary conservative policies by offering rapprochement and peace instead of isolation and perpetual war. Anyway. TPM:

Reagan had the ability, simply, to change his mind. You might say it’s the ability to allow the facts to overcome your mind or as our secular saint, President Lincoln, put it, far more eloquently, the ability to “disenthrall ourselves.” And that is the ability the current occupant of the White House entirely lacks -- a fact which is on display now as he again crosses the country arguing that black is white and up is down. President Bush represents something different from the normal sloshing back and forth between liberalism and conservatism. He’s a radical. He’s set on a destructive course, laced with corruption and fed by extremism. And he mistakenly believes that stubbornness and ignorance constitute a virtue he calls “leadership.” I don’t think there’s much question that President Bush is the most conservative president in modern American history. But the issue is not his conservatism; it’s his radicalism and destructiveness, his willingness to wreck the state. “Worst ever” covers a lot of ground. But I think there’s a good argument to be made that his is.

Ditto what he said. Until now US Grant was generally seen as the worst president in US history. He, too, like Bush was an alcoholic. His administration, too, like Bush’s, was riddled by corruption. Only Grant was a real soldier, and a brilliant general at that. (His Vicksburg campaign, in brilliance and nerve, equaled or surpassed any of those of his Southern counterparts, including Lee or Jackson.) And his memoirs, written as he died of throat cancer, are remarkably lucid and well-written -- so it’s obvious he was capable of intellectual achievements. Not this new guy. Or at least his public statements give no hint of such a quality. In fact, I can’t think of one positive achievement that Bush has done for this country. Not one. Seriously. Can anyone think of anything positive that Bush has done since taking office? And still 30-odd percent of the population thinks he’s doing a bang-up job...

We're in Iraq for the long haul

2006-03-21T12:51:00.000-07:00

Today Bush held a press conference in which he was asked about the Iraq War:

Bush, struggling to rebound from low job approval ratings that he blamed largely on the war, was asked at a news conference if there would come a time when no U.S. troops are in Iraq. "That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq," said Bush, who will be president until January 2009.

It looks like we'll have troops in Iraq until 2009 at the very least. But, see, permanent bases in Iraq was part of the neocon plan. The theory goes that a strong US military presence in Iraq would encourage democracy to flourish. It also means we don't have to rely on Saudi Arabia for bases. Plus there's lots of oil in Iraq. Still it's amazing to see the president refuse to back down from his obviously failed foreign policy. Average Americans can tell Iraq is a no-win situation, but the president can't. But perhaps the president's obdurate refusal to acknowledge his own mistakes will lead to good. As his approval ratings plummet because of the war (and a myriad of other gaffes), Bush's refusal to withdraw US troops from Iraq might lead to Democrat victories at the 2006 mid-term elections. Then we can begin to foster democracy in the United State.

Links...

2006-03-21T11:41:00.000-07:00

Homeland security agents pose as Fox News journalists. Not a bad idea. In fact, Fox News should skip the middleman and have the government write their stories for them Let’s make it official! Let’s start calling right-wing Christian fundamentalists the “Ameri-ban” and watch Dave Budge’s panties twist! Crooks and Liars has posted the 60 Minutes segment on the government’s attempt to suppress evidence of global warming. Hm. I wonder if I write “DCIDC.CIFA.MIL” in my blog, I’ll get a visit from the CIA, too? I’ll keep you posted. Oooo, the South Park plot thickens! Was Isaac Hayes’ departure from the show the result of a Scientologist plot? The Existentialist Cowboy weighs in how the right wing has “screwed up our language.” Donald Rumsfield is bothered by democracy.

Hero: Katie Kane

2006-03-21T10:23:00.000-07:00

Yesterday about 300 people protested the war on the University of Montana campus. One of the speakers was UM English professor Katie Kane:

Katie Kane...used her invitation to speak to invoke the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. and his speech, “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.” Her impassioned delivery received an equally impassioned response from the audience. “The war in Iraq is wrong, it betrays the promise of America when it tortures innocent and guilty alike, when it turns our citizen-soldiers into torturers,” Kane said. “The war in Iraq is wrong, it betrays the notion of America when it means that there is no money or will to help the homeless people of New Orleans, Louisiana and Mississippi. “The war in Iraq is wrong, it overturns the promise of America when it wiretaps Americans and plays fast and loose with our civil rights.” It is wrong, she said, when “it pollutes and corrupts the dream of America, when it kills some 37,000 Iraqi citizens, when it burns and breaks and wounds the bodies of children, when it takes the lives of over 2,400 American women and men, and wounds and maims thousands more.”

Getting up and speaking at an on-campus political rally is risky business in today's academic environment where right-wing students and ideologues conspire to drive liberalism -- and free thought -- out of academia. I taught composition at UM and was constantly made aware that students who objected to my politics might register a complaint if I brought up controversial topics in class. I know Katie Kane: she is a fearless critic of institutionalized thinking and a firecracker. And she's kick-*ss. So if you're a student at UM drop by her office in the Liberal Arts building and flash her the peace sign or give her the thumbs up. Let her know she did the right thing.

Links...

2006-03-20T13:10:00.000-07:00

Blogenlust on “Operation Bullsh—, ” oops! I mean “Swamer.” Michigan requires that any woman who wants an abortion must have an ultrasound and be given an image of the fetus. Whiny children grow up to be conservative. Do we need any more reason why we shouldn’t let conservatives adopt? Digby, as usual, nails it: First he thinks the Iraqi invasion has weakened our national security. And then he agrees with Kristol, who said, “You don't get into politics only to play at issues where you already have public opinion on your side.” YouTube has the banned South Park Scientology episode up and running. Take a look and report back! An Ohio university bomb scare was sparked by a band’s promotional sticker that read “This bike is a pipe bomb.” University authorities are charging the owner with “inciting panic.” BoingBoing’s update on the Subgenius child custody case. (Blood...boiling...must...not...smash...) Puff Daddy, er, P-Diddy, er Sean Puffy Combs, er Sean Diddy Combs releases a new fragrance: “Unforgivable.” I do not want to smell this.

"T is for Terrorism" -- or "Treason"?

2006-03-20T11:34:00.000-07:00

In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. --George Orwell, “Politics and English Language”

Curious about the just-released flick, “V is for Vendetta,” I read a couple reviews. And I saw something in them that just doesn’t sit right. Here’s the lead from The New Yorker review written by David Denby (emphasis mine):

V for Vendetta,” a dunderheaded pop fantasia that celebrates terrorism and destruction, is perhaps the ultimate example of how a project with modest origins becomes a media monster.

NPR’s Bob Mondello:

A graphic-novel-based fantasy that cribs plot points and visuals from multiple sources. It mistakes terrorism for revolution and allows the Wachowski Brothers to climb about halfway back out of the hole they dug for themselves in the last two Matrix movies.

It’s this repeated message that the movie glorifies or promotes terrorism that irks me. Why? Isn’t the movie a violent political revenge fantasy? Isn’t “V” blowing sh*t up, killing people in response to a political situation? Isn’t it “terrorism”? Yeah, but... “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible,” wrote George Orwell in his 1946 essay, “Politics and English Language,” whose words resonate with equal force today. We’re all familiar with how the Bush administration has abused language in order to justify its policies. Phrases like “collateral damage,” “insurgency,” and “bunker buster” are examples of the type of euphemisms Orwell mentions government uses to soften otherwise heinous policy. But more interesting – to me, anyway – is the concept of Orwell’s “meaningless” words, words that have been used so much and given so many different meanings that they have lost their meanings.

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

One example of a word rendered meaningless by the current US government is “torture.” Thanks in part to current Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez’ now infamous “torture memo,” which redefined torture in legal terms favorable to the administration’s interrogation techniques, government officials could stare blankly into a camera and claim they were not using “torture” at the same time US prisoners were being water-boarded, kept awake for forty hours at a time, isolated, beaten, maimed, threatened with rape, given electric shocks, etc. “Torture” is now meaningless. And then there’s “terrorism.” “Terrorism” is used incessantly by the administration and its ideological supporters to conjure fear, to subdue popular opinion while pursuing legally questionable policy. We’re invading Iraq? Yes, to fight “terror” there so we won’t have to fight it here. The NSA is conducting domestic wiretapping? Yes, to combat “terrorists.” We’re torturing prisoners? No, we’re torturing “terrorists.” In this usage, “terror” is a substitute for abstract and indefinable words that evoke negative emotion – like “evil” (another favorite of Bush’s). Don’t like somebody? Call her a “terrorist,” and there’s no defending her. If dumbing down the word “terrorism” wasn’t enough for the administration, they also set out to redefine the word to include just about any anti-government activity. Here’s how the Patriot Act defines “domestic terrorism” (section 802):

...the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that...involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; ...and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

Under this definition, MLK’s non-violent protests against racial segregation would be considered acts of “terror.” Any gathering of a crowd could be seen as “dangerous to human life,” especially if the police trundles out the riot gear and disperses the crowd. (Ironic, isn’t it, that the authorities’ reaction to a protest is what most often creates danger.) We may not always agree with a group’s methods of protest – I’m thinking of PETA or Earth First – but few of us consider those groups “terrorist” organizations. Right now, anyway. By expanding the meaning of “terror,” by using it as a substitute for “evil,” the administration has made the word amorphous, pliable, ready to shape it for whatever purpose it wants. Enter “The War on Terror.” Which means that the administration can dictate what it’s fighting, can change its “war” goals at any time, and can effectively pursue its Quixotic ambitions in perpetuity. Orwell:

As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.

“Terrorism” has become one of Orwell’s prefabricated parts of the administration’s henhouse. Which brings me back to “V is for Vendetta.” By saying, like David Denby, that the movie “celebrates” terrorism, or, like Mondello, that the movie “mistakes terrorism for revolution,” the critics are claiming – probably unconsciously – that watching the movie is an act of treason. That to even fantasize about responding violently to a political situation is treasonous. But I think discussing or contemplating violence against authority is perfectly legitimate. When is it, for example, okay to respond with action to a government? Most Americans feel that the French resistance in WWII was not only legitimate, but heroic. Most Americans glorify “The Sons of Liberty” and other like-minded domestic terrorist organizations. There’s a general bewilderment that European Jews didn’t respond violently to Nazi oppression in the 1930s and 1940s. We liked “Munich” and “Lethal Weapon” and didn’t consider those movies treasonous. Is terrorism ever acceptable? You know, I’m a little nervous even writing those words. And to me that’s what’s wrong. Update: Thanks to Gerik for pointing out that "V for Vendetta" is fostering debate on violence in politics over in the comments of a piece on the Huffington Post.

South Park vs. Scientology

2006-03-17T16:12:00.000-07:00

Earlier it was reported that Tom Cruise successfully blocked the airing of South Park's Scientology episode. Well, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, creators of the animated cartoon show, have responded:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for Earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!! -- Trey Parker and Matt Stone, servants of the dark lord Xenu

You can guess who I'm pulling for in this one.

This American Life: "Habeus Schmabeus"

2006-03-17T13:35:00.000-07:00

If you haven't listened to the show, "Habeus Schmabeus," run -- don't walk -- over to This American Life and give it a listen. Ira Glass and the gang do their usual outstanding job of putting human faces to big stories. And this story is big. The program is about the detention of terrorist "suspects" at Guantamano Bay. What's apparent, as the show unfolds with interviews with detainees' lawyers and former detainees, is that the Bush administration has made a terrible mistake: many -- maybe most -- detained at Guantamano are not terrorists. Because the administration has suspended or ignores the right of "habeus corpus" -- the right for the accused to confront the accuser before an impartial judge -- these men have no legal recourse to plead their case. And the administration is breaking the law by denying them this basic right, this foundation of Western law. Give it a listen.

Links...

2006-03-17T10:43:00.000-07:00

Warning: Reading today's links is guaranteed to make you angry. Several times over. Crooks & Liars has video of Jon Stewart catching the president in a blantant lie trying to drum up action against Iran. New West – Missoula has the latest on UM Space Center investigation. You may want to sit down for this bit of shocking news: Burns, Rehberg involved. A great first-hand account of reporting in Baghdad soon to be published in The New York Review of Books. Seven-year-old girl “unofficially” banned from reading her poetry in her school district because its black militant message is deemed “a little too aggressive for what the middle-school kids are ready to handle.” Is it like Bush to appoint someone with a long history of environmental degradation as the Secretary of the Interior? Hell, yeah! And Wonkette gives us a pic of Kempthorne with Spuddy Buddy. Heck, naming Kempthorne Sec’y of the Interior is like appointing a union-busting management lackey to a high-ranking OSHA position. Philip K Dick’s “Minority Report”: New York City cops recognize a good idea when they see it. Meet the Orwellian term, “proactive arrests”. Tom Cruise pressures Comedy Central to cancel South Park’s scientology episode. (Parker/Stone as 4&20 heroes?)

Montana win may be Montana's loss

2006-03-16T18:01:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting story in this week's Missoula Independent about Montana men's basketball coach, Larry Krystkowiak.

Be careful what you wish for, Griz fans. The men’s basketball team won the Big Sky tournament for the second consecutive season, and that sort of success has national pundits speculating on the prospect of head coach Larry Krystkowiak leaving for a larger program.

Krystkowiak has done a fantastic job with Montana basketball. He inherited the program from former coach Pat Kennedy, who produced a series lackluster teams that rarely played team ball. Under Kennedy, Montana went from periennial Big Sky contenders to ball-hogging also-rans. It tok Krystkowiak about half a season to put his stamp on the team. He's managed to win with Kennedy's players, like thug Mat Dlouhy and erratic Kevin Criswell. And, as the school's all-time leading scorer, Krystkowiak's already had the fans' support. But now that Montana has upset its first-round opponent in college hoops' biggest event, Krystkowiak's reputation will only grow.

“Give him one more good year,” says [Fox radio analyst] Sean Farnham, “and I think he’ll be swept up."

Montana wins!

2006-03-16T16:08:00.000-07:00

Montana 87, Nevada 79! Yahoo's Dan Wetzel is blogging semi-live from the tournament. Here are his comments about the Montana game:

Valued reader Samuel Moreau checked in and offered this about my column this morning about a bar in Montana and the NCAA tournament: Your article about the M&M in Butte totally made me homesick. I grew up in Montana and spent a number of drunken nights in the M&M during college. Nice work. You captured it perfectly. Go Griz! Considering the University of Montana is almost a two-hour drive from the M&M, you have to respect a college kid willing to travel to drink there. [snip] Nevada–Montana is coming up next, a round of drinks on Grizzly Adams at the M&M. Montana is a 12-seed, Nevada is a five. But even if Montana wins, it will hardly seem like an upset. Nevada deserves its seed and all, they are a tough team, but a five-seed should always be one of those bumbling SEC or Big Twelve teams, not another mid-major... [snip] By the way, I was not celebrating drinking and driving when I said I respected the guy who went to college in Montana for driving two hours to go to a bar. I assume he stayed in Butte that night. [snip] The M&M has got to be rocking out there in Butte. Montana 23, Nevada 14. Who knows if it keeps up, but a couple of those Grizzly power forwards look like they could fell a tree with one swing. I didn't think they deserved a 12-seed but maybe they'll prove they earned it. [snip] Meanwhile, Montana is carrying a 40-33 lead into the half and if they could ever figure out how to stop Nevada's Kemp, who has 17 of his team's first 31 points, they'd be fine. Montana was just physically tougher than Nevada in the first half. [snip] At the Nevada–Montana game someone held up the following sign: "Grizzly 1,300 pounds, Wolf 70 pounds. No contest." Someone spent time writing that out? And then carrying into a stadium? And someone at CBS decided to show it? [snip] Meanwhile Montana is holding off Nevada but it is getting close, 66-60. Something tells me the Wolfpack are going to pull this out … [snip] Montana, meanwhile, is proving my short panic attack wrong. They are about to finish off Nevada and set off a strong night of partying at the M&M, not to mention Missoula. Since the place doesn't close, we are hoping everyone will be ready for the second round game against Boston College on Saturday. The beauty of the NCAA tournament is that a little, out of the way state such as Montana has a team representing it competing for the championship. Five more wins and the trophy is yours.

Sweet! We're a "little, out of the way state"!

How the Democrats can use abortion to win elections

2006-03-16T15:16:00.000-07:00

I've had a lot of interesting reactions to my views on how the Democrats should use abortion in the upcoming midterm elections. Those who follow my blog posts know I prefer bold moves over timid avoidance of major issues. For a candidate seeking office, though, I can understand why abortion seems like a risky issue. After all, the debate on abortion divides communities and creates a lot of emotion. Most candidates prefer risk-free wins, especially on the local level where candidates spend a lot of their own money on campaigns. However, I think bringing up abortion is a winning maneuver. First, Digby on the failure of the national Democrats to back up Sen. Feingold’s resolution to censor the president:

I said this yesterday and I'll repeat it. This image of "powerlessness" at a time when the Republicans are on the ropes is the biggest problem we face for the fall elections. If Democratic pols don't understand that they are flirting with terrible grassroots defeatism, then they are going to lose. They must take action (and I don't mean boring press conferences and 10 point plans) or it won't matter a damn if the Republicans are on the ropes --- demoralized Democrats are not going to bother with them. Come on. Speak for us. If not now, when?

This is the danger the Democrats face by ignoring abortion. They will lose their base. Does this mean I advocate “rabid” or “extreme” pro-choice statements – abortion on demand, strong language about body politics, etc – from my candidates? Even though I might personally agree with an “extreme” pro-choice philosophy (although I call my position “common sense”), I recognize that abortion is a difficult subject and that voters are spread out over the spectrum on the issue. Here’s what I would recommend: Propose that, when elected, you will enact legislation (and promote a state constitutional amendment) that guarantees a woman’s right to abortion in the case of incest or rape. Think about it for a moment. First, it wouldn’t exclude those that favor choice. You could remind them that abortion is still legal in Montana and according to the SCOTUS. You could say that this constitutional amendment is the first step towards a comprehensive amendment guaranteeing choice. Second, it wouldn’t exclude moderate pro-lifers. The language of the proposition still leaves room for a general abortion ban should Roe v Wade be overturned by the SCOTUS when considering South Dakota’s abortion ban. Third, it puts the GOP in a helluva bind. If the Republicans go against the bill, they can easily be depicted as cruel uncaring moralists and religious extremists and lose mainstream votes. If they support the bill, they’ll lose their religious extremist anti-abortion base. It could split the party. This is the kind of action I’m talking about when I say be bold. Take the initiative. Strike when the opportunity arises. Be merciless.

Links...

2006-03-16T11:41:00.000-07:00

Ed Kemmick found a great April Fools’ article in the Billings Gazette’s vaults, in which the sports writers conjured up new mascots for 180 Montana high schools. Like the Drummond “Bugle Corps,” the Shelby “Comin’ Round the Mountain,” and (my favorite) the Colstrip “Searches.” Oops, I thought we were fighting terrorists. But apparently we’re at war with journalists. Speaking of traitor-journalists, Keith Olberman appeared on the Colbert Report, and Al Franken appeared on Letterman. Hilarity ensues. Speaking of Olberman, he does a segment on the FBI’s program to spy on domestic anti-war groups. Fascinating interview with Alan Moore, the creator of “V is for Vendetta.” Wulfgar! found a funny/scary prank call to a Mississippi NASCAR fan about introducing an African-American driver to the circuit. Apparently the NASCAR fan doesn’t support the Democratic party. Suit up your inner warrior in the war against lust! Missouri bans dispensing birth control from county clinics. It’s amazing how fast these things go, isn’t it?

Co-heroes: Kenny Stokes and Elaine Wesnick

2006-03-15T16:36:00.000-07:00

Once in a while you run across a thought so well expressed and so meaningful and so f*cking human, it makes you pause, reflect, and wonder why these ideas aren't the ones that make the headlines and protests and hubbub. Well today I found two in the letters of the Billings Gazette. First, Kenny Stokes:

Like it or not, cowboys are sometimes gay Vera-Beth Johnson's March 7 letter titled "Hollywood perverts heroic cowboy image" is the epitome of the homophobic and ignorant attitude many small-town and rural people have in our state. Johnson won't see the film "Brokeback Mountain" because, as she writes, "I don't have to lift the lid of a garbage can to know what's inside," but she should see the movie. It may awaken her to the reality that there are gay cowboys, most of whom must remain closeted for fear of professional as well as physical ramifications. Johnson needs to know that of the thousands of cowboys she and her husband have known, at least 3 percent of them are homosexual. The statistic applies to all races, religions, professions and cultures. She should know about the International Gay Rodeo Association, which has 32 regional associations throughout the United States and Canada with thousands of gay members who are also "real cowboys" (and cowgirls). She should visit any major city in the western United States to discover they all have gay bars that cater to cowboys and cowgirls. The Loft, a gay bar here in Billings, has patrons from all over Montana and Wyoming. As is the case with gay men and women having served in the military, many of those "real" cowboys, the "stalwarts who won the West," were homosexual.

Sort of a simple concept, really. People are gay. Not perverts or degenerates, but people. And people who are tired of being defined, judged and valued solely by the sex of their partner. Which brings us to Elaine Wesnick's letter:

Gay brother important part of large family I also read the "Hollywood pervert" letter. My reaction was the same as Teri Riehl's. I have had people tell me that they don't know a gay person. Amazingly, we know the same gay people. I have a brother, Steve, who is gay. He is one of six in a Catholic family. There was a time in my life when, though I loved him, I seriously wished he were not gay. A person who is gay is not only discriminated against, but is also in danger of physical harm. Why would anyone seriously think an anti-bullying law that protects our young people would promote a "gay agenda." Does a law forbidding bullying of religions cause people to change religions? I have now come to realize that my brother is perfect the way he is. Ten years ago he had my mother move in with him, to better care for her. Two of my nieces live with him and his partner while going to school in California. He is an intelligent, caring person. There is a saying in our family, "If we didn't have Steve, we would have had to invent him." He doesn't need to change at all, but there is room in our judgmental society for change.

Not only are people gay, but some of our best people are gay. These arguments are so simple because they're true. You can feel it through the core of your body and into your soul. True. Capital "t". T. Like I always say, if you don't like gays, don't f*ck 'em.

Conservative initiative-backers bring ballot language to court

2006-03-15T15:32:00.000-07:00

I'm beginning to think that those on the right are confused about the meaning of "fair" and "balanced." To wit: the language state Attorney General, Mike McGrath, is using to describe ballot initiatives 97 and 98. You know ballot initiative 97. That's the infamous "Stop Overspending" bill whose idiot older stepbrother, Colorado's TABOR bill, crippled that state's education system. The proponents of initiative 97 -- no doubt a cabal of Norquist lackeys -- object to language in the ballot stating that Montana's Constitution already requires a balanced budget. Apparently 97's backers realize that their bill will appear, at best, superfluous if Montana voters are educated about their existing legislation. Ballot intiative 98 is in a way creepier, because it attacks the very foundation of check and balances in most of American political structures. According to the Gazette's story,

CI-98 would allow citizens to attempt to recall judges for almost any reason. Currently, judges and other public officials can be recalled only for specific reasons, such as misconduct or "lack of fitness."

For those in need of a review of 6th-grade civics (apparently the entire GOP), the reason the judiciary is given life-time appointments largely free from unreasonable recall is that judges are supposed to work unfettered from popular movements and politics, offering at least a philosophical check against the populism associated with legislative deliberation and a definite check against the power of the executive. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not watch their backs against political machinations. But right-wingers want judges answerable to politics. That's because they want their radical programs to sail through the judiciary, even if it violates law. Like, say, wiretapping without a warrant. So what language do intiative 98 backers object to? Again, they dislike that Montana voters be informed about the existing law.

On CI-98, supporters said McGrath improperly used the descriptive language to tell what the current law allows on recalling judges, rather than more fully describing the contents of CI-98. McGrath's statement recounts current law and then says CI-98 amends the constitution "to provide for recall by petition of state court justices or judges for any reason." CI-98 would allow citizens to petition to recall judges for almost any reason, and requires them to get a certain number of signatures on the petition to qualify the recall for the ballot. "The statements (by McGrath) give voters the false impression that no parameters exist with respect to submitting a recall petition," the suit said. "Recall is not just 'any reason' but rather any reason for cause as determined by voters."

Hm. So...if McGrath adds those six words -- "for cause as determined by voters"-- they'd be happy? Heck, add the language! Why not? As a former English comp. teacher, I hereby attest that those six words really don't clarify anything...but it if shuts up the wingnuts, go ahead, add 'em! What disturbs me about these petitions is that the backers of these radical right-wing initiatives prefer that Montanans remain ignorant about the current content of the law. It's as if they believe if Montanans know what laws already existed they'd realize they already have reasonable, more moderate, more practical legislation on the books that address the same issues that 97&8ers are saying need addressing. Again, it shows that the right wing needs to keep people ignorant on issues in order to steamroll us all under their ideology.

Jon Tester's video

2006-03-15T12:39:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Matt Singer for bringing this up: a two-minute video of Jon Tester is available on Google video. Frankly, it's awesome. Here's the opening:

Hello. I'm Jon Tester and, like all of you, I have just one question. What the hell is Conrad Burns still doing in office?

This is exactly the kind of boldness I like in a Democratic candidate! Check it out, the whole video has the same tone. It's almost impossible to resist! Must...not...endorse...Tester... Anybody know where we can find Morrison's two-minute deal? I'd like to give him a chance, too.

Creep: Bruce King

2006-03-15T12:14:00.000-07:00

This week's winner of 4&20 blackbird's creep label is a Bitterroot prude and woman-hater. He submitted a letter that appeared in today's Missoulian:

Colleges are going into porn business It has been brought to my attention that the University of Montana and Montana State University appear to be going into the porn business with the stage production of the “Vagina Monologues 2006.” Haven't we got enough of porn theaters in Missoula and Hamilton (porn stores) without higher education establishments adding to the pain? Is the further degradation of womanhood to be advanced in the downward path to hell in the name of First Amendment rights? This is or will occur this year in over 284 ivory towers across the United States (even in so-called Christian schools). Further evidence in Robert Bark's apt description of America's “Slouching Toward Gomorrah.”

First, I didn't know there were porn theaters in Missoula and Hamilton! Thanks for the info, Bruce! (Apparently Bruce wants to limit access to porn to creepy men.) Second, I want to thank Bruce for underscoring my points about conservatism and women's sexuality. That a play whose aim is to make women comfortable about their bodies and sexuality is considered "porn" by the squeamish only shows how hard some men are working to keep their women "pure," "virginal," and home. Third, a note to Bruce: the "Vagina Monologues" has been running for, um, what? Fifteen years? Twenty? And has been performed at UMT regularly for at least ten. Fourth: That's Robert Bork, not "Bark." 'Nuff said about that particular source. And my last point about this letter: this is what happens in the wake of an abortion ban. Attacks on women. Ask yourself, why has this man waited ten years to write his angry letter? That's because the right is on a campaign to destroy the Monologues. Sure, the Monologues aren't perfect. For one, the play implies that violence towards women is easing and that there's progress in the women's movement. But the play is funny and celebrates love, sex, and the spirit of individuality. These are good things.

Links...

2006-03-15T11:43:00.000-07:00

The New York Review of Books has a great essay by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells on the health care crisis. Their solution? Oh, what’s obvious to everyone except for DC politicians: a single-payer healthcare system. Why are we in Iraq? Ask a hundred people, get a hundred answers. Another reason to dislike Republicans. A Texas father refuses to pay for his son’s college education because he’s a Democrat. In Montana Republicans won’t pay for anyone to go to college. (PS – The son is raising college funds on the ‘Net. Support him!) Yes, Montana’s Democratic Senator favored censuring the president....president Clinton, that is. Congratulations to Sen. Baucus for cowering in the face of principle. Law & Order to air an episode involving a corrupt lobbyist, Indian casinos, a mysterious murder, and congressmen. Sounds like a trailer for the upcoming Abramoff sentencing... The ReddHedd’s beautiful and comprehensive rant on the incompetence, flip-flopping, lies and other sordid behavior of the administration and its Iraq “policy.” The FBI is monitoring anti-war activists. Hm, between my days as a student in East Germany and living in Moscow, my anti-war activities, my correspondence with an Arab-American writer, and my outspoken opposition to the Bush administration on this site, what are the chances I have a file? Kevin Drum has a nice post about a new book exploring the relationship of the US South and the GOP.

Abortion update: the insantiy revisited

2006-03-14T18:08:00.000-07:00

Since my initial three posts about abortion (Intro, “It’s all about the sex,” and “The woman thing”) I found a number of breaking news items and links that only underscore the tendencies and philosophy of the radical religious fundamentalism that drives the issue. In this week's New Yorker, Michael Specter has written an article about the Bush administration’s hostility towards science. In this Q&A, Specter notes that Bush’s religious views conflict with scientific findings. There’s nothing really new or surprising in the interview, but it does bear reminding how hostile to science Bush is, especially when scientific findings cross religious belief. Here are a few nuggets:

The Administration simply doesn’t seem to rely on the advice of scientists on a wide range of issues: climate change, pollution, and biomedical research, for example. Previous Administrations have taken science as an area that is above the political fray—this one does not seem to operate that way. [snip] ...the Administration—and many of its allies among conservatives and the religious right—places far more emphasis on abstinence than on teaching children other methods of birth control and protection against sexually transmitted diseases. [snip] It’s not so easy to disentangle the Administration and the Christian right. The President is an evangelical Christian and so are many people in his Administration.

In another note, many conservatives frame feminism in terms different than what it actually means (via Dictionary.com): “belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.” Feminism has come to mean different things to the right: a movement to undermine family, neuter men, and impose a rigid dictatorial thought on debate. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Women simply want to be treated seriously and have as much control over their lives as men. But now the biggest threat to women’s rights is a belief on the extreme right that feminists seek to “degrade” women by allowing them sexual freedom. Sexual freedom is necessarily part of women's liberation because traditional female roles center on the sexual dichotomy of slut/mother. To break that dichotomy, women need to redefine sex as it relates to gender. And that's exactly what radical conservatives dislike. Take Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield in a 2005 speech:

According to Mansfield, this change in traditional society has grown out of women’s desire to achieve success in the workplace and at home. In his lecture, entitled, “Feminism and The Autonomy of Women”, the professor identified this problem as one arising from “radical feminism” which sought to “lower women to the level of men” in terms of sexual behavior. Regarding that behavior, Mansfield wondered if “hook ups,” which he initially referred to as “polymorphous promiscuity” are good for women. [snip] “By the age of 30, you see men,” he cautioned, “who are used to getting free samples” and will not enter into loyal, reliable relationships. Citing evolutionary biology research, Mansfield said that “men are interested in quantity, and women are interested in quality.” “Women play the men’s game, which they are bound to lose. Without modesty, there is no romance—it isn’t so attractive or so erotic,” said the professor. Tracing the roots of “radical feminism” to the writings of the 20th-century French writer Simon De Beauvoir, Mansfield argued that the questions and confusion facing feminists arise from their attempt at achieving “autonomy” and asserting that “men and women have no distinct nature.”

Of course, what’s really happening is that self-reliant and sexually liberated women defy Mansfield’s fantasies where women are passive vessels of a man’s aggressive sexuality. Sexual women refuse to be the passive, controlled sexual objects of men. Mansfield underscored this in a recent interview with the New York Times Magazine:

We need roles. Roles give us mutual expectations of what is either correct or good behavior. Women are neater than men, they make nests, and all these other stereotypes are mostly true. Wives and mothers correct you; they hold you to a standard; they want to make you better.

This statement so startled the interviewer, Deborah Solomon, she replied, “I am beginning to wonder if you have ever spoken to a woman. Your ideas are so Victorian.” Quite. The final bit comes via the Missouri legislature, where conservative lawmakers are planning on “a wide range of social legislation designed to rein in sex and unshackle the Bible.”

From new limits on sex education classes to penalties for living in sin, the proposed laws would remake Missouri’s public life in myriad ways. They would sanction prayer in public schools, subsidize religious schools and allow the Bible to be taught in school. One bill purports to help women make “the transition from work to home.” Another wants the legislature to recognize “a Christian God” as the deity for most Missourians. Rep. Cynthia Davis, an O’Fallon Republican and sponsor of several bills, said conservatives are tired of an overly permissive society in which high school students are taught how to use condoms. [snip] Other bills would: ■ Deny alimony to ex-spouses who live with a boyfriend or girlfriend. ■ Ban all abortions. ■ Provide tax credits for contributions that help kids in lousy school districts to attend private schools. ■ Propose a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to pray in schools and on other public property. ■ Allow pharmacists, insurance companies, doctors and hospitals to deny treatment if the procedure or medication offends their moral values. ■ Propose a constitutional amendment to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed on public property.

Missouri jackass does a much better job of trashing the bill than I ever could, but it’s important to note that the punishments doled out by the bill affect women disproportionately. The bills seek to push women back into the home, re-establish their role as homemaker and mother, and punish them for engaging in sexual activity or divorce.

Cutting-edge Billings plan to end chronic homelessness

2006-03-14T16:39:00.000-07:00

I admit I was surprised to see a Bush appointee advocate a cutting-edge plan that would actually help the chronically homeless.

The solution Mangano has been recommending is giving the chronically homeless a place to live, and providing them with a full-time case manager who makes sure that clients are eating right, staying on medications, looking for work and so on.

Spending so much on the chronically homeless is actually cost-effective. Without a place to live and constant supervision, these homeless tend to rack up medical bills in excess of a million dollars over the course of a lifetime. While the plan doesn't rehability the homeless, giving them an apartment and personal case worker keeps the visits to the emergency room to a minimum. Does this argument look familiar? It should. It was the same homeless plan advocated by Malcolm Gladwell in a February issue of The New Yorker, "Million-Dollar Murray." According to Gladwell:

Homelessness doesn’t have a normal distribution, it turned out. It has a power-law distribution. “We found that eighty per cent of the homeless were in and out really quickly,” [researcher Dennis Culhane] said. “In Philadelphia, the most common length of time that someone is homeless is one day. And the second most common length is two days. And they never come back. Anyone who ever has to stay in a shelter involuntarily knows that all you think about is how to make sure you never come back.” The next ten per cent were what Culhane calls episodic users. They would come for three weeks at a time, and return periodically, particularly in the winter. They were quite young, and they were often heavy drug users. It was the last ten per cent—the group at the farthest edge of the curve—that interested Culhane the most. They were the chronically homeless, who lived in the shelters, sometimes for years at a time. They were older. Many were mentally ill or physically disabled, and when we think about homelessness as a social problem—the people sleeping on the sidewalk, aggressively panhandling, lying drunk in doorways, huddled on subway grates and under bridges—it’s this group that we have in mind. In the early nineteen-nineties, Culhane’s database suggested that New York City had a quarter of a million people who were homeless at some point in the previous half decade —which was a surprisingly high number. But only about twenty-five hundred were chronically homeless.

Furthermore, Culhane tracked these 2,500 chronically homeless and discovered they cost the city of New York $62 million a year to shelter. In Boston, a group tracked the medical expenses of 119 chronically homeless.

In the course of five years, thirty-three people died and seven more were sent to nursing homes, and the group still accounted for 18,834 emergency-room visits—at a minimum cost of a thousand dollars a visit.

In pilot programs, cities gave these chronically homeless an apartment and case worker. There were problems. (One Denver man invited his friends home to regularly trash his apartment.) But the biggest problem with the program is its guiding priciple: unlike current homeless care, "power-law" homeless policy creates dependency on the system. And not only that, it's not fair.

There isn’t enough money to go around, and to try to help everyone a little bit—to observe the principle of universality—isn’t as cost-effective as helping a few people a lot. Being fair, in this case, means providing shelters and soup kitchens, and shelters and soup kitchens don’t solve the problem of homelessness. Our usual moral intuitions are little use, then, when it comes to a few hard cases. Power-law problems leave us with an unpleasant choice. We can be true to our principles or we can fix the problem. We cannot do both.

Ultimately the plan may never work. Not because it's not based on sound policy, but because both ends of the political spectrum find it distasteful:

Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching of Chicago-school cost-benefit analysis.

In the end I agree with Gladwell that this may be a chance to end homelessness as we know it. While I agree that it doesn't solve poverty, the homeless families living out of cars, the too-low wages for working-class people, it will solve up a problem and free monies for other programs.

Links...

2006-03-14T15:22:00.000-07:00

Uh oh. Looks like the UAE and other Middle Eastern governments have us over a barrel. And I don’t mean oil. The pitch that will change baseball, the mysterious “gyroball”. I’m not the only one who thinks Democrats are missing an opportunity by remaining silent on abortion. Missouri Jackass on the “See what happens when you elect radical conservatives?” bill. Feingold: Senate Democrats “cowering.” Right as rain, Russ. Annie Proulx on the Oscars. She wasn’t too happy to see Crash win... Washington Republican becomes Democrat: “I realize the far right has complete control of my party...” A conservative Pennsylvanian pens a racist editorial – Jesus’ General responds.

A note to Montana Democrats

2006-03-13T16:17:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I urged the Montana Democratic party to be bold. (Actually I shouted it: “think BOLD.”) Wulfgar responded:

...if Montana Democrats were thinking bold, then Morrison wouldn't be favored over Tester...

He may be right. But I think there’s even stronger signs that the Democratic party is going to fumble this election: where’s all the hubbub about South Dakota’s abortion ban? Let’s face it, the cretins in the South Dakota legislature (yes, I mean you, Bill Napoli) who passed the anti-abortion legislation have gone way over the top. The vile “pro-life” rhetoric coming out of the state is embarrassing the GOP. It’s a potential disaster for the Republicans in a country where a clear majority of voters are pro-choice. So, what is the Democratic party doing? Nothing. What about Montana? Why aren’t the Montana Democrats staging pro-choice rallies in Helena, Missoula, Billings, Bozeman, and Great Falls? Why hasn’t state chair, Dennis McDonald, condemned the South Dakota law? Where is the strong pro-choice statements from Morrison and Tester? This is the state party’s big chance to scare the bejeezus out of the electorate – and rightfully so. They should be hammering the message to Montanans that a handful of extremists are planning to hijack their reproductive and sexual rights, they should show clips of Bill Napoli’s interview on McLehrer’s News Hour, paste his mug on wanted posters across the state. Make abortion rights a litmus test for candidates! Ooo, a timid Democrat might say, we don’t want to risk the election on that issue. Isn’t it controversial? Aren’t the majority of Montanans pro-life? Not according to this survey: 53% of Montanans support choice. And consider that even among a number of pro-lifers, the South Dakota legislation goes too far. This is the kind of action the Montana Democratic party should be doing. They should be ruthlessly exploiting the chinks in the Republican armor. Continue hammering at corruption even after Burns is retired into a minimum security facility. Hammer at the failure of the prescription drug plan, Bush’s inability to fix security, the incompetence of Iraq, the illegal wiretapping and the Congressional Republican sycophantic rollover in response. But, no. The Democrats are tip-toeing around these hot-button issues because they’re afraid of alienating moderates. But these aren’t extremist positions. It’s not “radical” to advocate preserving the Constitution. It’s not “radical” to say women should have all the rights of a full citizen. It’s not “radical” to expect that our borders should be safe and our emergency response teams competent. It’s not “radical” to expect that our lawmakers act in their constituents’ interest and not sell their services to high-powered lobbyists. It’s not “radical” to work towards life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unless you’re a Republican, that is. Update: While I'm ranting, let's talk about Russ Feingold's attempt to censure the president over domestic spying. That's bold. And the correct thing to do. Only He's not getting any support. Look, Digby, as always, is right. The Democrats shouldn't try to participate in governing. It's fruitless, the GOP won't allow them to. Instead they should be constantly attacking the incompetence and corruption of their across-the-aisle adversaries and on issues that are popular with their own base: choice, security, health care.

This is an election about throwing the bums out and Democrats need to make a clear statement of fundamental values, not policy differences. Some strategists insist that Democrats must adopt the religious code words that Republicans use to signal character and values to evangelical voters. I would suggest that all Americans, religious and secular alike, share a language that is full of words that describe character and values. How about we start using some plain English words like unethical, dishonest, unfair, untrustworthy, dishonorable and lies. I think everybody can understand what those mean.

The Burns rumor-mill

2006-03-13T13:30:00.000-07:00

Pogie over at Intelligent Discontent found a Daily Kos post predicting that Conrad Burns would retire within ten days. It's completely speculative, but it sounds...well...true. Here's why. First, the rumor. Burns resigns. Current MT rep., Denny Rehberg, runs for the Senate. Former MT legislature house speaker, John Mercer, runs for Rehberg's seat. Why would Burns resign? For starters, Roll Call (via Great Falls Tribune) reported today that the Department of Justice pulled personal financial records of a number of Congressmen and their staffers, all of whom have had ties to indicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Burns is among the investigated Congressmen, as are three former staff members. Second, the sentencing of Jack Abramoff begins March 29. Abramoff's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has promised to "name names" during the sentencing. There's also some evidence that the fiddler is tuning his instrument in the Burns resignation two-step. As Pogie again astutely noticed, John Mercer has resigned his seat on the Montana Board of Regents, which effectively clears the way for a run at the House seat, if vacated by Rehberg. This is probably the best chance the Montana Republican party has of keeping both the House and Senate seats. With a date with an orange jump suit in his future, Burns' reputation has nowhere to go but down. Rehberg is a high-profile Montana Republican and the favorite to remain in his House seat. Still Rehberg winning the Senate race is no gimmie, and his abandoning his House seat will throw that race wide open. Especially considering the damage to Montana Mercer wrought during his tenure in the legislature. It could be that the Democrats win both seats, especially if they go about the election the right way. Democrats: think BOLD.

Links...

2006-03-13T11:41:00.000-07:00

The Hue and Cry on the escalating cost of medical care. Soon, only the rich will be able to afford to stay healthy. ESPN.com’s Skip Bayless on Barry Bonds. Must-read editorial on the bully, Bonds. Crooks and Liars has the video of Olbermann on ex-SCOTUS justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s warning about rightwing attacks on the judiciary. Seattle-area businessman snubs White House invitation. A definite 4&20 “hero” candidate. Hello? Democrats won’t use South Dakota abortion ban in midterm campaigns? Do they want to lose these elections? It turns out that the Army or the Iraq War is not to blame for low recruitment rates. It’s fat people! Prosecutorial misconduct causes judge to halt the trial of 9/11 plotter, Zaccarias Moussaoui. No wonder the Bush administration wants to skip trials for accused terrorists.

The woman thing

2006-03-10T16:29:00.000-07:00

(This is the second part of my abortion series. See the intro and the first part, “It’s all about the sex.”) In the intro to this multi-post rant on abortion, I said, “Instead of arguing the immediate issue of abortion, the issue of body control...etc – which other people who have more vested in those questions do much better than I ever could – I want to explore the larger issues...” Which was a dumb thing to say. Because the more I researched “pro-life” positions and groups and legislation, the more I realized that the movement was primarily concerned with bodies. Women’s bodies. Take this heart-felt editorial written by a man who regrets his girlfriend had an abortion back in 1978:

I, like many in the late 1970s, experienced some of the liberal viewpoints of the era. During college, I had been with a woman and she became pregnant. My family didn't have any other male progeny. I was the sole male Schultz remaining on the family tree - as my father was in poor health and would soon pass away, never being a grandpa. The ability to father a son meant a great deal to him, and to me. However, the action of the young lady aborting our son has left an indelible scar on my soul to this day. As a young man who impregnated her, I offered to marry. However she feared the reaction of her family. We were both Catholic. As the father, I never had the chance to prevent her action as it was "her body." Was this fair to the father who wanted a son, and offered to marry her? As a result of this, I have become ever more adamant that abortion leaves permanent scars on those in my position; scars I have now. There was no danger to the mother. There was no impediment to her obtaining the abortion. And, I had no way to influence the outcome for a son who now would be about 28 years old and bear my name. This emotional scar has altered my perception on both sides of the abortion issue. Yes, the woman can claim it is her body and she can do anything with it. But what about the potential father? What right does he have? What option does he have but to live with the fact that he will know for the rest of his life that he lost a son, and potential heir, in a family where out of five males on my father's side all were unable to sire any children? Even my birth to my parents as they reached their 39th birthday was quite a surprise, as they were told they could not have children. I wonder what my son would have been like. But with legalized abortion, I'll never know the joy. I have to live with the permanent scar for an action I did not want. To this day I wonder about my son. What would he be like? However, I was deprived this due to perceived familial pressure. In the meantime, I love the boy and girl I conceived in marriage. I contend that the rights of the father who wants to be a dad need to be debated.

This is just a letter from one Utah man, not the entire anti-abortion movement, but there’s a not-so-subtle subtext to his words that seems be common to many opposing abortion. Basically, the “lost child” was the valuable “heir” to his family, the boy that would carry on his family’s name, the child to compensate for the family men’s inability to “sire.” For all we know, he could be talking about horses. And that’s the deal. The boy is a valuable commodity in the family name. The mother of the boy a precious vessel to carry his son to term. In other words, the fetus is his right, his property as male “sire.” The mother? A baby machine. A central idea running through the anti-abortion movement is that a woman is not in full control. She needs guidance to find her “true calling”: motherhood. If introduced to the pleasures of sex without the influence of a paternal, benevolent male guide, she will trod the path of licentiousness and lust. If introduced to dangerous feminist ideas, she might prefer to pursue a career, become a lesbian, or, worse still, both. If left to decide the fate of her fetus, she might make a mistake and abandon a sire’s heir. Or, as Amanda says, women are like sheep.

Most [abortion protestors] are absolutely floored at the very idea that women’s decisions should be examined at all – to them, only the doctor who performed [the abortion] is morally accountable because he had the job to direct the amoral sheep-like woman towards the “correct” decision of not aborting and he fell down on his job of providing guidance.

Consider Ellen Goodman’s words in a recent editorial about the South Dakota abortion ban:

Even this week, with superb irony, Governor Rounds promised tender care for the women he would force to continue their pregnancies. Representative Hunt explained that women themselves would not be prosecuted under the law because any woman choosing abortion was ''not thinking clearly." (Tell that to the US soldier who made a 700-mile round trip to the clinic that January day.)

Unfortunately, women are not sheep. Identical to males in genetic makeup, with the exception of a single chromosome, women are able to reason, have individual consciousness, desire, enjoy sex, and contain the multitude of hopes, envies, aspirations, and ambitions equal to even the most complex of men. Any given woman may be equal to, or even superior to, her male counterpart when considering a thorny problem. Such as pregnancy. Lately there’s a lot of rhetoric circling the ‘Net, like the letter I posted today. What about a man’s right to “choice” in the debate? Can’t he have power over the ultimate decision? There is a point. Men are strangely absent from the content in this debate. Not that they should have an equal say (or superior say, if the abortion ban stands) in deciding the fate of a fetus – after all it is the mother who bears the child, whose body is ravaged by the trauma of pregnancy and birth, who is expected to do all the difficult work, the feeding, clothing, and raising of any children. Not that men should have the right to duck any financial obligation to a child if the mother opts to bear it. (Trust me, as a father of two toddlers, paying half your salary is ridiculously painless compared to the hands-on work of raising kids.) No, men belong in the debate because they must participate in conceiving a child. Where’s all the hubbub and furor surrounding the easy virtue of men? Why aren’t pro-lifers working to curtail male sexuality? If we sequester boys into heartland monasteries, keep them buckled into elaborate male chastity belts, we wouldn’t have to worry about abortion rights, would we? Men don’t think they have the power of choice? Of course they do! A man’s choice is simple. He can choose with his c*ck. Don’t like abortions? Don’t f*ck. Update: Here's a related post that popped onto Feminist Blogs during my rant:

But no matter. It's no coincidence that this case is being taken seriously now. The anti-choice, reactionary, theocratic wingnuts want to put women in their place, like the good old days, when men were told that "boys will be boys" and women were either virgins or whores, and children were bastards. Back then there was a lot of hostility about how women tried to trap helpless men into marriage, while putting women on pedestals and waxing poetic about nice girls and good wives, and the power behind the throne. All the while, the cast-off women and girls had these dubious choices: a) a back-alley abortion, b) going through forty weeks of pregnancy with all of its risks and complications only to give the resulting child up for adoption, or c) going through forty weeks of pregnancy with all of its risks and complications to be a single mother with no support. Either option also got you branded a slut, moral panics about womens' behavior, and a lecture about keeping your legs closed. Much like now, in fact.

Links...

2006-03-10T12:29:00.000-07:00

The Last Best Place got its hands on the menu of the Abramoff-owned restaurant that Burns staffers treated like their own cafeteria. Woman fired for displaying an Air America bumper sticker on her car. And you think we have it rough in Missoula. Maryland ditches touch-screen voting machines. Viva democracy! Justice O’Connor slams the GOP for judicial interference. And we’ve just replaced her with a guy who salivates over the prospect of executive authority. Joshua Micah Marshall has more on the “Fancy Ford” attack website, with links to other bloggers’ reactions. Now we know why Murdoch bought MySpace.com. Louisiana Republican distributes essay charging “welfare-pampered blacks” with waiting for government help to save them from Hurricane Katrina. Between this, the “Fancy Fred” site, and North Carolina Republican congressional candidate Vernon Robinson’s commercial, there’s a pattern emerging...

Creeps: Ralph Nader and Bill Napoli

2006-03-10T10:31:00.000-07:00

I was battling insomnia last night and trolling the web when I came across this interesting post on Michael Bérubé’s site about Ralph Nader, and a story in the NY Times from 2000 called, “Nader Sees a Bright Side to a Bush Victory.” Huh? That can’t be right! Read on...

...[Nader] called the possibility that a court packed with Republican appointees could overturn Roe v. Wade a “scare tactic.” On Sunday, Mr. Nader said in a television interview that even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, the issue “would just revert to the states.” Just? [snip] He said he did not in any case believe for a moment that Mr. Bush would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. “The first back alley death, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble and they know it,” he said. He described the party’s opposition to abortion as just for show, “just for Pat Robertson."

Bérubé:

The idea is that an actual abortion ban would go too far: the first back alley death, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble. Well, maybe and maybe not, folks. You might think, along similar lines, “the first hideous death by torture in the War on Terror, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble,” or “the first unconstitutional power grab by the executive branch, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble,” or “the first data-mining program of domestic spying, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble,” or “the first systemic corruption scandal involving Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham and Tom DeLay, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble,” and you’d be, ah, wrong, you know.

And, in some part thanks to Nader’s insistence that the two presidential candidates in 2000 were indistinguishable, we now have Bill Napoli, who, as I’m sure you know by now, said this in an interview:

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked. BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Now we have a creep with violent misogynist fantasies dictating what South Dakota women do with their wombs. He’s coming after your wombs, too. And he’s not stopping there. He wants to outlaw contraception. And then, who knows? Sky’s the limit. Ultimately, the loss of the 2000 election cannot be put solely on the shoulders of Nader. If Gore/Lieberman hadn’t taken a hard right after the primary, if black-robed partisans on the SCOTUS hadn’t halted a Florida vote count, if liberal supporters of Gore had reacted with fury and action, if the media hadn’t pushed a quick resolution on the country, if if if. But Nader was part of the problem and lured many to vote for him by spinning the illusion that there’s no difference between the two parties. Only now there’s a war in Iraq. Massive tax cuts for the wealthiest. Slashed public programs. Domestic spying. The Patriot Act. We’ve lost a war, a major city, and now we may have lost women’s reproductive rights. I have learned two lessons from this: ONE. Talk about splitting the Democratic party is nonsense. That would only ensure Republican dominance for the next...oh...generation? Two generations? Hello theocracy? Vote Democrat and vote often. TWO. Criticizing Democratic candidates for not chasing after the issues you’re interested in – choice, Iraq – is only talk. If you want the Dems to change the way they do things, you’ve got to become a Democrat. Join the party. Work on the campaigns of the people you agree with. If you’re an advocate of choice, make choice your “litmus test.” Support with financial help and time the candidates that support choice. Work against the candidates who are anti-abortion.

Missoula Air America not dead yet

2006-03-09T15:27:00.000-07:00

In this week's Missoula Independent, the newspaper staff reports that a group headed by former news director Lesley Lotto and biofuel pioneer David Max are trying to round up investors to re-launch Air American in Missoula.

Max says a new website (www.airamericamissoula.com) will serve as a support hub for interested individuals and businesses. Meanwhile Max, who says he and other investors are looking to launch the idea, is researching the availability of frequencies. Most likely, he says, an existing station that’s not performing well may be persuaded to change its format to capture the respectable ratings KNS garnered in its short-lived run.

Those of you who miss the station can now help out. (Like giving some web-design tips to Lotto and Max.) It's a popular format for this area and can't fail. With enough support, we can bring Air American back from the dead!

Franken says he wants to be back on the air in Missoula, and he’s seen people make it happen other places. In Portland, Maine, when managers threatened to pull the Air America affiliate station, locals held marches and protests, Franken says, and the station ultimately remained on the air. “If people would organize and let it be known that they want a station in Missoula, I think it can happen,” he said.

Burns soldiers on

2006-03-09T15:09:00.000-07:00

Disgraced Montana Senator Burns is staying in the race. His office released a new radio commercial today that doesn't mention Abramoff, but does tout his record of luring pork to the state.

[The commercial] focuses solely on Montana’s low unemployment rate, and says that the money Burns brought into the state helped strengthen the economy. The ad running on Great Falls stations mentions money for Malmstrom Air Force Base, and getting F-15s for the Air National Guard.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, suggested:

...that the state Republican Party would be better off if Burns stepped aside and let Republican U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg run in his place. "It may be their best chance to hold the seat," he said.

According to the Hotline:

Cook Political Report's Jennifer Duffy said that while "just about anything Abramoff is saying these days is suspect," the Vanity Fair story is "pretty problematic" for Burns. Duffy said that while the article gives Dems even more fodder for their anti-Burns commercials, "it doesn't change the bigger picture. Burns is laboring against being implicated in one of the bigger scandals to hit Washington in a decade, and he's already running in a less-than-favorable environment for Republicans."

But then we've heard this stuff before. According to Matt Singer, the DC gossip had Burns stepping out of the race if his numbers weren't favorable. Well, his numbers aren't favorable. His name appears in the context of the Abramoff scandal in a popular national periodical. And worse still for Burns, Abramoff's sentencing is fast approaching, on March 29, when Abramoff's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, promises to drop some juicy details.

"We will name names. We will provide the public with evidence of what is going on out there," Lowell said. "It seems to me that is not in the interest of law enforcement."

I have no idea why Burns is still running for senator. Seems to me he should be hightailing it for South America.

Links...

2006-03-09T12:03:00.000-07:00

Fourth Amendment luggage tape! Make ‘em cut through the Constitution to search your property. Inexperienced Bush crony given a key role to safeguard our nation’s security. Packing that van for Canada... But don’t worry! The Dept. of Homeland Security has created a religious center to protect us from...er...religious fundamentalists? Could 2006 sink the foul Moonie-controlled hack sheet, The Washington Times? Digby’s take on Abramoff is, as always, worth the read. The UAE threatens to stop buying US stuff. Like Boeing planes and Apache helicopters... Hm, was there some sort of deal in place? Clay Aiken’s gay fans (“Claymates”) sent a letter of complaint to the FCC, “charging Aiken’s record company with ‘collusion to misrepresent’ Aiken as a clean-cut heterosexual. (Heck, this might deserve its own post!)

Air America under attack in Phoenix

2006-03-09T11:34:00.000-07:00

Okay, so maybe I'm revising my opinion on the shut-down of Missoula's Air American affiliate. Phoenix' Air American affiliate was similarily shut down, not by Simmons Media, but by a Christian broadcasting company. The staff and fans of the station are so enraged, they're trying to resurrect the company through grassroots activism. I'd be curious to know whether this is a trend across the country. A consipiracy theorist might suggest that the shutdowns are nicely timed to coincide with a resurging Democratic party and the 2006 midterm elections...

Tester calls for Burns' resignation

2006-03-08T18:00:00.000-07:00

Today, Jon Tester posted a call on his website for Conrad Burns to resign his senate seat:

Here in Montana, honesty matters. It’s my firm belief that if you can’t keep your word to the people, you can’t keep your office. That’s why I called for Conrad Burns to resign from the U.S. Senate today.

Good for Tester to make this bold statement now. I'd like to see this grow into a buzz across the state: why isn't Burns resigning? (Come to think of it...why isn't Burns resigning?) Don't get me wrong. I don't want Burns to resign. He's the best thing to happen to Montana Democrats since...well...Judy Martz. Anyhoo, here's another nugget from Tester:

The trouble is, Montanans can’t run from Conrad’s record either. The worst thing about Conrad Burns’ behavior is that while Jack Abramoff got everything he wanted, average Montanans had to do without what we need: affordable health care, a sensible plan for energy independence, and a government in Washington we can trust.

Update: Dang! Matt Singer scooped me by 45 minutes! The Daily Kos by twenty minutes! Sorry for the old news.

It's all about the sex

2006-03-08T11:59:00.000-07:00

“Pro-lifers” aren’t pro-life. They’re anti-sex. The basic rhetorical assumption that drives the pro-life movement is that a fetus is a person and should have the rights of an individual. Yet the most common stance for anti-abortionists is that abortion should be outlawed except in the case of incest or rape. Is it now legal to kill a two-year-old child if that child were the product of incest or rape? Of course not. Even advocates of South Dakota’s recent anti-abortion legislation, which outlaws abortion even in the case of rape or abortion, give some wiggle room: the now infamous raped-and-sodomized-Christian-virgin execption:

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked. BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Napoli is saying that a certain moral standard should be applied to the circumstance surrounding conception, and if the pregnant woman is sufficiently religious, asexual, and was clearly forced to sex through violence, well, then, an abortion is okay. (What’s not said is that, if a woman is sexual or has had sex, isn’t religious, and her rape wasn’t brutal enough, then she deserved what she got and should bear the child.) Again, would this exception stand for a two-year-old child? Of course not. At best, then, pro-lifers think the fetus is quasi-human, sort of alive, but not really, and certainly not really deserving the rights of a born U.S. citizen. After all, could you imagine the legal confusion surrounding a fetus if it was given the rights of a born citizen? Imagine these scenarios: --“Back alley” abortion. Would the mother be accused of murder? --Miscarriage. Would the expulsion of the fetus from the womb go before an inquest to determine if the act were malicious on the part of the mother (murder), deliberate on the part of the fetus (suicide), or a result of natural conditions (accidental)? --Age. Should we start calculating a person’s age based on their date of conception? And should we change the laws where age is a factor (e.g., voting, driving) to account for the extra time? Should an ovulating woman undergo daily exams to determine if she’s conceived? The scenarios are, of course, completely ridiculous. The real purpose of abortion laws is social control. Fundamentalist Christians and their hangers-on, like many of us, see the problems that divorce, domestic abuse, drugs, STDs, and teenage pregnancy cause in society. These are real problems that rip apart families, destroy peoples’ lives, and cause related problems that affect everybody, like crime. But these people see the solution not in, say, eradicating poverty or correcting social imbalances that lie at the heart of these problems, but in creating an idealistic moral society based on strict Christian principles. The solution to the problem is the nuclear family (preferably white and suburban) and the problem is “easy” morals. Sex. You see it in the language of anti-abortionists. They call abortions a “convenience” and accuse women using abortion as a contraceptive. (Never mind the psychological distress caused by getting an abortion, the guilt associated with it, and the pain of the actual procedure.) In this worldview, abortion is a form of last-minute contraceptive. That is, abortion removes the disincentive not to have sex. More from Jim Lehrer’s News Hour interview with South Dakota representatives:

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Democratic Representative Elaine Roberts is one of South Dakota's few pro-choice legislators. What's next, she fears, is a host of measures that regulate women's private lives. ELAINE ROBERTS: We already have a law that says that pharmacists by conscience could refuse to fill my prescription for contraceptives. There is already a move from some groups who have worked on this to say that there should be no contraceptives, that sexual intercourse is for the purpose of reproduction FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Much of what she fears as an assault on basic rights Senator Napoli sees as a return to traditional values. BILL NAPOLI: When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn't allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: You really do? BILL NAPOLI: Yes, I do. I don't think we're so far beyond that, that we can't go back to that.

Napoli wants to progress from outlawing abortions to outlawing contraceptives. For a guy that wants to save the “lives” of the “unborn,” that seems to be...well...stupid. (Studies show that in states where family planning and easy access to contraceptives is readily available, the number of unwanted pregnancies goes down.) But you might not think Napoli’s position is idiotic if you think removing all safeguards to having sex will discourage people from actually having sex – that is, if you think the more chance you have of getting pregnant, the less likely you are to have sex. (That’s the theory; I know it’s ridiculous.) In fact, by making sex “dangerous” (i.e., likely to result in a pregnancy), you’ll actually use people’s sex drives to compel them into marriage, thus dotting the landscape with happy nuclear families and halting our nation’s descent into immorality. The real effects of such a policy will be disastrous. Stay tuned.

Links...

2006-03-08T11:10:00.000-07:00

Shocker: A new book written by two San Francisco Chronicle reports claims Barry Bonds used steroids. If the bad publicity weren’t enough, he could be facing charges. More on right-wing children’s book propagandist, Katharine DeBrecht. Schweitzer endorses an initiative to have 25 percent of the country’s energy stem from renewable resources. Time kicks Eddie Van Halen’s *ss. Ugh. Double ugh. Why the Hollywood crowd didn’t like Jon Stewart. CNN sends a clear message on where it stands on the “Patriot” Act. James Michael Brown, a U.S. soldier on leave from Iraq in Italy, handcuffed, beat, and raped a woman vaginally and anally and “left her to wander the streets naked in search for help.” His sentence was reduced by the Italian court because of the “prolonged psychological stress” he endured in Iraq. GOP rolls over. And they say Dems are spineless. The Daily Muck discovers Burns’ telecomm connections. Welcome to our world. Did you the Pentagon prohibits using active military members in partisan political meetings? Um...maybe someone should let Bush know... Here’s the Vanity Fair article about Abramoff (.pdf) that has some juicy Burns’ tidbits...more on this later.

Update on the Oscars

2006-03-07T12:46:00.000-07:00

Mulling over yesterday’s post on the Oscars, I realized that I never really commented on what American values are. I let the fundamentalist pundits define it, but never countered. Here’s a reminder on how a religious extremist views the morals supported by Hollywood and the blue states. According to the letter received by Slog poster, David Schmader, the Academy Awards:

...reward[ed] blatant anti-family themes of homosexuality, prostitution, pimping, drugs, crime, and the overall demonization of America as a bunch of bigots and oil mongers.

That’s a religious extremist’s view of blue-state morality in a nutshell. In today’s links, I posted to James Walcott’s view of “heartland” morality and Hollywood, which I think deserves more visibility here.

....the 'Hollywood doesn't reflect mainstream America' argument is one of the oldest and phoniest in the playbook, with Michael Medved making the same case that Catholic organizers did in the 30's to push for a decency code. The truth is that Hollywood has almost never reflected heartland values, from its birth it's reflected urban energy, cosmopolitan taste, social conscience, and pagan fascination.... [snip] The heartland issue is such a crock, especially when it's taken up by pseudo-populist pundits who cling to both coasts and wouldn't move to the middle of the country unless the name of that middle was Chicago. F[*]ck the heartland. It doesn't exist. It's a metaphor for all the simple good things Americans would believe in if they flattered themselves by believing in simple good things. (Go reread Sherwood Anderson or Sinclair Lewis if you want to savor the loneliness and cultureless vacuity of so much of the bedrock America we insist on coloring with Norman Rockwell nostalgia.) It's true that more Americans than usual are unaquainted and uninterested in the Oscar pics this year, but how many Americans saw McCabe and Mrs. Miller when it came out? Or Mean Streets? Not that long ago, the Oscars noms were panned because for being an index of popularity, not quality; now quality prevails in the judging, tastes have improved even at the Golden Globes, and the kvetching chorus is complaining that the finalists chosen aren't commercial enough, and don't reflect the interests and values of average Americans. There's no such thing as an average American anymore (if there ever was), unless by "average American" you mean (as news producers and pundits seem to do) white, middle-aged, heterosexual Christian small-towners and suburbanites who won't even be watching the Academy Awards because it'll be past their bedtime and they have elk to milk the next morning.

Bingo. First, Wolcott’s right. Mainstream “heartland” values don’t actually exist, except as a fantasy for religious ideologues (and you’ll see more on this topic in my abortion posts). But what “values” or storylines exist in the nominated and winning films? What are “blue state” values? That is, what conflicts, storylines, and characters do the rest of us (that is, most of us) enjoy? Let’s see...“Brokeback Mountain” tells of an illicit love affair that ends in disaster. So, America is fascinated by the struggle of an individual to remain true to herself in the face of popular and cultural pressure to do otherwise. “Capote”: an author gets in way over his head emotionally in a Midwest murder case, but eventually betrays his subjects by writing a tell-all that condemns the killers. Art. The conflict of emotion and intellect. It’s the story of naked ambition. You see what I’m getting at? These movies do an excellent job at representing the conflicts we feel tugging at us in our everyday lives. They deliberately seek to push limits of self-awareness, they explore the boundaries of what’s acceptable. They give expression to the confusion and horror and isolation that we all feel navigating in an incredibly complex world. No wonder religious ideologues hate the Oscars and movies celebrated by the Academy. It seems that most popular organized religions promise their faithful an end to the confusion of existence. They simplistic interpretation of life’s most confusing issues. Creating empathy for a homosexual pair (as “Brokeback” does) endangers a church’s palatable labeling of homosexuality as a degenerate evil. (But, ironically, enforces Christ’s teaching that all people are God’s children.) I don’t mind that Christian fundamentalists exist. I don’t want to ban their movies (although I’m sure not going to let my children watch their fantasies of orgiastic violence). But why does the media give the fringe so much airtime and credibility? It's beyond me...

Abortion

2006-03-07T12:18:00.000-07:00

I guess it’s time to talk about abortion. It’s topical. It’s important. Plus Wulfgar wants me to. I’ve delayed. It’s a complex issue. Usually when someone asks me how I stand on abortion, I say “it’s none of my d*mn business.” That’s the bottom line. I don’t know what constitutes life. I’m not about to legislate it. The issue really doesn’t have anything to do with me. I can’t get pregnant. I could cop out and use the “I’m pro-choice, but anti-abortion” line, you know, to give me the moral high ground both in the life/death dichotomy and in yearning for less government authority over my daily life. But I won’t do that. Supporting choice means supporting abortion. Instead of arguing the immediate issue of abortion, the issue of body control, defining life, etc – which other people who have more vested in those questions do much better than I ever could – I want to explore the larger issues behind the abortion debate, issues that affect me as a man and a citizen of the United States. So thus starts a series on abortion here at “4&20 blackbirds.” I’m a little sad to do this. It’s an issue that has been beaten to death. It’s an issue that seems so obvious to me. And it’s an issue that’s been forced on me by a handful of religious extremists. But I think it’s necessary as we search for the rhetorical tools and motivation to begin the fight to roll back an authoritarian movement exploiting religion and fear of change. So. Keep an eye peeled. I don’ know how many posts will appear. At least four. More if more information and ideas crop up.

Links...

2006-03-07T11:47:00.000-07:00

Dep’t of the insane: Domino’s Pizza founder, Tom Monaghan, wants to build a town based entirely on Roman Catholic principles, to be named “Ave Maria.” I’m not making that up. Dep’t of English Lit: David Horowitz’ new book gets a whuppin’. Dep’t of Homeland Secuirty: Apparently you are suspected of terrorism if you pay off your credit card debt... Dep’t of Military: An update to Wonkette’s post about being filtered out of US military servers in Iraq. Apparently the right-wingers are still getting through. Dep’t of psychology: Gay-prevention therapy harming teens. (Any news on fundamentalist-prevention programs?) Dep’t of violent rape fantasy: Okay, you’ve read who South Dakota state representative, Bill Napoli, should be exempt from his abortion law. (Think Christian teenage virgin viciously gang raped and sodomized.) Now you can listen! Remember, folks, this is the guy who wants to control your bodies. Dep’t of the Oscars: “F[*]ck the heartland. It doesn't exist. It's a metaphor for all the simple good things Americans would believe in if they flattered themselves by believing in simple good things.” Dep’t of the obvious: “Bloggers are more transparent than mainstream media.”

Who's out of touch with America?

2006-03-06T18:22:00.000-07:00

The Oscars! I watched ‘em even though I hadn’t seen any of the nominated movies, except Murderball, which kicked *ss and, therefore, won nothing. Still, I’d seen nothing like this. No two major awards were given to the same movie! Look: Best pic: “Crash” Best director: Ang Lee, “Brokeback Mountain” Best actor: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, “Capote” Best actress: Reese Weatherspoon, “Walk the Line” Supporting actor: George Clooney, “Syrianna” Supporting actress: Rachel Weisz, “The Constant Gardner” Each one of these flicks (and they’ve all gotten decent reviews) has something to offend our conservative Christian friends. “Brokeback” has gay sex, “Capote” was just plain gay, “Walk the Line” has drugs and alcohol, “Syrianna” indicts the petroleum industry, the administration and foreign policy, “The Constant Gardner” sympathizes with AIDS patients and attacks pharmaceutical companies. If you don’t believe me, check out this letter from a conservative Christian author (scroll down a little):

Blue States values were the big winners at this year’s Academy Awards rewarding blatant anti-family themes of homosexuality, prostitution, pimping, drugs, crime, and the overall demonization of America as a bunch of bigots and oil mongers. Virtually absent from the podium was anything supportive of hard work, self-responsibility, charity, faith or family. The two exceptions were that the supporting actress Oscar went to Reese Witherspoon, who actually deserved the honor but probably won the extra votes necessary due to her blatant real life Bush-bashing, and the best documentary going to a bunch of penguins who were neither blue nor red. They were values neutral: black and white but the fact that it was a pro-environmental film probably didn’t hurt.

Ouch! That smarts! The letter quotes Katharine DeBrecht (you know, the Orwellian “genius” behind “Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!”):

The movies garnering the most Oscar nominations included films about feature sympathetic terrorists, gay cowboys, communist sympathizers, and transexuals. How bad is Hollywood out of touch with mainstream values? None of the best picture nominees were even in the top 20 highest grossing movies of last year!

Um...forget the fact that “Brokeback Mountain” was released on Christmas weekend, giving it only a week to accumulate ticket sales. It did, however, set a record for most gross per showing during its initial release. Oh yeah, and it’s made over $120 million world-wide as of March 5, 2006. That’s before it won the Oscar for best director. And then consider the highest grossing flicks of 2005: “Star Wars: Episode III,” “Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire,” “The Chronicle of Narnia,” “War of the Worlds,” “King Kong,” “Wedding Crashers.” Um...with the exception of Narina, none of these movies are Christian fare, either. In fact, #2, Harry Potter, is labelled by fundamentalist Christians as satanic. During last night’s ceremonies, when movie after movie rolled by winning awards, each of which was sure to offend some fundamentalist Christian, it hit me. Hollywood isn’t out of touch with American values. Christian fundamentalists are.

Lobbyists running the Burns campaign

2006-03-06T14:52:00.000-07:00

Oh, it's all perfectly legal, to have a lobbyist run your re-election campaign.

Helena lawyer and registered lobbyist Mark Baker is heading up Burns' 2006 re-election campaign and served early on as a spokesman for the campaign. Baker is also a former Burns staffer, having worked for the senator off and on since 1989. He left in 1998 as Burns' legislative director. Baker lobbies as part of his own firm, Anderson & Baker law firm in Helena, and with the D.C. firm of Denny Miller Associates. Anderson & Baker has reported just over $3 million in federal lobbying income since 1999, records show. At least $2 million came from global telecommunications companies such as AT&T and MCI and the National Cable Television Association. During much of that time, Burns was either chairman or ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, where many laws dealing with telecommunications begin - and can die. Today, the Communications Subcommittee has been absorbed into the full Commerce Committee, of which Burns is a member.

I certainly understand why Mark Baker wants Conrad Burns to be Montana's senator. Three million in federal lobbying income? Baker owes his job to Conrad Burns. But, enmired as he in a corruption scandal, why would burns hire Baker? Does he think Montanans are that stupid? No. It's his d*mn campaign message! From his own website:

With a seat on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Burns has been able to bring in over $1 billion in federal funds to the state since he took office.

Got that? He's boasting about his corruption! He's telling us he does it for Montana! A billion dollars' worth! Having a lobbyist run his campaign only reinforces his message. Thing is, it the message working? The polls don't bear it out...

Links...

2006-03-06T13:23:00.000-07:00

Ed Kemmick has found a great article on Montana’s energy deregulation “mess.” Amnesty International says we’re still torturing detainees in Iraq. Bush too stupid to get an absentee ballot, so he charges taxpayers with a private jet flight back home. The Army reopens the friendly-fire shooting death in Iraq of former NFL player, Pat Tillman. Apparently Tillman’s family believes evidence of a crime exists. The government can yank federal funds from schools that bar Army recruiters from campus, says SCOTUS. Excellent post by Digby on how conservative pundits are just now realizing how stupid our president really is. The sentencing of Jack Abramoff to begin on March 29th. The prosecutor promises “to name names”! Hm. Is a certain junior senator a little nervous?

Time to graduate from the Electoral College

2006-03-06T11:24:00.000-07:00

Recently, The New Yorker ran a story about a group that is trying to do away with the Electoral College. The group, Campaign for a National Popular Vote, isn’t trying to change the Constitution (which would be extremely difficult and politically infeasible), but is trying to use the constitutional power of states to appoint electors in the manner they wish.

Here’s how the plan would work. One by one, legislature by legislature, state law by state law, individual states would pledge themselves to an interstate compact under which they would agree to award their electoral votes to the nationwide winner of the popular vote. The compact would take effect only when enough states had joined it to elect a President—that is, enough to cast a majority of the five hundred and thirty-eight electoral votes. (Theoretically, as few as eleven states could do the trick.) And then, presto! All of a sudden, the people of all fifty states plus the District of Columbia are empowered to elect their President the same way they elect their governors, mayors, senators, and congressmen.

I’ve always waffled about the Electoral College and its role in selecting the U.S. President. I do understand the reasoning behind it – it ensures that smaller aren’t ignored during the campaigns. If the Electoral College were abandoned, goes my reasoning, then big states like California and Texas will decide the elections. But then Hertzberg points out that if a state is solidly red or blue, it’s ignored, whether it’s small or large. Thus the battle for the presidency takes place in the battleground “purple” states where neither candidate is highly favored. Because of the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College, if you happen to live in one of other, non-battleground states, your vote doesn’t really matter:

The worst of [the Electoral College process] is the death of participatory politics in two-thirds of the country. If you live in a spectator state, it might be fun to persuade your neighbors to vote your way, or ring their doorbells, or hand them leaflets. But it can’t make a difference. And it doesn’t matter which side you’re on or which color your state is. Widening your ticket’s margin of victory or narrowing its margin of defeat is equally pointless. In this sense, our Presidential campaigns are not only not national; in most of the country they’re not local, either. They’re just not.

This makes sense. And this argument has entirely convinced me that it's time to do away with the Electoral College. And I think this article doesn’t go far enough describing the problem the Electoral College creates: not only do some states (like Ohio or Florida) decide the presidential elections, certain counties within those states do. And these counties are usually middle-right of the political spectrum. Do you wonder why the American left has steadily gravitated rightwards over the past decade? It’s because presidential candidates are trying to win the votes from a few, select conservative-leaning counties in Ohio and Florida. Imagine, then, presidential campaigns liberated from their subservience to a handful of Midwest suburbs. The Democrats could work to regain and electrify their base. We could finally tackle issues that are popular with the majority of Americans – national health care, election reform, gay rights, choice – most of whom sadly live in “spectator” states. And getting rid of the Electoral College would prevent illegal voting tactics that would ensure a candidate’s election – like, say, putting easily hacked electronic voting machines in key counties, or adding Miami’s inner-city African American voters to felon lists on the eve of elections. And, of course, that’s probably why the Campaign for a National Popular Vote will meet with stiff opposition. But still, the movement has a chance.

For fifty years, polls have consistently shown that seventy per cent of the public favors direct election. Nevertheless, the National Popular Vote plan will meet with a lot of resistance, some of it from battleground-state politicians. But in all those spectator states there are scores of millions of voters, and thousands of politicians, who would like to get in on the game. They might prefer to see our Presidents elected not by red states and blue states and purple states, and not by big states or small states, but by the United States.

Perhaps Montana should be in the vanguard of this movement.

The Sports Guy meets The New Yorker

2006-03-03T16:02:00.000-07:00

I’m a big sports fan, as you might have noticed from my Olympics columns. I’m also a modest fan of Bill Simmons of ESPN.com, and yes, largely because I, too, am a Red Sox fan. I’m also a fan of fiction, good essays, and poetry. I’m a graduate of Montana’s creative writing program and have been writing fiction and non-fiction for the last, oh, 32 years. I subscribe to The New Yorker, and one of my favorite writers is Malcolm Gladwell, mainly for the way he manages to think over old problems in new ways. He’s an idea man. This week the Sports Guy melded with Gladwell. Simmons has been running interviews with various known people on sports. This time he interviews Gladwell. (Parts 1 and 2.) Gladwell did not disappoint. Simmons asked Gladwell about how athletes tend to perform better in contract years. True to Gladwell form, he begins to compare the way we treat underachieving athletes to the way we treat our nation’s academic underachievers:

[W]hat are the lessons of the contract year? A big part of talent is effort. Maybe this kid is plenty smart enough, and he's just not trying. More to the point, how can we say he isn't smart. If talent doesn't really mean that much in the case of Dampier -- if basketball ability is incredibly variable -- why don't we think of ability in the case of this kid as being incredibly variable? And finally, what does the kid need? In the NBA, we'd say he needed Phil Jackson or Hubie Brown or maybe just a short-term contract. We'd think that we could play a really important role in getting Dampier to play harder. So why don't we think that in the case of the kid? I realize I'm being a bit of a sloppy liberal here. But one of the fascinating things about sports, it seems to me, is that when it comes the way we think about professional athletes, we're all liberals (without meaning to be, of course). We give people lots of chances. (Think Jeff George). We go to extraordinary lengths to help players reach their potential. We're forgiving of mistakes. When the big man needs help with his footwork, we ship him off to Pete Newell for the summer. We hold players accountable for their actions. But we also believe, as a matter of principle, that players need supportive environments in order to flourish. It would be nice if we were as generous and as patient with the rest of society's underachievers.

There’s a couple of points I’d quibble with. First, with NBA players there’s no doubt as to their inherent basketball talent. They go through rigorous years of play against increasingly better skilled competitors. Academic talent or intelligence is harder to quantify. Next, there’s money invested in the players. Money means more than people. Period. Still this is as good an argument as I’ve heard defending more investment in people who are in danger of falling out of society. Then there’s this cool study:

There's a famous experiment done by a wonderful psychologist at Columbia University named Dan Goldstein. He goes to a class of American college students and asks them which city they think is bigger -- San Antonio or San Diego. The students are divided. Then he goes to an equivalent class of German college students and asks the same question. This time the class votes overwhelmingly for San Diego. The right answer? San Diego. So the Germans are smarter, at least on this question, than the American kids. But that's not because they know more about American geography. It's because they know less. They've never heard of San Antonio. But they've heard of San Diego and using only that rule of thumb, they figure San Diego must be bigger. The American students know way more. They know all about San Antonio. They know it's in Texas and that Texas is booming. They know it has a pro basketball team, so it must be a pretty big market. Some of them may have been in San Antonio and taken forever to drive from one side of town to another -- and that, and a thousand other stray facts about Texas and San Antonio, have the effect of muddling their judgment and preventing them from getting the right answer.

Gladwell used this study to argue why he’d be a better GM of the New York Knicks than Isiah Thomas. He’s arguing that Thomas knows too much about basketball to make good decisions. I, of course, apply this to politics and could argue that I could run the country better than Dinky because I’d play things safe and conservative. But that’s assuming that Dinky knows anything about running a government. Maybe I would be better just because I would pay attention... More on Isiah Thomas and on why sports GMs take bigger risks than, say, big businesses:

The mess he is creating right now in New York will be studied by business school students 50 years from now alongside Enron and pets.com. But wait, is it enough to say that GMs behave this way because it's more fun? An economist would say that people pursue high-risk strategies when they are protected against the consequences of failure. The technical term for this is "moral hazard": When the federal government agreed to guarantee the safety of deposits in savings and loans, the savings and loan industry in the 1980's went crazy and made tens of billions of dollars in ridiculous loans. Their thinking was: If we score, we score big. If we lose, the government bails us out. That's the moral hazard of insurance.

The interesting thing Gladwell suggests in this interview is that sports can be used as a lens through which to look at larger issues in society. I think the same is true on an emotional level, too: sports contains the emotional dramas of love, betrayal, courage, and cowardice, all of which are either muted or lacking in our everyday lives. And for good reason. Most of us find it difficult enough to navigate bills, work, chores, vacations, raising children, mortgages, politics, religion without involving the extremes found in the day-to-day business of, say, baseball. But we still need to connect to those emotions, and sports allows us that outlet... Anyway...this post has exploded. It should be a good precursor to tomorrow’s sports post...on fantasy baseball! Stay tuned...

New text in Conrad Burns' Wikipedia entry

2006-03-03T14:12:00.000-07:00

I was over at Wikipedia looking a couple of things up, when I thought to head over to Conrad Burns entry to see if anything about his Abramoff-influenced Saipan labor law vote was up. (Any volunteers to add it?) What I did find was this little tidbit:

Modifications to this article by staff members of Burns An investigation by correspondents for Internet news site Wikinews linked Burns' office to changes in this article. In particular, references, citations, and descriptions of Sentator Burns' use of the word "ragheads" were removed, as was mention of legislation, co-sponsored by Burns, that would reduce Native American tribal sovereignty. Also, a paragraph was added praising Burns as a 'Voice for the farmer'. On Wednesday, February 8, 2006, Burns' spokesman, James Pendleton, pointed to the site's open-source nature. Said Pendleton, "They have exactly zero credibility. " And, "I don't know why this is a story. There is no sanctity in Wikipedia. Somebody will always come and change it."

Excellent addition to a still incomplete entry on the junior senator. Oh yeah, I got my hands on the full text of Herbert's editorial in the NYTimes. Here are some of the better parts:

If there were a trapdoor that was somehow rigged to open beneath the U.S. senators we really don't need, Conrad Burns of Montana would surely fall right through it. Mr. Burns is a racially insensitive Republican whose re-election bid this year has been jeopardized by his dealings with the G.O.P. superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. Mr. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to charges of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. Among other things, he's admitted to bilking American Indians out of millions of dollars, and he's said to be singing louder than the fat lady to federal investigators. [snip] When The Times asked whether he or members of his staff might get caught up in the federal investigation, Mr. Burns said he didn't know. As he put it, "You can't say yes and you can't say no." The Abramoff scandal is just the latest issue to raise questions about Senator Burns's fitness to hold high public office. You've heard of accidents waiting to happen? He's an accident that happens again and again and again. [snip] When you consider that clowns like Conrad Burns can inhabit some of the highest offices in the land, it's no longer such a mystery why the United States of America seems to be barreling down the wrong track at truly hair-raising speeds. As we've found with the war in Iraq and so many other important issues, leadership matters. And serious leaders in the U.S. have been in dangerously short supply. In response to questions about the Abramoff scandal, Mr. Burns has denied that he's done anything wrong. And he dismisses concerns about the amount of money he received. "What's the difference between one dollar and one thousand?" he said. "It's all dollars. Just like you rob a bank down here. If you get a thousand you go to jail, and if you get a million you go to jail."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Links...

2006-03-03T13:39:00.000-07:00

What else did Bush know? He knew Saddam did not pose a threat to the United States... Conservatives want pay-by-channel cable – and I agree with them! Especially considering who’s against it. Another article suggesting U.S. concern about Iran has to do with its selling of oil for Euros instead of Dollars. Missouri legislators consider violating the First Amendment by establishing a state religion. Press Think releases its report on the top blogging newspapers in the U.S.! I haven’t had time to look it over yet; let me know what you find. New Gallup poll: 2 of 3 Americans want US out of Iraq; 59% say Bush “can no longer manage the government effectively.” Now if we can only keep him away from the little red button until he’s out on the curb... Hiding copies of The Stranger to protect the kiddies... More propaganda churned out by the government – this time they’re using bloggers! (A good reason to distrust anyone who says they still support Bush...)

Bozeman mayors blog at New West

2006-03-03T10:02:00.000-07:00

You've probably seen it, but the current and former mayors of Bozeman are blogging over at New West - Missoula. It's a great idea, even if the mayors refuse to comment on Conrad Burns. Go over there and ask them difficult questions! I wonder if John Engen would blog...

Links...

2006-03-02T12:43:00.000-07:00

The Wonkette has a delightful parsing of Dinky’s ABC interview. Minnesota Republicans send spyware into people’s homes. That’s it, folks, if you are given anything by a Republican, don’t touch it! Burn it, immediately! Git out yer tinfoil hats! Truth Out outs administration plans for “fifth columnists”! Oooo, a fight between Coobs and Wulfgar over at Left in the West on abortion! I’ve been meaning to post on abortion for some time now... Abramoff’s credit card bill shows payments to Delay. Facing South has a report on the state of New Orleans. Abandoned during the storm, abandoned after the storm. There’s a pattern here. Meanwhile, a Mississippi sheriff is being prosecuted for actually helping Katrina victims. Cheney, who must consider an 18% approval rating too high, chides Americans for not saving. Uh, have you looked at salaries and health care costs, Dick?

Our modern-day Nero

2006-03-02T10:27:00.000-07:00

Emperor Nero was a teenager when he ascended to the Roman throne in 54 A.D., the beneficiary of the poisoning of the emperor Claudius by his wife, and Nero’s mother, Agrippina. Nero quickly got involved in nastiness, arranging for the murder of his wife and Agrippina (talk about ungrateful sons!), and then cavorted on the stage and participated in sports, cementing his dissolute reputation. But we remember Nero for fiddling while Rome burned in 62 A.D. The fiddling is, of course, just a myth; violins wouldn’t appear for centuries. But some contemporary accounts – dubiously regarded – accuse Nero of setting the fires himself. What isn’t in doubt, however, is that after the fire, Nero promoted the construction of private structures over public reconstruction. A few years later an irate Roman public watched with satisfaction as Nero was murdered and replaced by a council of four of his assassins. And now we have a new Nero. It turns out that Bush was warned about the possibility of the New Orleans levees breaking before the storm hit. And there’s a video of the warning. I admit I was shocked by this news, and that’s no mean feat. The Bush administration and GOP have been involved in so much dirt and incompetence it must be a concerted strategy to wear down our tolerance for scandal. Until now I thought Katrina was an example of Bush’s incompetence. Head of FEMA, Mike Brown, was an political crony, a friend of a friend with no practical experience – the appointment typical of an administration that values friends over competence. Bush’s non-reaction, I thought, typical of a man who doesn’t keep up on current events. He’s out of the loop. A dimwit disinterested in the hard, practical matters that belong to his office. Boy, was I wrong. It turns out that Bush just doesn’t give a sh*t about the citizens of the U.S. You know, the average joes who don’t have several billion dollars itching for an investment. He knew how severe the damage could be...and he went on vacation! And when reports started coming in that the levees did break, he did...nothing. When finally his office pushed him into action, he lied. He claimed no one could anticipated the levees would break. Responding to disaster is part of a president’s job! Does anyone doubt any other president would have done better with Katrina? Does anyone doubt that anyone could have done a better job? I suspect if we pulled a raving, homeless lunatic off the street corner, gave him a pint of Wild Turkey and put him behind the Oval Office desk, and said, “hey, there’s a hurricane headed towards New Orleans, it’s bad, and it might break the levees,” don’t you think even that madman drunk would have said something like – I dunno – “send in the Guard!” It all makes sense now. The Iraq war. The slashing of benefits of veterans. Bush avoiding military funerals. The tax cuts for the rich. The slashing of student loans. The illegal wiretapping. The no-bid contracts for coroprate cronies. Seen through the prism of Katrina, it all makes sense. He's a rich, sheltered patrician who feels contempt for 99% of Americans. He'll send us off to get shot, he'll drown us, he'll take prescription drugs from seniors, he'll throw us in jail without a trial, and he won't bat an eye. If this is the GOP's "compassionate" conservative, protect us from the uncompassionate ones!

Chuckle of the day...

2006-03-01T15:48:00.000-07:00

A letter in today's Billings Gazette:

Montanans not helping others like they used to As a native Montanan, I am appalled at what I participated in last week. Driving up to a stop light on Grand & 17th, I saw a long line in the turn lane. so I switched lanes and proceeded. Three cars back from the light, a car was stalled with the hood up and a woman was inside looking a bit frustrated. As I drove past, I noticed the impatience and irritation on the drivers' faces behind her as they were trying to get around the stalled vehicle. She had obviously been there a while and I thought, "Why did no one else stop to at least push her car out of the way so that traffic could resume?" I thought back and realized that 15 years ago this would not have been so -- that by three or four cars realizing what had happened, she would have had help moving her car. So what has changed Montana? Have we had such an influx of people who have moved in from other major cities with that attitude that it has rubbed off on us, or have we allowed the increase of our pace of living to make us feel "too busy" to reach out a hand for two minutes for someone in need? Come on, Montanans, and let's fight to keep our standard of living here high and not lower ourselves to self-centeredness and not caring for our neighbors. Act like a Montanan and stop to help. Janee Weber Columbus

I love stuff like this! I'm always amused by "Native" bumperstickers and the attitude that everything's going to h*ll because of out-of-staters moving to Montana. Yet few people refuse to acknowledge that they, too, might be part of the problem, like in the case of this letter. Check out the emphasized text. Congratulations, Janee! Way to complain about the very thing you're doing!

Hapless confusion: The Missoulian tackles Schweitzer's priorities for 2006

2006-03-01T12:17:00.000-07:00

Today the Missoulian editorilized on the governor's priorities for 2006. Here's the gist:

In listing the many good things he'd like to accomplish, the governor illustrates well why government tends to fall short on most of its goals. It takes on too much, especially too much at once.

Have they even read the governor's press release? When I read it, I thought the proposal was modest, maybe even too modest! Here are excerpts from the governor's energy proposals:

--Governor Schweizter will seek a commitment from industry for a coal-to-liquids and/or a coal gasification plant. --The Governor will also work for a financial commitment for several additional wind farms in Montana of various sizes. --Governor Schweitzer will assist the development of transmission capabilities to better enable power export to larger markets and finalize the plans for the Alberta Tie, which will foster private construction of wind generation in the Golden Triangle. --Continue to grow oil and gas production. --Increase production and use of biodiesel. --Governor Schweitzer will continue the Warm Hearts Warm Homes program.

Got that? In other words, Schweitzer will simply encourage the engergy industry to pursue altnernative technologies. No state money is involved, no new programs created, no new bureaucracy. Just encouragement. Not exactly an ambitious energy program. And the same is true across all proposals. Schweitzer's basic message is "all's working as planned" and "more of the same," which is good news for programs like CHIP. The Missoulian meanwhile, instead of commenting on the actual proposals, veers into an near-indecipherable expository rant on semantics:

The notion of “priority” suggests one thing has greater importance than or precedence over the next. A list of priorities is by definition a list in which the first thing takes precedence over the second thing, the second thing over the third - and so on...

Then digresses into a stream-of-consciousness rant on laundry lists:

It's the irrepressible instinct of politicians to draw up laundry lists of important things to do, any one of which stands as a worthy goal but all winding up largely unattainable because the effort, cost and resources necessary to make headway on several make it difficult to commit enough to accomplish any particular one.

Um...what? Nevermindthat, here's what the Missoulian wants (even admitting that it's never been tried):

A better approach - we can only assert this, not prove it because it's never actually been tried - would be to settle on one thing as a priority, accomplish it, then find a new priority. This is an argument for more limited government - government that takes on less but accomplishes more, or at least does a better job on what it does accomplish.

Uh...unfortunately, the state government actually does many things simulataneously, like running a school system, police force, takes care of state highways, etc & co., so it couldn't actually abandon, say, education while concentrating on energy or vice versa. Moreover, this editorial smacks of pandering to small-government proponents. Do less! shouts the paper while conveniently ignoring the actual text of Schweitzer's proposal and with a cavalier disregard for the realities of running a government. I'm not a blind Schweitzer-backer either, but the Missoulian's incoherent scramble to find something wrong -- anything! -- seems to indicate that his proposals are pretty d*mn reasonable. Whatever happend to good writing?

Links...

2006-03-01T11:41:00.000-07:00

Intelligence agencies reported in 2003 that a strong, local insurgency existed in Iraq. The info was promptly ignored by the administration. Wonder why Tucker Carlson is using his bully pulpit to defend Scooter Libby? Does it have to do with his daddy, Dick, serving on the advisory board of Scooter’s defense fund? Desi heard some Republicans say the country would be safer if Clinton were president... Visiting Pakistan, then, and now. Digby’s daily take on Portgate: while righties inherently distrust other countries and international treaties, they are in thrall of international corporations. Insurgency threatens the Afghani government. Too bad we can’t help.

Thoughts on Air America...

2006-03-01T10:29:00.000-07:00

New West - Missoula has a great summation of the shutdown of Missoula's Air America station. I've also talked to Lesley Lotto, the former news director of the station. And I've got some thoughts... First, it's obvious that the new investment group, Simmons Media, had no interest in keeping Air America on KKNS. They gave the show six weeks from the time they invested to make a profit, and the first thing they did was lay off Lotto's staff, not exactly setting Air America up for success. For the record, I don't think Simmons Media was motivated by politics to skewer Air America. Considering that they turned the station into an oldies "iPod," as Lotto said, it's obvious that they wanted the precious, mid-market FM bandwidth to run a low-overhead, brainless pop station that would reap steady and predictable advertising revenue. That such practises have killed FM radio doesn't bother Simmons Media. They like the $$. (I could go off on corporate disdain for community, but that will have to wait for another post.) Air America is an expirament. Bottom-line business people don't like conceptual media. It's risky. But it also happened that Air America was by radio standards wildly successful in Missoula. According to New West:

Just last fall, Cowan said, an Eastlan ratings survey in Missoula and the Bitterroot showed the Al Franken show with a respectable 3.6 percent of listeners – ahead of Rush Limbaugh, who runs on two area stations. “Al Franken was huge,” [general manager Dave] Cowan said. “(He) clobbered Rush. The listeners were there – and the commercials were inexpensive.”

Why was the station not making a profit? There are two theories. First, Lotto's:

[Lotto] believe[d] the KNS sales team didn’t wholeheartedly try to sell the product. “The sales staff was not supporting it,” Lotto said, adding that while some sales team members had tried to market the liberal format, others, she felt, were against the programming and didn't have incentive to sell it.

If this is true, then, with a committed sales staff who believe in the product and who know how to market a political talk station, the station could obviously be successful. However, a darker, more frightening theory was espoused by Cowan:

Cowan said that local businesses were reluctant to commit to the alternative programming. "There seems to be concern from advertisers with being associated" with controversial programming, he said. "I didn't think that would be a problem in Missoula of all places." KNS Sales Manager Jim Fisher agreed that business owners were shying away from the format – even if they were avid listeners to the station. "A lot of them loved to listen, but they didn't want to put their name on it," Fisher said.

Listen. If Missoula businesses were afraid to associate with Air America, that says volumes about the ability of a tiny minority of right-wing demagogues to intimidate the general public. Of course, the truth probably lies somewhere between the two theories. But what is true is that while the majority of Americans lean towards the Democratic party in ideology -- Gore took the popular vote in 2000, and, according to exit polls, so did Kerry in 2004 -- the public perception is that liberalism is unpopular. In order to make the sweeping political changes necessary to salvage the country from the irresponsible and incompetent domestic, economic, and foreign policies of the Bush administration and their GOP lackeys, we need to rehabilitate the image of liberalism. More specifically, we need to reaffirm that liberalism is a virtue, that it's practical and necessary in today's multicultural and changing world, and above all, that it's deadly hip... Any ideas?

Montana's February wrap-up

2006-02-28T17:04:00.000-07:00

This month is calving season, the temperature dropped to twenty below, and Montana contemplated the state quarter, the anti-meth campaign, the economic impact of losing its missile silos and is abandoned by its Air America affiliate. Governor Brian Schweitzer chewed out two UofMT professors who claimed the state could lure business by changing existing environmental and economic laws. It turns out Montana is already one of the most business-friendly states in the union. Pundits find hidden meaning in the governor’s decision to let nine bison roam unhindered outside of Yellowstone National Park, but are generally mum on Schweitzer’s 60 Minutes appearance. Missoula wraps up its Wildlife Film Festival; Environmental groups use Glacier National Park in a bid to halt global warming; the federal government slashes funding for Indian clinics; legislators want to protect the state from Wyoming water; Helena’s Montana State Library bans freedom of speech; and Senator Max Baucus leads a rally against federal plans to sell off Montana public lands to fund the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. Conrad Burns, our nation’s least popular Senator, was busy in February. Despite an attack ad claiming he wasn’t influenced by Abramoff, Matt Singer found pics of Burns with Abramoff’s Saipan clients. His staff obviously needs the money; they go through nearly $200 a day on meals alone, working up appetites by scrubbing Wikipedia of Burns’ scandals. Even Montana students offered Burns a bribe in an effort to halt cuts for university programs. Look for more Burns corruption news as a “shady” company with ties to the senator is coming under scrutiny. A Rasmussen poll shows Burns is behind Democrat Morrison and even with Democrat Tester, which is big trouble for the junior senator. Undaunted, Burns files for his Senate seat, bucking inside-the-Beltway gossip and hitching his trailer to the sinking presidency. Burns opens his campaign against Democrats by accusing them of not having any ideas. It turns out Burns has no ideas of his own. Oh yeah, it also turns out Burns is a supporter of the loopy “Constitution Restoration Act,” which would prohibit courts from reviewing any case involving a government officer or agent's "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." In political news, Burns tangles with former Republican governor and RNC chair, Marc Racicot over a payment package for Libby victims of asbestos poisoning. Racicot turns his back on his hometown, while Burns vows to fight for Montanans...which he does, Burns-style, by entertaining lobbyists at $2K - $4K a head at the exclusive resort, and slashing health-care for the elderly and infirm. Not to be outdone by Montana’s junior senator, Republican state representative John Sinrud leverages himself some extra cash; his wife defends her husband by comparing his stint at the state legislature to a combat tour of Iraq. Primary season is almost upon us. While Montana bloggers are still tepid on Dem. Sen. candidate John Morrison, they are heartened by a vow to concentrate attacks on Conrad Burns. Meanwhile, the other candidates, Jon Tester and Paul Richards, participate in an online interview on foreign issues, more foreign issues, and on CAFTA. MyDD publishes a lengthier interview with Tester, which inspired the Daily Kos to urge readers to donate to his campaign.

Links...

2006-02-28T14:21:00.000-07:00

Even the Cunning Realist is sucked into contemplating the Olympics. His thought? Maybe Bode Miller is the perfect icon for 2006 America... Bush drops to 34% approval rating. It astonishes me that 1 out of 3 Americans think he’s doing a good job. Indie rockers reject big bucks from Hummer. Daily Kos hops on the Tester train. Follow the links to contribute. You know you’re someone when you’re the recipient of an open letter! Cheney to resign? The federal government spends as much on port security as it does on abstinence-only education. Why do U.S. troops hate America? Seventy-two percent of soldiers in Iraq believe we should “exit the country within a year.” Harper’s Magazine calls for the impeachment of George Bush. You’ve gotta see the cover...it gave me goose bumps... Tom Delay used the IRS to punish an opposition group.

Wake up, get informed!

2006-02-28T10:48:00.000-07:00

A letter in today's Missoulian:

To my fellow citizens. Wake up! Your future is being stolen by the present administration. Your jobs are being sent overseas; your future is absolutely threatened with being saddled with debt into the future for your children and grandchildren for who knows how long. Get informed. Listen to Amy Goodman's program “Democracy Now” on TV's MCAT Channel 7 at 6 a.m. and again at 10 a.m. for real news and interviews you don't get in the regular media. If you haven't time for the TV show you can get it on the Internet democracynow.org every day (Monday through Friday) also on iPod. If you listen to radio talk shows, listen to Air America at 105.9 FM with various talk hosts form early morning all day and evenings. Rachel Maddow, Al Franken, Randy Rhodes, Ed Schultz and Dave Hartman, etc. They interview knowledgeable people, senators, congressman, authors and others as well as taking comments from the public. Elections of senators and congressmen are coming up in November 2006. It is important to know the issues. Remember, your future is at stake. Florence Chessin, Missoula

Cool! I hadn't heard of "Democracy Now!" before. Unfortunately it looks like we've lost KKNS, our Air American affiliate. Hopefully I'll have a post up later with more information on that. Matt Singer was right: "If any there are any enterprising soon-to-be graduates of the Radio/TV program who think they could make an affiliate fly, I’d actually be interested in investing. If Franken was outperforming Rush, there’s got to be a way to make it profitable."

New blogger woe: comments

2006-02-27T17:05:00.001-07:00

Apologies to everyone who has commented on 4&20 blackbirds; there were some delightful points and some fodder for conversation. Alas, I had let them linger on my moderation panel... Well, they're published now, and I promise more diligent action in the future. Comment away!

This is what I like to hear!

2006-02-27T16:09:00.000-07:00

From Jon Tester's website:

The question before us this primary season is this: what kind of Democrats do we want to send to Washington next January? Do we want Democrats who will bow down to the special interests that have corrupted our democratic process? Or do we want Democrats who will stand up to them and clean the halls of congress of crooks and influence-peddlers? Do we want Democrats who will continue to give the President a blank check for his misguided war in Iraq? Or do we want Democrats who will support our troops and lay out a plan to bring them home? ... Do we want Democrats who will accept the President’s spying program? Or Democrats who will trust in the wisdom of our forefathers and the Constitution and ensure that we protect our right against unreasonable searches and seizures? ... As a United States Senator from Montana, I will fight for the values and ideals we share. But winning will require all of us to take part — not just in the race in Montana, but in critical races all across the country. Because rebuilding Congress after more than a decade of Republican control and Republican corruption will require more than just a change in numbers — it will require changing the face of Washington. We can decide here and now that this election is going to be an earthquake that shakes the foundation of insider Washington. We can do that by sending new blood, and by sending candidates who are willing to fight and win for hardworking Americans. If you want an insider politician, you don’t want me. But if you want to move Washington, D.C. in a new direction, then I ask you to stand with me. Do everything you can to help us win. Join our campaign. Make a contribution. Ask your friends in Montana to get involved.

Yeah, baby! That's what I'm talking about! Update: There's a great interview with Tester at MyDD. Recommened reading, especially for you Montana voters. Anybody know of a similar resource for Morrison? That fella seems purty elusive, don't he?

A kinder, gentler post: CHIP

2006-02-27T15:53:00.000-07:00

Looking over my recent posts, I noticed how much I have foamed at the mouth over GOP malfeasance. Of course it’s not my fault that the Republicans are involved in so many scandals, ideological hypocrisies, and make just plain dumb mistakes, but it is my fault that I don’t acknowledge good things, the things I think are working well. Every critic has a ideology. Here's a small part of mine: Today I want to praise Montana’s Child Health Insurance Plan, or CHIP. It’s a federal and state funded program that supplies uninsured Montana children with affordable health insurance. It’s dynamite. Parents can choose their own provider, and the payments are very reasonable. Thanks to Governor Schweitzer and the Democrat-led state legislature, the program is now fully funded in Montana, and one of Schweitzer’s goals for 2006 is to increase enrollment. I’m a parent of two-year-old twins. I was a student at the University of Montana when they were born, and my entire family was covered by my student health insurance. (My wife is a full-time writer and as such has no access to health insurance.) Just around the time my children were born, the University proposed dropping dependents from the coverage. That is, the U. wanted to dump all families from coverage. Why? The “student” health care representative (more like the “insurance company” rep, and she will go nameless), told me dependents were responsible for an overwhelming percentage of payments, and that if they were cut, the rest of the student body would receive an insurance premiums freeze or even cuts. Got that? The U. wanted to cover only the healthy at the cost of non-traditional students like myself. I would have had to drop out of school if the proposed change had not been killed by the Board of Regents. Someone forgot to explain the philosophy of insurance to the insurance representative: that a body of people pools together a fund to pay for the costs of caring for the sick. Those that are healthy shoulder a disproportionate amount of cost; but they do so knowing that when they get sick, they will receive funds to cover their own medical costs. Something's gone wrong with the system. Insurance costs are spinning out of control. An easy place to start with the blame is on the insurance companies themselves, who, with a stronger desire for profit than for insuring, purposefully price premiums out of the reach of fixed- and low-income families, who tend to incur higher medical costs than middle age upper-income brackets. There are other factors, too, but what's indisputable is that insurance costs are too high. High insurance costs are a great burden on parents. Not all parents have traditional 9-to-5 jobs, not all of us desire high financial rewards. Many of us are content with lower wages in exchange for pursuing a careers that pay less in money and more in job satisfaction. Small business owners, members of non-profit organizations, writers, river guides, all of these professions pay little and provide less health care. And with the costs of health care rising disproportionately to salaries, soon health care payments will rival mortgage payments, and working- and middle-class families will be forced to do without, too. Health care shouldn’t be optional, especially for children. Why can’t we work hard and not be able to enjoy health care? We need more programs like CHIP, that allow Montana families to pay for affordable and quality health care.

Links...

2006-02-27T13:27:00.000-07:00

Traditional press doing a heckuva job scrubbing their sites of administration-damning sentences. The NY Times Magazine has a cool feature-length article about a member of the Taliban who now attends Yale. Cort Felts pens a nice defense of a living wage in today’s Bozeman Chronicle. Sadly No dissects a rabid pro-fascist blogger. Personally I don’t like turning over rocks and seeing what’s crawling in the muck. Crooks and Liars’ remembers that America’s Cassandra, Howard Dean, was right about *every * last * thing * concerning the Iraqi War. And the press mocked him. Um...a voting machine in Youngstown, Ohio, counted negative 25 million votes for Kerry in the 2004 election. Read that sentence again. You’re not seeing things.

What's a family, anyway?

2006-02-27T12:13:00.000-07:00

In yesterday’s NY Times Magazine, Christopher Caldwell wrote an interesting piece about a debate in a Virginia suburb about what constitutes a “family.” The real issue, of course, isn’t about families, it’s about class, race, and social status.

Manassas has seen a rapid influx of immigrants over the last decade. As in suburbs and smaller cities elsewhere, this has created quality-of-life complaints. Sometimes the outrage is over the jornaleros who gather at Home Depots to solicit daywork. Elsewhere, the gripe concerns overcrowding. One 23-year-old Mexican told The Palm Beach Post a couple of years ago that he, too, thought 10 unrelated workers living in a two-bedroom apartment was too much. "Eight people — three in each bedroom and two in the living room — that should be the maximum," he said. This is the problem in Manassas.

Manassas citizens were fed up with immigrants crowding into single-family homes with extended families. Cousins, grandparents, uncles, and nieces were settling together as a “family” in a space designed by affluent suburbanites to house the nuclear family: mother, father, 2.5 kids, and a dog. Parking spots disappear, trash piles, the neighborhood fills with strange faces of a disturbingly darker hue. Property value plummets. In order to halt the influx of immigrants, the folks of Manassas decided to define what constitutes a “family,” a definition that would exclude the multi-generational hordes. Now, only “immediate” relations were family: uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, and nephews were not. The irony of re-defining the family is not lost on Caldwell:

For decades, the family has been at the center of America's culture wars. Often, the quarrelers break into predictable camps. The traditionalist side takes the family for something natural, self-evident and unchanging, with certain absolute rights that no government can violate. The reformist side holds that the family is a "social construct" that is destined to change as individuals make choices and governments pass laws that reflect new mores. But look now. The traditionalists are hoist with their own petard. When the real desiderata of American life — convenient parking and garbage-free sidewalks — are at stake, Joe Sixpack is as willing to meddle with the traditional family as are Heather's Two Mommies.

This particular law was abandoned after the ACLU tilted against the new law and “cast its foes as un-American.” After all, “sheltering distant relatives in various kinds of trouble — the laid-off, the dropped-out, the pregnant — is what American (extended) families have always been for.”

Whether we think the purpose of families is producing babies, fostering love, tending the aged or protecting chastity, they have one thing in common. They are organized to address concrete problems, not to dispense utopian malarkey. Governments can kick problems down the road in a way that families cannot — whether the problem is a husband drinking his wages away or housing prices that have lost their apparent logical relation to hourly pay. The immigrants in Manassas are behaving like families in this sense. They are adapting their city's "single-family" housing stock to the realities of the labor market — with an indifference to government say-so that used to be called Yankee ingenuity.

The article underscores the hollowness of most right-wing cultural rhetoric. In this case, "family values" is shown to have nothing to do with "family" or "values"; instead it was a keyword to promote a particular type of family, notably white suburbanites. Morality is less important than appearance in this rhetoric; trash, parking spots, and noise mean more than functioning familial relationships.

Bremer's year in Iraq

2006-02-26T21:33:00.000-07:00

The NYTimes reviewed Paul Bremer's book, "My Year in Iraq," in today's paper. Apparently even administration lackeys are abandoning the president.

The most startling moment in "My Year in Iraq," L. Paul Bremer III's memoir from his days as the head of the American occupation, comes near the end, when violent uprisings were sweeping most of the central and southern parts of the country in May 2004. With the whole American enterprise verging on collapse, Bremer decided to secretly ask the Pentagon for tens of thousands of additional American troops — a request that, as the rest of his book makes clear, was taboo in the White House and Pentagon. Bremer turned to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq, and asked him what he would do with two more divisions, as many as 40,000 more troops. General Sanchez did not hesitate to answer. "I'd control Baghdad," he said. Bremer then mentioned some other uses for the soldiers, like securing Iraq's borders and protecting its infrastructure, to which General Sanchez replied: "Got those spare troops handy, sir?"

In the memoir, then, Bremer confirms what most of us thought all along: the Bush administration prized ideology above results in Iraq. Not only did Bush place political loyalists in important positions, the administration refused to hear any information that ran contrary to its rose-colored worldview. This book follows a long line of memoirs and tell-alls about the Bush administration written by dissatisfied insiders -- Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil the examples that spring to mind. But Bremer is different. He's a Bush man. That Bremer, loyal soldier, airs his dirty laundry in public, says much about where Bush stands in Washington these days. If this book is followed by silence from the right-wing spin machine, you'll know the administration is in political trouble. Still, waiting until now to point out the administration's dysfunction on Iraq, Bremer proves himself a coward. Oh yeah, and he's done his country a disservice:

But Bremer bears a heavy responsibility for keeping silent — and so does General Sanchez. If we can assume that Bremer's recollection is correct, then General Sanchez' remarks indicate that Baghdad was indeed out of control, that both he and Bremer knew it and that without more troops, it was likely to stay out of control. And so it did, for many months after Bremer and General Sanchez left Iraq. Neither man ever gave a public assessment of the security situation that remotely approached the one Bremer gives here. By staying silent, Bremer ensured that there would be no public debate on the merits of deploying more American troops. By staying silent, he helped ensure that there would be little public discussion over the condition of the Iraqi security forces, whose quality he doubted. When his request for more troops was ignored, his silence helped ensure that the troops would never come.

Silence from dissatisfied or concerened Republicans will be an enduring hallmark of this 6-year political disaster known as the Bush presidency. That's part of the Rovian plan, though: not only did the GOP manage to speak as with one voice, they build the financial empire to reward loyalists and punish rebels, no matter how inane official policy or practical and well-intentioned the dissent. Abramoff and Tom Delay were the center of the pork-doling project constructed by the GOP. Now that they've been indicted, that financial center of the Repulican party seems to be missing. Now that Bush's approval rating dips below thirty percent, Dinky no longer is the rallying point for conservatives wishing for a political future. Finally the long string of scandals and bad news are beginning to catch up to the Republicans.

Burns, the GOP, and Bush

2006-02-26T14:16:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, I speculated that Burns' running ads against the Abramoff attacks was against the best interests of the Republican party:

Why would any sane person want to attract attention to himself when there’s so much evidence piled against him? Surely the Republican Party wants us all to forget about Abramoff, not let itself embroiled in a he-said-she-said shouting match the party can’t win. I think the GOP wants to abandon Burns. Let’s face it, they need a fall guy for Abramoff, someone to indict and convict so they can say, “well he was the guy who took money from Jack,” and let the animus fall squarely and solely on that sucker’s head, diverting attention away from the fact that Abramoff’s illicit dealing was one of the foundations of the party’s current power grab. And who better than some hick Senator with low poll ratings who nobody’s ever heard of and who sits on a bunch of low-level and relatively unimportant committees... If Burns resigns the only people rejoicing more than Montanans would be the RNC. Burns’ resignation would allow a new conservative candidate free from the whiff of scandal run in a very conservative state. They could also crucify the Senator, let him dangle once he’s out of government and powerless to retaliate. Only he won’t back down. He knows his only chance to stay out of jail is to win another term in the Senate. Republican Party be d*mned.

Conrad Burns re-filed for his Senate seat, and he's enlisted Dinky to help raise funds for his upcoming race - a thousand bucks just to walk in the door, twenty grand to get your photo snapped with the president. That's right, the least-popular president in the last century campaigning for the nation's most unpopular Senator. One wonders if there was a typo in the announcement, twenty grand to not have your photo taken at the event with either Burns or Bush. And now, Matt Singer mentions some gossip he heard in DC this week:

Burns was not supposed to file for that Senate seat unless his internals are showing more of a boost than the public numbers are. Maybe his polling is better than the public figures. I doubt it.

Is it a coincidence that, at the same time he announced his fundraiser with Bush, that the GOP appears to be set to abandon the prez over Portgate? Can it be a coincidence that Burns is "undecided" about the sale of six US ports to the UAE, when every other politician with a pulse is throwing Dinky under the bus? Looks like Burns is hitching his trailer to the president.

Sports Saturday: The Olympic myth

2006-02-25T16:49:00.000-07:00

The buzz: This year’s Olympics has been a dud. The reality: The network-created storylines fizzled, not the competition. NBC coverage limped through the last two weeks, but the Games rocked. Take alpine skiing. Only former World Cup winner Bode Miller’s face was plastered on magazine covers. His contemptuous tone, his offhand remarks about skiing drunk, and an illicit trip to Mexico to receive shots from an outlawed doctor made him the rebel, the loner bucking the establishment, and the media practically promised he’d bring home medals. Instead, in five races, an overweight and indifferent Miller finished no higher than fifth and the United States’ performance was declared disappointing. Oh, and along the way the U.S. won two gold medals, Ted Ligety in the men’s combined and Julia Mancuso in the women’s giant slalom. More gold medals than traditional winter powerhouses Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France, and Germany, more than any country other than Austria, the 300-pound gorilla of the sport. The truth is that this year’s US squad is the strongest we’ve had in the Olympics: any number of American racers had a chance to medal. That NBC neglected Rahlves, Mancuso, Ligety and the others in favor of Miller is a testament to the network's ignorance of ski racing. It doesn’t help that the favored Americans, the ones the American media propped into the spotlights, were generally unlikable. Sasha Cohen boasted the charm of an icicle. Shani Davis was openly hostile while two-faced Chad Hedrick flashed overlarge teeth at the camera and glowered at his teammates when he thought we weren’t looking. Even media darling Sean White failed to inspire us; at best he could only amuse us with his Spicoli-like dimwit charm. Where was the coverage of Nordic events? Ski jumping? Hockey, men's or women's? Even when exciting performances made prime-time coverage, NBC failed to capitalize. When Shizuka Arakawa won the gold in women's figure skating with an extraordinary and flawless routine, NBC commenators covered the upset with mild confusion. Men's aerials and moguls coverage concentrated on American failures; the winners' efforts were registered with annoyance. The coverage got in the way. Enough of Bob Costas and "Olympic Moments"! The best way to cover the sports is to show them. If the coverage had been extended, the events shown in near entirety with careful explanation of tactics and favorites, the sport would speak for itself.

Bush's incompetence threatens the nation

2006-02-24T15:54:00.000-07:00

Anybody catch Michael Hirsh’s Newsweek column on Wednesday? Amazing stuff. Some excerpts (emphasis mine):

It is...sad to remember the support that once existed for the United States, then at the pinnacle of its power and prestige. On 9/10/01 America had adversaries, but mainly on the fringes. The invasion of Afghanistan brought barely a peep from the Arab street. No one had much use for Al Qaeda, even in the Islamic world. Global polls like those taken by Pew and the German Marshall Fund showed a remarkable degree of global consensus in favor of a one-superpower (in other words, American-dominated) world. The silver lining of 9/11 was a chance to reaffirm the legitimacy of America's role as trusted overseer of the international system. That is why Bush had so much support when he ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan, who were clearly harboring bin Laden, and so little backing when he shifted attention to Saddam, whose connection to bin Laden was plainly manufactured. The post-9/11 period was a fantastic opportunity for alliance- and institution-building. All that was required was American leadership. How then did we arrive at this day, with anti-American Islamist governments rising in the Mideast, bin Laden sneering at us, Qaeda lieutenants escaping from prison, Iran brazenly enriching uranium, and America as hated and mistrusted as it ever has been? The answer, in a word, is incompetence. We now have testimony from enough Republicans and Bush loyalists—from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to former CIA senior director Paul Pillar — that the administration knew all along how flimsy its WMD case against Iraq was. We also now know, from Berntsen and others, that the administration knew then how solid the intel on bin Laden's and Zawahiri's whereabouts was. So catastrophic was Bush's decision to shift his attention and resources to Iraq, when bin Laden was panting at Tora Bora, that one is tempted to rank it with Adolf Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941, at a time when Great Britain was prostrate and America was still out of the war (a decision that almost certainly cost Hitler the war then and there). Yes, Iraq may some day become a legitimate democracy. But for now it is mainly a jihadi factory, cranking out new generations of hardened bomb-ready Islamists, as we have seen with the cross-pollination that has brought Iraqi-style suicide bombs back to Afghanistan. Bush of course has been lucky in his adversaries as well—not bin Laden, but the Democrats (not to mention many a media pundit). To this day they seem afraid to make the case that the great war presidency has been a disastrous war presidency, in large part because of the fraudulent Iraq invasion.... [snip] So, yes, bin Laden and Zawahiri have been fortunate in their enemies. Had the Bush administration been more competent, these two would have long since been bloody pulp, perhaps largely forgotten. Luckily for the rest of us, the Al Qaeda revolutionary program is so abhorrent that most of the world still has no choice but to stick with us, through thick and thin—and dumb and dumber. How long we can test the world’s patience is another matter. Alan Cullison’s 2004 article based on Zawahiri’s private thoughts is again instructive here. "Al Qaeda understood that its attacks would not lead to a quick collapse of the great powers,” he wrote. “Rather, its aim was to tempt the powers to strike back in a way that would create sympathy for the terrorists. ... One wonders if the United States is indeed playing the role written for it on the computer." What I wonder is, how many more years will we have to wait for Rumsfeld to figure that one out?

Hirsh is absolutely correct. Utter incompetence by the Bush administration has endangered our security, enmired us in a unwinnable war, allowed bin Laden to go free, and restricted our democratic influence across the globe. I'll go further. Bush's quixotic tilting at terror windmills has only endangered our civil liberties and now pits neighbor against neighbor across the country. His fiscal policies have bankrupted the nation. His judicial appointments have assured that religious fundamentalism predominate our society for a generation to come. His policies are handicapping the country's ability to adapt and embrace the technological and cultural changes that are beginning to sweep the globe. Until Katrina, Bush got a free pass from the traditional press. Well, now he's being held accountible. This recent debate about the sale of port terminals to the UAE, as minor an issue as it is compared to NSA wiretapping or the manufacturing of intelligence to start a war, seems to be doing him in. Good riddance.

Creep: Kelly Wood

2006-02-24T14:08:00.000-07:00

This week’s creep is Kelly Wood of Bozeman who writes in to the Bozeman Chronicle with her opinion on “Brokeback Mountain,” “Don’t fall victim to movie’s ‘agenda-driven’ marketing” :

In a recent feature article, the Chronicle stated "Now playing for its seventh week [Brokeback Mountain] has sparked . . . no letters to the editor." At great risk of having a giant pink ribbon burned into my lawn and ‘you hateful homophobe!' messages left on my answering machine, let me be the first. "Brokeback Mountain," though a wonderful piece of cinematography, not surprisingly fails to address the presence of the 900-lb. gorilla in the room, i.e., the fact that male homosexual behavior has more to do with promiscuous lust than romantic love. A widely cited 1978 study by A.P. Bell and Martin Wineburg reported that 43 percent of homosexuals had more than 500 sex partners during their lifetime, with 28 percent claiming over 1,000 sexual partners. Though promiscuity undeniably exists within the heterosexual population, it doesn't come anywhere close in proportion; Wilt Chamberlain and other NBA players, almost singlehandedly go a long way in skewing those numbers. Nature or nurture? Sexually abused young men are "up to seven times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused" concludes a peer-reviewed 1998 study, "Sexual Abuse of Boys," by W.C. Homes, M.D., and Gail Slap, MD. Not all gay males are pedophiles, but an overwhelming majority of pedophiles are gay males. One of the first male couples "married" by Massachusetts filed for divorce a scant six months after their "marriage" because they couldn't agree on how to raise their cats. In a community where "boys night out" sex parties are commonplace, do we as a society, want to deal with the fallout of relationships where adopted children, not cats, are the innocent victims? If you find yourself at the conclusion of Brokeback, wistfully sighing and having a Rodney King "can't we all just get along?" moment, you my friend have become an unwitting victim of agenda-driven marketing, of which Brokeback is a small part. Gay males have long since achieved acceptance of "privacy to do in the bedroom" whatever they want. They now want to shove down your throat the notion that they are cultural heroes. They are not.

Hm, it seems like someone has an agenda... I also reject the notion that "Brokeback Mountain" is merely a "love" story. I, too, think it's primarliy about gay sex. More specifically, I think it's about the danger and isolation homosexuals face in a climate of fear and hatred -- one that Ms. Wells apparently would like to perpetuate with her specious "studies" that prove only that gays, like any of us, react poorly in the face of institutional hatred.

Links...

2006-02-24T11:45:00.000-07:00

Paul Peters of the Missoula Independent thinks Racicot’s opposition to a federal compensation package for Libby asbestos victims is the end of his political career. In other news, Racicot was seen giggling to himself as he entered the lobby of a Washington DC bank. A watchdog group questions the legitimacy of Florida’s 2004 election results. Listen! That’s the sound of one hand clapping... You think I’m mad about this port-selling thing? You ain’t seen nothin’. Sirota points out that a GAO report expressed concern that federal pursuit of profit impeded national security. Anyone want to get involved on an over/under on how long before the GAO is gutted? We shouldn’t let these people raise adopted children! The children will grow up with too many developmental and psychological issues and will be a burden on our society for years to come. That’s right, don’t let Republicans adopt! U of Montana students’ identities are for sale in the campus face book.

Civil liberties' group barred from showing film in Montana State library

2006-02-23T14:33:00.000-07:00

A viewing of a film created by the ACLU called "Beyond the Patriot Act," originally slated to be aired in Helena's Montana State Library, was called off:

The State Library called off its viewing of the film after people complained about the ACLU being involved. State Library spokeswoman Sara J. Groves said Tuesday complaints came from residents and state employees who didn't like the idea of the ACLU getting a forum. The library considered finding someone to counter the ACLU's position on the Patriot Act but couldn't on short notice, she said.

So...a group espousing civil liberty for American citizens, especially freedom of speech issues, was banned from speaking. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. And why couldn't the library find anyone to counter the ACLU's position? Were the Helena neo-Nazis busy? I mean, really, who would oppose our right to free speech? Update: Hullabaloo's Tristero brought up the ACLU and freedom of speech today:

...the principle of free speech and civil liberties simply must be respected regardless of my personal beliefs and feelings - it is essential to the operation of a modern democracy to support an organization like ACLU. Strangely, many on the right and some others don't quite get ACLU's beat. Defending Oliver North or the Ku Klux Klan in no way implies endorsement of North's loopy Cro-Magnon militarism or the Klan's racism. The problem is this. Once you start infringing on Ollie's constitutional right to be a flaming asshole,fundamentalist churches any NAMBLA are next. No great loss, you say? You're right, I agree. But the problem with infringing those civil rights is that rapidly you reach the point where just about any kind of speech can be banned for any reason. And therein lies the problem. First and foremost, the banning of speech and the curtailment of civil rights, is a political act, exercised by the powerful upon the weak. It is an immensely slippery and dangerous slope. Speech suddenly gets criminalized at the whim of the government or corporations in cahoots with the government. That is why those of us who don't have any interest in speaking up in defense of major league jerks nevertheless refuse to give up our ACLU cards when they offer their services to defend someone we utterly detest. We know that, if they get away with shutting up Ollie or a Nazi, we're next. Just as we don't like Iran/Contra criminals, we don't like NAMBLA either. But they all got rights. Or none of us really do. [snip] ...one of the best ways to uphold the principle without being exploited by cynical manipulators is to support an institution whose sole mission is to defend specific liberties like free speech without endorsing any specific ideology. Free speech - real free speech - is a complex issue, and an emotional one. Rightly so. There are ways to be pro-free speech without holding hands with the American counterparts of sleazy gits like David Irving or Flemming Rose. ACLU is one way.

Amen, brother. So when I see a group of people hound the ACLU out of their library, effectively closing off the flow of ideas, it's obvious that they don't understand the meaning of the liberties granted to us by the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of the amendments is to protect the rights of minorities, whether of race, origin, or of opinion, from the tyranny of the majority. Freedom of speech, then, is designed to protect the opinions of those you don't agree with. The Montana State Librarians and those that engineered the banning of the ACLU from its doors should be ashamed for violating the basic prinicples of our freedom.

The EPA allows for the waiver of federal clean water standards in poor communities

2006-02-23T12:21:00.000-07:00

A little while ago, athene-owl pointed out Grist magazine's seven-week series on poverty and the environment. I think the concepts in the article are revolutionary, especially since truth lies at its center. Environmentalism isn’t about protecting charismatic mega-fauna, it’s about social justice. It’s about saving lives. (Although bears are cute.) From Grist:

In much of popular and political culture, the movement is dismissed as the pet cause of white, well-off Americans -- people who can afford to buy organic arugula, vacation in Lake Tahoe, and worry about the fate of the Pacific pocket mouse. And yet, the population most affected by environmental problems is the poor.

As if to underscore this claim the EPA has allowed for federal drinking water standards to be waived for low-income communities:

The agency is proposing establishing an affordability threshold based on a percentage of household income in a community but is seeking comment on various ways of calculating safe drinking water costs and how much a household can be expected to pay.

Got that? If enough poor people live in a neighborhood, you can pollute it! Obviously this helps large companies that typically operate in low-income regions -- like Montana -- at the same time protecting the GOP's base -- wealthy suburbanites -- from water contamination. Contrast the treatment of Americans who happen to have less money than your average Congressional representative (i.e., most of us) to the treatment of the UAE royal family, who, despite ties to terrorist organizations and illicit arms smuggling, recieved a multi-billion dollar port contract. Money talks. The rest of us drink dirty water.

New Hero: Justin Whitaker

2006-02-23T11:39:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Ed Kemmick posted a satire printed in the New York Observer: The Times Gets Tough: A New Public Editor! Meet Ali bin-Zabar. It's pretty inane and through parody declaims newspapers for not printing the Danish cartoons. In my usual way, I ranted against the hypocracy of editors and bloggers who scream First Amendment over the voluntary suppression of anti-Muslim content but remain mum when it comes to Holocaust denial. It wasn't a very good response. But this was:

I for one see no reason to publish the cartoons other than to flaunt our right to do so. The same goes with the details of holocaust denials or the graphic evidence presented at a rape trial. Sensitivity has its merits. On the other hand I am glad for the coverage this issue (along with David Irving’s) has received. I’m a fairly staunch believer in John Stuart Mill’s ‘marketplace of ideas’ where we freely and openly express ourselves and hear others. Thus I think there is a double-standard in play in Europe, allowing these cartoons while not allowing Irving to air his views freely. Holocaust denial is just plain ludicrous (as are creationism, flat-earth theory, and Bush’s ‘trickle-down’ tax cuts), but democracies discredit bad ideas through dialogue, not censorship. Sadly, some people mistake sensitivity for censorship. Sensitivity leads to creativity (how do I get the substantive point across without going over the top) while censorship stifles it (’say nothing’).

When I move this blog off Blogspot, I'll have to start a Gallery of Heroes...

Links...

2006-02-23T11:34:00.000-07:00

Woodward hopes – er, thinks – Cheney will run for prez in ’08. Ugh. According to a reporter in Iraq, civil war is imminent. Oops. New entries in the Republican-English Dictionary. Ha! Okay, not only is selling U.S. port terminals to DP World without a 45-day investigation hypocritical and financially sketchy, it’s illegal. Incidentally, WaPo’s Meyerson agrees with me: “What's clear is that neither the task of building democratic nations around the world nor ensuring secure ports and cities here at home is our primary national purpose. Our mission is to maximize shareholder value.” Sirota riffs on the idea that Portgate demonstrates corporate control over Bush. Grr. Here we go: the right begins its attack on choice. Uh oh. The end of neoconservatism and manicheanism? Hm.

Portgate: Bush's contempt for average Americans

2006-02-22T17:02:00.000-07:00

The sale of six U.S. ports to Dubai’s DP World unnerves me. Not because I’m racist. (I’m against using race for profiling, for example. Plus it doesn’t work.) And not because I think all Arab states are untrustworthy or inherently linked to terrorism. But because of a myriad of factors. First, the facts. --DP World is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, the center of which is Dubai. --The UAE royal family has ties to Osama bin Laden and 9/11. According a 9/11 commission report, a 1999 attempt to assassinate Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan was foiled by presence of a large number of UAE royal family members. The UAE was only one of three countries that recognized the Taliban as the offical government of Afghanistan. Funds for the hijackers were transferred through the UAE banking system and the US Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating "in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts." --Dubai’s ports have had a long history of involvement in the illegal shipping of arms, nuclear materials, biological agents, and arms to Baathist Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Iran. (Oh, and is involved in the trafficking of child slaves, too.) Dubai was the headquarters of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist at the center of a nuclear smuggling ring. --DP World would be partly responsible for security. They would hire terminal workers and screen and x-ray shipments. It could well be that DP World will handle its security duties flawlessly. It could be that its owners do not have any intention of allowing terrorists or dangerous material to penetrate our borders. It could be that the hysteria surrounding the sale is completely baseless. But shouldn't the facts listed above give us a little pause? Isn't there enough concern to be at least suspicious? Can we guarantee that no member of the UAE royal family still hasn’t affection for bin Laden and his jihad, and that with the power to hire cargo screeners, could arrange the shipment of arms for domestic-based terrorists? Can we guarantee that the same folks who allowed the illegal smuggling of arms and other banned materials to rogue nations will act more responsibly in the U.S.? Can we take this risk? And now the president says that the UAE is an ally in the “war on terror.” That we should trust DP World. Is he right? Digby points out that this president and administration have already gone to some pretty far extremes in the name of security:

He needs to be secretly spy on American citizens without a warrant and he needs to be able to hold them indefinitely in jail without a trial and he needs to be able to torture innocent people with impunity because we just can't be too careful after 9/11. But there's no reason to go overboard by saying that we shouldn't outsource our port management to a company owned by a state whose leaders have been known to hang out with bin Laden. Perhaps the best way to put this is that the administration seems to trust the leaders of the United Arab Emirates more than the US congress or the secret FISA Court.

In this case Bush’s rhetoric is completely contradictory to his earlier justification for his encroachment on our civil liberties. Oh, and contradictory to his own earlier stated positions during the last presidential election. From a 2004 speech at Wilkes-Barre, PA:

I will never hand over America's security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America's interests at heart.

UAE also fails the same litmus test Bush requires for dealing with Hamas: the UAE refuses to recognize Israel. If the president finds Hamas stance to be too radical to treat with diplomatically, why is it okay to allow a government with similar views to control six of our ports? The point here is that Bush has gone to further extremes to "ensure security," as he has claimed. He's trampled on the rights of individuals, ignored the Constitution, and advocated torture -- in other words, he's gone too far. But doesn't this deal with DP World genuinely deserve scrutiny? Doesn't he have more to suspect from a government that has ties to al Qaeda than from U.S. courts and his own citizens? So why is Bush backing a UAE-owned company despite the overwhelming opposition to this sale? Why go against his earlier stated rhetoric and campaign promises and risk appearing weak on security? Why risk huge political fallout in the upcoming elections to save the deal? Maybe it was something found in what Senate Armed Serices Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va) said about the ports purchase:

...[Warner] would withhold judgment on the deal's national security implications until after today's briefing. The United Arab Emirates provides docking rights for more U.S. Navy ships than any other nation in the region, Warner noted. He added: "If they say they have not been treated fairly in this, we run the risk of them pulling back some of that support at a critical time of the war."

Or, Digby again:

It may be that we have gotten ourselves into a terrible position in which we cannot "offend" the UAE by blocking this deal because they may reciprocate by blocking access to their deep water ports. If that's the case, then we are being blackmailed by the UAE for big money and potentially putting our own ports in danger in the process. According to the 9/11 report they have been playing both ends against the middle for years.

Or could Bush's support for the ports deal be a result of financial indescretion? There’s no doubt that opposition to the purchase of six US ports is fueled in part by jingoism, xenophobia, and racism. But other opposition is genuinely concerned that the UAE have not only ties to bin Laden, but also a history of smuggling arms and nuclear materials to rogue nations. And it turns out that we might have to compromise at the very least the appearence of safety in order to maintain our operations in Iraq. (I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the Iraq war has endangered our security.) But what really gets me about this whole deal is that this scandal -- just like the Cheney shooting -- represents larger issues involving the Bush administration. His tax cuts benefit the rich and will be paid by the middle class. His health care plans benefit insurance companies and will force consumers to pay more and do more paperwork. His cronies in Halliburton and other government contractors are making millions -- billions -- off the Iraqi war while immigrants and working class Americans die fighting it. Bush wiretaps Americans, throws people into secret prisons without benefit of trial, and bombs Iraqi civilians while cementing business relationships with powerful allies of terrorist organizations: the Saudis and members of the UAE royal family. Americans in New Orleans die by the hundreds waiting for assistance from the federal agencies specifically designed to aid its citizens in time of emergency while GOP political cronies enrich themselves on taxpayer money. Portgate illustrates Bush's contempt for the average joe and his adoration of corporate and political power.

Links...

2006-02-22T12:56:00.000-07:00

If you didn’t see Letterman’s “Big Bowl of Bad,” watch it. I love it when the late-night shows hammer on the administration – and this is a hammmering, folks – it shows that the issues and facts are filtering through... Viva capitalism! In other news, Pat Buchanan’s panties twist in a knot. Get your tin-foil hats ready: 9-11 – a Conspiracy (Theory?) Before you get too caught up, check out Popular Mechanics rebuttal to 9/11 conspiracy theories. British authorities don’t like it when you participate in political theater. Ann Coulter is a cancer, an extremist wingnut whose violent fantasies should embarrass the television personalities she hangs out with. Arianna sums up the statements Coulter made and questioned why Sean Hannity has her on his show. Yes, Sean. Why?

Burns files for his fourth term

2006-02-22T11:32:00.000-07:00

He's done it. It's official. Conrad Burns has filed for his fourth term in Congress. I've said this before, but I think Burns running is the best thing that could happen to the Democrats in an essentially conservative state.

“I think it will be a race,” Burns said in an interview. “I think it will be very interesting. I think it will be mostly fun. I'm looking forward to it.”

Me, too! And so are state Dems:

...[S]tate Democratic Party spokesman Matt McKenna said, “We're glad he's in the race, too. Maybe now he'll start talking about his record. We've been anxious to have this debate and he's been ducking it for months.”

Incidentally, Sen. Burns had this to say for himself:

Burns, who sits on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, said he is responsible for bringing more than $2 billion in federal money to Montana during his career.

I'll give this to the Senator: he's worked hard. He took on that second job with lobbyist Jack Abramoff despite the already heavy workload that belongs to a Senate seat. Let's hope he's paying Montana state taxes on that extra income. It should be quite a sum.