You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August, 2007.
The strangely anti-family and arch-conservative Illinois “Family” Institute tells us that ‘homosexual monitor’ Petey LaBarbera is in dire need of some help to continue pursuing his constant supervision of homosexual activity:
Please support Peter and Americans For Truth — the only national group focusing solely on educating and alerting America to the real threat to freedom and children posed by the homosexual/bisexual/transgender movement. (emphasis added)
So, being gay is a threat to freedom but somehow the fact that conservatives are working their tushies off to deny gay Americans equal rights and protections under the law is not? What is wrong these extremists who insist on bringing their nanny-state attitudes into everyone’s bedrooms?
In an even more bizarre twist, that IFI alert was sent out in response to a Holiday Inn conference center which decided to cancel a gay-bashing event set up to raise funds for Petey’s Americans for Truthiness money machine. Of course, it was conservatives at Concerned Women for America of Illinois and Missouri who started the whole “don’t let Americans use hotels if you disagree with their bedroom practices” jig in the first place (Missouri’s CWA branch being, curiously enough, led by a man; and the very manly Petey himself was also a senior “analyst” for CWA). Apparently these cons have never heard of karma. (What was it that IFI said about a threat to freedom?)
Several folks have noticed that often the people who most rail against a given sexual proclivity — like Sen. Larry Craig and his long history of ardent gay-bashing and Rep. Mark Foley with his record of child “protection” work — seemingly do so because they are trying to force others to protect themselves from what they consider their own prurient interests. (What was it that IFI said about a threat to freedom?)
Of course, debate by kilobyte is one thing. Anti-gay conservative extremists in other states are going several steps further, and it’s only a matter of time before Petey’s allies cross the line (indeed, some already have). In Ohio, “concerned” nanny-state extremists have taken to invading Christian churches that believe God’s love is for all people, whether gay or straight. Those loving churches have graciously welcomed such belligerent protesters (who apparently forgot God’s command to love thy neighbor as thyself). I think it unlikely that such mean-spirited “their way or the highway” congregants would return that favor. (What was it that IFI said about a threat to freedom?)
In addition, Petey’s comrades from Kansas, the ultra-conservative Westboro Baptist Church followers, have taken to protesting at military funerals across the country, claiming our brave soldiers deserved to die because America has gay people living in our country. (What was it that IFI said about a threat to freedom?)
Why Petey wants to review gay porn, gay parades, and gay pageants as well as frequent gay bars, men’s bath houses and homosexual “adult” stores is between him and the friends he makes while he’s “researching” gay folks. I could care less. Petey is his own person, responsible for how he excercises his own liberty. But, why he doesn’t bother to “research” heterosexual proclivities, including those among his fellow fundamentalists, is curious (h/t Lloydletta).
In fact, the virulently anti-American Petey and his conservative friends obsession with other men (gay or not) is really quite strange overall… We’re all Americans, why can’t these people accept that?
(Why “anti-American”? They ardently oppose Americans who just happen to be gay. They are free to do so, just as we patriots are free to acknowledge their anti-American and anti-liberty stands. Call a spade a spade.)
The Republican presidential candidates are apparently unable to successfully manage their schedules.
Earlier, we found out that the pachyderms were unable (or unwilling) to rearrange their calendars in order to answer legitimate, even if difficult, questions posed directly by real Americans (and American snowmen) as they feigned immobile engagements in order to avoid CNN’s Republican version of the YouTube debate.
Soon thereafter we saw that not a single Republican candidate bothered to fill out Labor’s questionnaire in order to qualify for the union-sponsored forum held in Chicago. While not every American is represented by a union, those who do benefit from such representation have the largest loudspeaker with which to speak about workers’ issues with presidential candidates, yet the Republicans couldn’t be bothered to answer questions from red-blooded American workers. (Some media-types and many conservatives have claimed this was a “Democratic debate” sponsored by the unions. In reality, it was an open forum and all candidates, from both parties, were invited — with the caveat that they needed to complete a questionnaire beforehand. No red candidates turned it in.)
This week, we learn from conservative partisan Brent Bozell’s willfully ignorant complaining about media time that Republican candidates have made themselves less available to media interviewers, despite numerous invitations from TV news producers. Mr. Bozell complained that the network’s morning news shows had more time for the Democratic candidates. But even he acknowledges that if Republicans turn down interview requests, they won’t be getting the TV time he so desperately craves for them, according to the Associated Press (via USA Today):
“The candidates are responsible for how much time they generally get,” [ABC's "Good Morning America" Executive Producer Jim] Murphy said. “They can get it by agreeing to interviews and agreeing to forums.”
Bozell conceded that Republicans have shown a more pronounced reluctance to go on the air.
Now, today, we also discover that only one of the 9′ish Republican candidates has been able to set aside time for Univision’s planned Sept. 16th Spanish-language debate. Only Sen. John McCain has seen fit to make time to speak to America’s Latino voters.
In each of these cases — the YouTube debate, the Labor-sponsored forum, basic news interviews, the Spanish-language debate — the Democratic candidates have taken the time to answer questions, debate differences in opinion and speak directly to the American people. They have discussed their plans, their experience and, perhaps most importantly, their heartfelt values and principles.
If these Republican candidates can’t manage their own time to tell us who and what they are, how can they expect we Americans to entrust them with managing our great nation?
That, or why are they collectively trying to hide from the voters they want to elect them to the most powerful office in the world?
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis added
Congressional candidate Mark Pera has this to say about an incumbent “Democratic” Congressman who, it turns out, is apparently anti-Bill of Rights:
On Aug. 5, before he left Washington D.C. for vacation, U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski gave President Bush and former-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez permission to run the domestic wiretapping program without judicial oversight.
A Congressman who is aware of the troubles befalling our nation should know by now that this Administration won’t just let the wiretapping program gather dust. We can be sure that sometime during the next six months, President Bush will exercise the power given to him by Congress.
It is shocking to see such blind trust from “Democrats” like Lipinski who willy-nilly throw away Congress’ own power in deference to a President who has routinely demonstrated to the American people and to Congress that he cannot be trusted.
In my experience as Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney, I requested wiretaps and I respected the protocol involved in the process, of going to a judge and having a third party sign off on the request. It never impeded my ability to do my job.
It is particularly troubling that Lipinski again capitulated to Bush’s and other Republicans’ blatant use of concerns about terrorism in presenting the proposal. By bucking the Democratic Party and voting with the Republicans, Lipinski has again withered in the face of fear mongering.
This whole issue brings to mind what Benjamin Franklin once said, “The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”
What makes Lipinski’s vote that much more egregious is it granted expanded powers to the former Attorney General, someone who has lost credibility with even the staunchest Republicans. The Gonzalez resignation is another reminder that we, the critics of this Administration’s rampant disregard for our Constitutional system, must remain vigilant against a “unitary executive.”
“Must remain vigilant” indeed.
From today’s Chicago Tribune non-editorial editorial gossipping about US Sen Larry Craig (R-ID) and his ‘accidental’ guilty plea to lewd behavior in a Minneapolis airport men’s room (allegedly soliciting sexual favors from other men in the restroom):
Craig is up for re-election next year. If he runs, perhaps he’ll argue that what he does on his own time is his own business.
Idaho voters can ponder his words, and then have their way with him. (emphasis added)
Insert bad joke along the lines of “I’m sure he’d like that” here…
Of course, Sen. Craig did himself no favors in discussing Pres. Bill Clinton’s heterosexual proclivities. From Meet the Press, 1999:
MR. RUSSERT: Larry Craig, would you want the last word from the Senate be an acquittal of the president and no censure?
SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don’t know where the Senate’s going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure reslution and it’s a slap on the wrist. It’s a, “Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You’re a naughty boy.”
The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.
I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.
Naughty indeed.
Now, the conservative partisanry is full-throttled foaming at the mouth in the wake of another one of their staunchest spokespeople ending up as little more than a hypocrite.
Conservative talking head Kevin McCullough writes:
Conservatives on the other hand punish those who act out. The truth of that statement the very evidence that Denny Hastert became majority leader in the House. (Gingrich and Livingston were both tossed overboard.)
Senator Craig pleaded guilty to soliciting bathroom sex. GROSS. Resign, be done with it. And I’m not the only who says so…
No defense, no speculation, no waiting for the winds of change to blow. Resign Senator Craig, resign today. (links are McCullough’s)
One problem there, Mr. “Conservative Whack Job”… (McCullough begins his post railing against “liberal whack jobs” who point out Sen. Craig’s hypocrisy.)
Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), whom Mr. McCullough conveniently ignores, was making inappropriate advances to underage Congressional pages for years and the Republican leadership did little more than try to keep it quiet and even asked him to run for re-election even when he wanted to resign. Then-Speaker Denny Hastert didn’t force Mark Foley’s resignation, a call from ABC News led to Republican Foley’s decision.
For that matter, former GOP Speakers Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston were tossed overboard because they were adulterous hypocrites who were dragging down the Republican party’s polling numbers. Heck, Newt Gingrich is one of the leading non-candidates for the Republican nomination, saying he may jump into the race ‘if needed’.
I could care less if Sen. Craig is gay or bi or whatever. But when people like Larry Craig unleash vitriolic hate against their fellow Americans simply because they’re gay it’s appalling and runs counter to the American Spirit (the Statue of Liberty’s inscription doesn’t end with “…Except you gay folks”). For him to have done it out of some sort of shame-filled self-denial is simply pitiful.
Sidenote: ArchPundit makes a good point about arch-conservative ‘undercover homosexual lifestyle investigator’ and gay bar frequenter Petey LaBarbera:
The problem here, for Petey, is that as a guy who makes a habit of going undercover to investigate homosexual practices, he might want to be careful about supporting such convictions [as those supported by the anti-gay Idaho Values Alliance]…
Compare that with Lee’s comment at horsesass.org:
…it’s becoming more and more obvious that there’s a segment of the Republican Party whose main motivation in politics appears to be making laws that are an attempt to keep themselves from their particular dysfunctional behaviors.
Eric Kleefeld at Talking Points Memo notes that the Bangor Daily News (Maine) has a major conflict of interest regarding US Senator Susan Collins (R-ME).
Turns out that the Daily News’ executive editor, Mark Woodward, is married to a member of Sen. Collins’ staff, Bridget Woodward.
Says Mr. Kleefeld:
In other words, if Collins were to lose the election, the wife of the executive editor of a major newspaper in Collins’ home state would be out of a job — which would cause some serious inconvenience for that household.
Gee, I wonder why Daily News editorials have been supporting Republican Senator Collins?
Maybe our local conservative partisans like Dan Curry, Fran Eaton and others who constantly gripe that the media is oh-so-liberal would care to explain this one. Perhaps they chalk it up to their twisted definition of “family values”.
Many in the Bush administration (and their partisan parrots) claimed no one could’ve predicted how Katrina would affect the Gulf Coast…
The folks at Daily Kos — simply citizens like you and me — prove that to be nothing but a lie as their comments from just before Katrina hit show that normal folks’ eyes were wide open to the then-potential destruction.
Two of the choice comments from that time:
I wonder if anyone has told Bush yet. Isn’t he always awake for his early-morning exercise by now? What sort of prep have the Feds done? by Louise on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 06:11:06 AM PDT
Our government better get its ass in gear and get these people out of there … by Marie on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 02:16:21 PM PDT
Why is it that average, every-day Americans could see what was about to happen but our conservative Bush Administration was unable to figure it out?
God Bless New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. There is much more yet to do.
(h/t DarkSyde)
Jill “breathless about sexuality” Stanek is all hot and bothered because anti-abortion protesters outside the planned Gemini Office Development medical complex in Aurora (a tenant of which is scheduled to be Planned Parenthood) were told by police that they had to keep their signs and other political material in motion, in order to follow local sign ordinances.
Maybe the folks at the staunchly partisan Thomas More Law Center who are now engaged in helping the anti-privacy extremists wend their way through court could combine forces with the DuPage Duo who were arrested (arrested!) in DuPage County for holding up signs protesting the White House.
Maybe…
Jill “Likes her ‘Debbie Does’ Series” Stanek is questioning the new health clinic in Aurora, which was developed by a group called Gemini Office Development, LLC.
Apparently, on some paperwork filed with the City of Aurora, the Gemini developers stated the tenant was unknown at the time the paperwork was filled out. (The Chicago Tribune broke the story a few weeks back that the Gemini clinic’s main client was going to be Planned Parenthood; thus Ms. Stanek’s knee-jerk reaction to any news about the clinic.)
Where else have we heard the “I can’t recall” claim? That’s right, with our very own disgraced Attorney General — the most forgetful guy in DC.
Jill Stanek doesn’t seem to have any problem with Alberto “I have no recollection of that” Gonzales or his boss, Pres. Bush. Wonder why that is.
Now, to be fair, Gemini Office Development could very [well] not have known who all the tenants would be at the time of their permit applications. Indeed, since it is the goal of the anti-privacy extremists to evict Planned Parenthood before the clinic is even finished, how could Gemini have known whether or not Planned Parenthood would even be able to move in?
Moreover, Ms. Stanek’s ardent anti-woman stance flies in the face of her self-proclaimed “pro-life” attitude. As Steve Trombley of Planned Parenthood clearly stated, 90% of their healthcare work in the area is related to reproductive healthcare — education, exams, screenings, treatment for STDs and other issues. Perhaps Ms. Stanek, a nurse by profession, would rather these women who seek medical attention suffer some horrible fate at the hands of a disease rather than see a doctor (she’s already made it quite clear where she stands on viruses that lead to cervical cancer).
As noted in the Tribune story linked above, it’s odd that the anti-Planned Parenthood extremists needed to bus in protesters from as far away as Virginia. Why are conservative partisans so against science and medicine that they would go to such lengths against a women’s clinic that isn’t even open yet?
A few choice quotes that Nurse Stanek chose to ignore, from the Aurora Beacon-News (part of the Sun Times News Group):
“It’s a legal use and it’s going to be up to them (Planned Parenthood) to see if it’s going to be a peaceful use in the neighborhood,” [Aurora Alderman Chris] Beykirch said. “The tactics of pro-life supporters isn’t always savory.” (sic)Trombley said Planned Parenthood was open with city staff and committee members about the development being used as a doctor’s office.
“They don’t inquire of other providers (which types of medical services will be offered),” he said. “We were very open about the fact we were putting a medical office there.”
(emphasis added)
IlliniPundit (and I’m sure several others) beat me to the punchline…
“My goal in life has been to be a U.S. congressman,” Oberweis, 61, said after a rally at the North Aurora plant for his namesake boutique dairy. “The fact that I was running for the Senate was really an accident — partly caused by Denny Hastert, by the way, who asked me to get involved at that time.”
So not only does he now, on his 4th attempt at major elected office, realize his goal in life had nothing to do with the US Senate or the Governor’s office (let alone the stock market, milk and ice cream) … but he also slams the guy whose seat he is now seeking to replace.
It is quite possible that Mr. Oberweis has the biggest case of foot-in-mouthitis known to mankind. Thanks for the giggles Mr. Helicopter.
For those of you who vote with your wallets, yes, this is the same “Oberweis” whose family owns the dairy farm and chain of ice cream shoppes. You can buy his products if you support his antics … or not, if you don’t.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned over the weekend … though he may have forgotten that he did that and still showed up for work this morning.
Congress should have impeached him just to avoid the precedent that’s now been set. Maybe they forgot too.
News reports indicate Solicitor General Paul Clement will be named Acting AG. Congress is currently in recess, and Pres. Bush may make a recent appointment — which would violate an agreement he had with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to not make recess appointments.
Reaction from DNC Chair Dr. Howard Dean:
“It’s about time … Gonzales now joins a long list of Republican officials resigning under a cloud of scandal, but these resignations cannot purge the Bush administration of its problems. The true problem rests with the Bush White House itself, which continues to put what’s best for the Republican Party ahead of what’s best for America.”
Party before country has never worked, no matter the party that has tried it.
UPDATE: He’s not leaving til Sept. 17, if he remembers.
The league of extremist gentlemen is at it again as Ed Murnane screws around with fuzzy math to come up with a bizarrely partisan “civil justice” ranking scheme legislative scorecard. Such biased tools are frequent canards offered by all sides of the political spectrum.
Go read Yellow Dog Democrat’s well-rounded explanation of just how pitiful Mr. Murnane’s attempts at stacking the deck actually are. The money quote (among many priceless nuggets of common sense YDD offers) comes in response to the ICJL’s opposition to HB 1798 “Wrongful Death Act-Damages”:
Ironically, the ICJL didn’t oppose GOP legislation passed a couple of years ago that provides the same compensation if someone kills your pet, but opposes wrongful death benefits if someone kills your kid. Murnane must be a dog lover.
Or a complete goof with a bunch of money to toss at pet political projects. Then again, I’m sure Mr. Murnane has no love lost for Mr. Yellow Dog Democrat.
State Representative Elizabeth Coulson (R-17, Glenview) today came out swinging against one of the strongest opponents she’s faced in years. In this Winnetka Today article on her upcoming reelection campaign, Rep. Coulson complains about Democratic challenger Daniel Biss using the benign ActBlue Illinois PAC fundraising tool:
That Biss reported donations totaling $19,150 from “Act Blue,” a national Web site that allows Democrats to set up accounts to raise money for candidates of their choosing, bothers Coulson.
“Act Blue” donations are reported in lump sums, but individual contributors through “Act Blue” are not required to be identified “so we don’t know where the money is coming from,” Coulson said. “It’s a (political action committee) that raises money from all around the country. It’s exactly the kind of PAC we’ve tried to address in ethics reform.”
(As clarification, there is an “ActBlue” federal PAC and an “ActBlue Illinois” state PAC. Mr. Biss’ donations have come from the state PAC, ActBlue Illinois.)
You can see for yourself exactly that ActBlue is basically a means for candidates and campaigns to easily process political donations. Rep. Coulson, political animal that she is (that’s a joke, friends), tries to misconstrue that basic function by pointing out that the donations that come into ActBlue Illinois for Mr. Biss are aggregated together such that the Biss campaign does not have to reveal who the actual donors are.
I understand the trepidation there but Rep. Coulson is conveniently ignoring two facts, making her appear a bit hypocritical.
First, because it is an Illinois registered PAC, ActBlue Illinois’s donations to state-level candidates must be listed on the ActBlue Illinois D-2 forms. Reporter Stiefel writes that ActBlue reports in “lump sums” which is technically true — transfers to candidates are reported as a lump sum on that candidate’s D-2 form.
But, ActBlue’s own D-2s themselves must, by law, list the individual contributors of $200 or more. Anyone can look up that info and find out the names of the donors, just as with any other registered Illinois candidate, campaign or PAC. Moreover, since Mr. Biss is currently the only state-level candidate in the Land of Lincoln using ActBlue Illinois, it’s very simple to determine the donors intending to raise funds specifically for him.
And that’s precisely what Mr. Biss himself is now doing. An advocate of ethical and transparent governance himself, he immediately recognized the issue as being important and resolved it by simply listing every donor over $200 that has contributed to his campaign via ActBlue Illinois. In other words, Mr. Biss is going above and beyond by applying state law — disclosing $200+ donors — before such a law even exists. (In fact, he even lists several donors who fall under that threshold.)
Mr. Biss states:
Due to a quirk in campaign finance law, contributions made via ActBlue are listed in a separate section of Illinois’s campaign finance disclosures. This has caused some people to wonder whether transparency is compromised. Actually, ActBlue gives rise to greater transparency. For example, my ActBlue hub actually says how many contributions I’ve received in addition to the total dollar amount; it also breaks this information down for each fundraiser. However, the confusion is understandable. I am deeply committed to openness and transparency in politics, and consequently, I am using this page to supplement the information provided in the Illinois disclosures. (link is original)
The second fact Rep. Coulson chooses to overlook is that she herself receives PAC money … a lot of PAC money.
In just the past two years, Rep. Coulson has accepted well over $100,000 in PAC money (seek out “Transfers In” on the D-2 forms). Remember, Mr. Biss had only raised $19,150 via the ActBlue Illinois PAC up to the end of the latest reporting period.
ArchPundit points out that, to be intellectually honest on this topic, Rep. Coulson ought to now determine who all the donors to all those myriad PACs are that have helped her own campaign and publicly disclose those individuals (just as Mr. Biss immediately did).
In addition, the Winnetka Today reporter, Lynne Stiefel, in a follow-up article about the 17th district ought to disclose some of the basic information I’ve discussed here (chiefly, that it’s relatively easy to determine who ActBlue Illinois donors are and that Rep. Coulson has taken in more than $100,ooo of PAC money in just the last two years herself).
For how much Republicans nationwide complain that people ought to be able to donate however much they want to political campaigns (as a “free speech” issue, which I suppose implies that money talks), Rep. Coulson sure has an odd way of showing it.
(c/p at Illinoize)
It’s blogfather ArchPundit’s 5th anniversary of being “on the air”. Go razz Larry.
TIME Magazine’s Joe Klein, discussing an op-ed essay written by active duty members of the 82nd Airborne on their experiences serving our nation in Iraq, puts the wool-over-your-eyes conservative partisans to shame:
It puts to shame–and shame is the appropriate word–all the Kristol, McCain, Lieberman, Pollack and O’Hanlon etc etc cheerleading of the past two months.
What would make him say such? This essay from those brave heroes of our Armed Forces, all non-commissioned officers honestly relating their direct experiences:
As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)…
In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force….
Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run….
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Now contrast this with the forthcoming “September Report” which was supposed to have been written by the men in charge on the ground in Iraq — political appointees Gen. David Patreaus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. We already know that the report is being ghost-written by the White House instead, which has led a majority of Americans to be predisposed to considering the “findings” suspect (not that this Administration has ever told we Americans rosey-colored fibs like the mission was accomplished, corners were being turned and the insurgents were in their last throes).
These courageous soldiers will undoubtedly be called traitors and America-haters (at the worst) or self-doubters (at the least) by the increasingly shrill partisans who keep hoping to pull the wool over our eyes with their continued falsetto refrains of “See, the surge is working!!!” … When asked to explain why they think the surge is working, their inevitable answer is, “Because we say so!!!” and they tout twisted words and half-quotes from others as some sort of illusory evidence that boatloads of people agree when in fact they do not.Is the surge working? Only as much as one can successfully squeeze Jell-o or pudding. Sure, you’ll be able to contain some of it but, as the recent bombings that killed hundreds (not dozens, hundreds) of Iraqis in one day unfortunately demonstrate, the more you squeeze (the more you “surge”) the more the rest of the insurgents, and other new ones, will slip out into previously “safe” areas (”safe” being a relative term in Iraq these days). The surge is tentatively working in some parts of the country, but clearly not in others where it’s having no effect.
And politically the Iraqi government is clearly not concerned with making progress towards a peaceful, equitable society. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admits that things in Iraq are “somewhat discouraging” (his words).
Many conservative partisans have glommed onto the recent report by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack as evidence that “even liberals are coming around” on approving the surge … but those guys were always in favor of the Iraq invasion to begin with and have since sought any excuse they can find to prop up their initial zeal.
In their effort to fool themselves with their self-congratulatory back-patting, they’ve obviously confused the conservative partisans also — which seems unfortunately easy to do when it comes to Iraq.
(h/t mcjoan)
The Trib reported Monday that Hanover Park village trustees think an electricity-generating windmill proposed by the local Keeneyville school district might be an “eyesore” in a residential area. While Village President Rodney Craig disagrees, thinking the windmill would instead be a sign of progress, the issue is being dragged out.
School officials tout the windmill as a means of saving on rising electric rates using an efficient, ecologically responsible tool. They expect to be able to save upwards of $8 million in power costs during the windmill’s three-decade long lifespan.
As a taxpayer, my gut tells me an $8 million electric bill is the bigger eyesore, especially considering the school district is willing to work with other local entities like the DuPage Forest Preserve District to place the windmill in a less residentially-dense area. One of the other complaints was that the village board may have others applying for windmill installations, such as a McDonald’s restaurant. That’s a red herring given that a McDonald’s is a business transacting goods and money with only its customers, not a municipal body serving the entire community. (On the other hand, if Hanover Park decided to lead on this issue they’d start a smallish windfarm somewhere in their borders — perhaps in an industrial park — and let that hypothetical Mickey-D’s buy into that particular electric grid if they so chose.)
Hanover Park trustees ought to let the school put the windmill up. The public school is eligible for a private grant from the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation to cover some of the installation costs, but the village board’s resistance is hampering that grant application (for obvious reasons). Other Illinois schools have benefited from windmills and from such grants.
With the cost for windmills rising as the market tightens up due to demand, the taxpayers are not being well served by such delays.
Chalk another one up for the (not so) liberal media…
Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal wrote a commentary on last Sunday’s “Meet the Press” discussion between Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas and the Democratic Leadership Council’s Harold Ford, Jr.
Ms. Strassel bizarrely claims:
Democrats and Cannibals
[...] In a match-up on “Meet the Press” this past weekend, the Daily Kos’s Mr. Moulitsas extolled those who use his site to trash thoughtful folks such as Mr. Cuellar as a shining example of “democracy.” In the same breath he then commanded the DLC’s Mr. Ford to “control” his moderate members, and force them to stop disagreeing with liberal Democrats. If you get that logic, you might just be a Daily Kos reader.
Unfortunately for Ms. Strassel, NBC posts transcripts of their shows to their website for everyone to be able to fact-check people who make up things about their shows.
Even more unfortunately for Ms. Strassel, a review of last Sunday’s “Meet the Press” transcript finds that Congressman Henry Cuellar was never even mentioned by Mr. Moulitsas (or Mr. Ford for that matter). In addition, through the course of the conversation Mr. Moulitsas never made any “commands”, though he did offer a few suggestions which Mr. Ford actually later appeared to take to heart.
Oops.
That said, Cong. Cuellar is not exactly a shining example of a “moderate” — let alone of a “centrist” — if it was Ms. Strassel’s intent to depict him as such. He’s more like an elephant in donkey clothing, what some might call a DINO. Even the staunch pro-business conservative group “Club for Growth” endorsed Mr. Cueller (the only time that conservative organization had ever endorsed a “Democrat”).
Perhaps this WSJ writer really just wanted to call the 500,000 Americans who read Daily Kos “cannibals” in her essay. Guess that means those of us Americans that Ms. Strassel clearly hates are going to need more liver, some fava beans and perhaps a nice chianti.
(And here we all mistakenly thought Daily Kos readers were actually squadrons of venomous, rabid lambs … or something. Can’t conservative partisans come up with better sandbox epithets for those Americans they disagree with? Maybe they need to find a better department of Verbal Abuse from which to learn the craft they’ve chosen to ply.)
(h/t dov12348)
What does Anne Leary, the Backyard “Conservative”, not understand?
Criticizing hawkish political pursuits doesn’t make someone anti-semitic. Plain and simple. If it did, then conservative partisans such as Ms. Leary’s ally Andy Lappin (as opposed to honest and forthright conservatives) would have to be considered un-American since they’re constantly railing against their fellow Americans, making things up as they go along in order to “prove” their fallacy-based rhetoric.
Likewise, satirizing instances of Republican anti-semitism is not anti-semitic in and of itself. Plain and simple. If it did, then conservative partisans such as Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer and the like would have to be considered “America haters” for their many crude attempts at derogatory humor against liberals (and any other Americans they decide to oppose on a given day).
Clearly, pointing out these facts gets under Ms. Leary’s skin.
Perhaps Ms. Leary is ashamed that her comrades include well-known hate groups, such as the domestic terrorist cells of the Klan, allied with her to the conservative cause. Whatever the reason, it’s odd to see her constantly making excuses for her allies’ actual instances of anti-semitism — such as she did for Gov. Tommy Thompson, whom she calls an “un PC old idiot fart” — and other forms of prejudice while simultaneously digging for any scrap of debate which might appear like anti-semitism if it is half-quoted and cut and pasted just so… That very act of digging dilutes the rare, but still despicable, instances of actual hatred.
On the other hand, there is also the coy D.W. at “Rants of a Jewish Republican” who correctly notes that joking about anti-semitism can at times trivialize actual, harmful anti-semitism.
What D.W. doesn’t seem to grasp is that muddying the waters by attempting to redefine anti-semitism into a political meaning also trivializes anti-semitic hatred. This is precisely what happened as Mark Kirk’s staunch supporter Andy Lappin blasted out a smear email full of half-quotes, out-of-context clips, and other fallacy-based material while attempting to paint half-a-million Americans (and any candidates who may associate with that large group) as “anti-semitic”. The fact he had to distort reality in his attempt to “prove” his point only makes him appear desperate to paint his political opponents with the harshest vitriol he can dream up.
Indeed, it’s clear that D.W. does not understand this as in his post on the matter he says:
Anti-Semitism is no trivial matter, it is a serious issue and making jokes about it serves no useful purpose, and at worst is a disgrace to the entire debate.
I will not give the blog the satisfaction of mentioning their name, but their attempt to trivialize the issue is reason enough for any Jew or a supporter of Israel to boycott their site until such time as an apology is issued. (emphasis added)
There are plenty of supporters of Israel who disagree with a hawkish stance and believe that such an ardent political position in fact fuels anger in the region and provides a rationale for psychopaths to recruit new terrorists. But in D.W.’s context, the only “true” supporters of Israel are those who support military responses rather than diplomatic and other efforts … and anyone opposed to such a political stand are somehow considered “anti-semitic” in the view of D.W. and others.
He conflates political discourse with anti-semitism just as Mr. Lappin, Ms. Leary, Bill Baar, and other conservative partisans have also done in the course of their routine partisan jockeying.
Attempting to cast political ideologies in terms of anti-semitism does much more to trivialize the issue than satire about a former Republican presidential candidate’s remark about “Jews and finances and things”, as Ellen Beth Gill has pointed out time and again (and again).
Satire points out the ridiculousness, hypocrisy and underlying misconceptions of such a remark. Somehow D.W. must’ve missed the long history of humorists who highlight such sorts of hatred by poking fun at it — not that either Gov. Tommy Thompson’s stereotypical comment or Trapper John’s recent satire of the Thomspon campaign appeared in the least spiteful. Attempting to redefine the phrase is an attempt at fundamentally altering its meaning, which can only lead to it being watered down and, at some points, perhaps even left meaningless.
Finally, if D.W. thinks that Jews are the only demographic to have ever been the subject of vile hatred (as he appears to claim) he is, in every sense of the word, sadly mistaken.
In fact, all he has to do is head over to the websites of FreeRepublic, Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly, and other conservative partisans to see plenty of disgusting, intentionally harmful rhetoric against these people’s fellow Americans. And those folks are his “allies” in the Republican cause.
In recent weeks Chicagoland denizens have been treated to story after story about British Petroleum’s plans to dump more ammonia, mercury and other toxic pollutants into Lake Michigan as a result of planned renovations to their Indiana processing facility. And certainly over the past several years (decades even) we’ve also heard plenty about the effect air pollution has on our quality of life in relation to smog, acid rain and global warming.
We all ought to be doing our best to reduce, not increase, the garbage we dump willy-nilly into our public resources. That’s why our local parks ask us to put our refuse in garbage cans instead of leaving it strewn about so others can enjoy a picnic in a clean park. Same principle ought to apply to our water and air.
So it was with disappointment that I read today of two obstructionists who apparently think it’s just jim-dandy to dump more garbage into our shared resources, rather than less.
Ok, so it’s not a quote from today. It’s from a few months back and it was said by a man who just added another “former” to his resume; former Wisconsin governor, former Secretary of Health and Human Services, and, now, former presidential candidate Tommy Thompson (warning: that news site had some strange pop-ups):
Speaking to an audience at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington D.C., Thompson said that, “I’m in the private sector and for the first time in my life I’m earning money. You know that’s sort of part of the Jewish tradition and I do not find anything wrong with that.”
Thompson later apologized for the comments that had caused a stir in the audience, saying that he had meant it as a compliment, and had only wanted to highlight the “accomplishments” of the Jewish religion.
“I just want to clarify something because I didn’t [by] any means want to infer or imply anything about Jews and finances and things,” he said.
“What I was referring to, ladies and gentlemen, is the accomplishments of the Jewish religion. You’ve been outstanding business people and I compliment you for that.” (emphasis added)
Not that remarking that Jews are “outstanding business people” and adept at “earning money” is any sort of prejudicial stereotype or anything … but the comments would have the same effect if Mr. Thompson had said that he compliments black people on their athletic prowess and singing abilities … or that he admires Chinese people on their martial arts, fried food preparation and laundry skills.
It was an off-hand remark based on at least a caricatured stereotype of a minority, if not outright prejudice based on preconceived notions — ie, anti-semitism (prejudice against Jewish people).
The remark that was not meant “to infer or imply anything about Jews and finances and things” also recently became fodder for a crass joke, as Daily Kos front-page editor “Trapper John” wrote an elegy for Mr. Thomspon’s recently concluded woebegone presidential campaign and poked fun at many of Mr. Thompson’s notable missteps on the campaign trail.
And wouldn’t you know it but apparently supporters of Mark Kirk picked right up on the satire to lambaste not Tommy Thompson for uttering the remark in the first place, but Daily Kos for allowing a post making fun of the remark. These folks are calling the joke itself anti-semitism. What do these people not understand?
Archpundit reports that the same folks who promoted a fallacy-based smear email attack last week (also misrepresenting Daily Kos in that earlier email) are at it again, ignoring Republican Tommy Thompson’s original caricature in favor of heaping another helping of misconstrued lies on progressive Daily Kos.
When did these geniuses supporting Mr. Kirk decide that satirizing anti-semitic remarks was in and of itself anti-semitic (while simultaneously deciding that Republicans can make anti-semitic remarks with barely any consequence)? That is the peak of hyperpartisanship.
Moreover, when will their comrades like Anne Leary, Bill Baar, and others stop defending such complete ineptitude and stop willfully ignoring such abject partisan-fueled fibbing?
(And here conservatives complain that liberals don’t get humor…)
UPDATE: Anne Leary clearly doesn’t understand the point of this post, as she has used her own little echo chamber to claim I’m somehow “trivializing” anti-Semitism here and here (same content). No. I’m pointing out that the conservative partisans’ attempts to redefine the word to fit their own political meaning trivializes actual instances of hateful anti-Semitism. More specifically, such trivialization can be seen as Mark Kirk’s supporters continue to blast out smear emails with fallacies about his political opponents, relying on out-of-context cut and paste jobs and half-quoted material to paint his opponents as “anti-Semitic” when it couldn’t be further from the truth (one of Mark Kirk’s Democratic opponents is himself Jewish and both have strong stands supporting our ally Israel).
Ms. Leary’s myopic posts only prove these points. My full response to Ms. Leary is here.
Brown People Beware: the editor of Illinois Review seems to think welcoming you to America costs too much. Apparently Fran Eaton is not of the opinion that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. She writes:
While a recent Daily Southtown story emphasizes the need for immigrants to learn English, it also inadvertently reveals the mounting costs taxpayers are paying to assimilate Hispanic and Aramaic immigrants into the American way of life (emphasis added)
That Daily Southtown article is here. It does not indicate whether or not the immigrants are arriving here legally or not, and to be fair no one at Ill Review has yet mentioned that aspect. Regardless, the article is about the new wave of immigrants arriving to southern Cook County and parts nearby (many of whom likely are indeed legal immigrants) and the community offerings available to them.
Metropolitan Family Services is the charitable organization which runs the early-learning and American integration programs Ms. Eaton chides. According to their 2006 Annual Report (PDF), they had $31,698 in operating revenue for ‘06. Of that, only $17,776 came from government grants (it does not refine those numbers any more definitively). The rest came from individual donations, the United Way, an endowment fund and earned interest.
To me, 17 grand isn’t that much to pay to ensure that scores of young kids get off to a better start in school especially considering that the government grants are bolstered by community donations as well. Helping kids learn new skills earlier in life pays off in spades down the road. Perhaps not too surprisingly, Ms. Eaton disagrees (she has in the past argued against pre-school itself after all).
Truth be told, other conservative-partisans have stated that we as a nation must demand that all immigrants learn English (see: English as a national language) and assimilate into our melting pot culture (which is a bit odd in and of itself considering that American “culture” is an amalgamation of so many of the world’s various cultures in the first place). Not Ms. Eaton. To her, assimilation seems to cost too much. She does not indicate what her alternative would be (more jails … if these kids end up feeling ostracized and unwelcome in their new home … acting out because of it?).
This Metropolitan Family Services program serves the Southtown region, an area on the far South Side and south suburbs which is seeing an influx of immigrants from Latin America, the Middle East and Arabic regions, and also from Eastern Europe. (Indeed, the Daily Southtown article notes that Argo High School has students whose first languages are as diverse as Polish and Hindi — the area is blossoming as a destination for new arrivals.) As has happened with every wave of immigrants throughout America’s history, it is usually the children — the next generation — who best assimilate, learning English and wending their way between the customs of the Old Country and their American home. This is no different, and whatever can be done earlier in the child’s educational career to help smooth out that process will quite likely pay dividends down the road.
Sadly, the first commenter at the Ill Review — dm60462 — also took this opportunity to turn the topic toward xenophobic race-baiting; heaven forbid Latin American and Arabic immigrants bump into each other in a community center’s hallway and dm60462’s wildest fears come to life. I wonder what Ms. Eaton’s fellow conservative-partisans like Anne Leary and Andy Lappin would gather from that one example at the Ill Review blog… hmmm.
Fran Eaton has long railed against embryonic stem cells. Apparently, she would rather see those unwanted and abandoned frozen embryos destroyed in a biohazard incinerator instead of allowing them to help advance medicine and potentially improve the lives of those less fortunate than Ms. Eaton who are maimed by disease or injury.
She’s at it again, grasping at straws in the hopes that she can continue to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Unfortunately, she’s discussing issues that she clearly doesn’t even understand (perhaps willfully so).
Ms. Eaton’s latest myopic screed against medicine is based very loosely on a Daily Herald article. Indeed, her entire blogpost is about extrapolating her opinions (based on the opinions of her dogmatic comrade, found in the article). Her post’s title claims “Cord blood cells again more promising than embryos” yet no facts are found in the article to back up this opinion.
The only thing that even comes close is a quote by the paid consultant on staff at the conservative-partisan outfit “Family Research Council” which, like, Ms. Eaton, also opposes embryonic stem cell research.
Ms. Eaton’s entire claim that umbilical cord blood is “more promising” than embryonic research appears to be based on this quote from the admittedly biased Mr. David Prentice:
“No. 1, you don’t have the controversy and debate you do with embryonic (cells),” said David Prentice, a former Indiana State University medical school professor and the family council’s senior fellow for life sciences. “No. 2, it’s working. We’re already seeing the results.”
No. 1, nevermind the fact that it is groups like the one Mr. Prentice works for which is generating that “controversy”. Most of the country is strongly in favor of limited embryonic stem cell research, especially in light of the fact that the only frozen embryos permitted (by Federal law) for research are those which have been abandoned and are scheduled to be ‘discarded’.
Mr. Prentice and Ms. Eaton are in the minorit on that front, but they fight tooth and nail to pump their side out into the public sphere.
Mr. Prentice himself is an interesting character… He’s used the shadey all-but-a-lie tactic in the past in order to help advance his political ideology by parsing his words quite narrowly to claim that adult stem cells are more promising than they’ve actually proven to be. If he’s taken to fibbing about adult stem cells (”mature human stem cell experimentation”, as Ms. Eaton might wordily word it), how can we trust Mr. Prentice on this matter? Sadly, the Daily Herald does trust him enough to quote his bias.
Which leads us to No. 2, his second point that umbilical cord research is working (keep in mind his employer is a heavy funder of umbilical research).
In fact, it’s not working any better or worse than other research pursuits. The entire article centers on one suburbanite man’s quest to find something which does work. In the article, this fellow tells us he has already had two umbilical cord blood injections in Mexico and that the best that happened was that his multiple sclerosis subsided for about two years. He has not been cured.
In fact, the very same article has a quote from the man’s wife directly contradicting Ms. Eaton and Mr. Prentice:
“We know it’s not a cure,” he said, his wife Karen at his side. “We’re looking to buy time.”
…A cure, not stop-gaps, is what all of this stem cell research is about in the first place. Unfortunately for the rest of us, comrades-in-arms like Ms. Eaton and Mr. Prentice would prefer that abandoned frozen embryos be burned to ash in a metal box because … well … just because … (they never have provided a worthwhile reason to prevent holistic medical research). Meanwhile, other stem cell research is allowed to continue — cloned adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood cells, etc. — which means any “advancement” in those fields is seen as “progress” against a backdrop in which only very limited research in frozen embryoes is able to be done. Essentially, it’s like having a bunch of cars out on the track and the one with frozen embryos has no tires… of course the others are going to advance more quickly.
As the Daily Herald article indicates:
Ozzello’s hope hinges on research that suggests cord blood stem cells are particularly useful in treating auto-immune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes and lymphoma, where the body essentially attacks itself.
While the cells haven’t been shown to cure these conditions, some medical experts believe they are capable of at least slowing symptoms by replacing damaged cells with ones capable of new growth.
“Theoretically, it makes sense,” said Dr. Dusan Stefoski, director of Rush University Medical Center’s MS center in Chicago. “We are still in the early stages of thinking about it, but this likely will evolve into something bigger.”
Theoretically, it also makes sense that you try as many options available to researchers as you can in order to definitively find cures, rather than essentially promoting political rhetoric to boost ideological fundraising and touting half-way stop-gaps as “results”.
I posted earlier on Anne Leary’s bizarre defense of the fallacy-based, innuendo-mongering Mark Kirk-supporter Andy Lappin. At the beginning of her shrill post, she tried to change the subject away from her defense of hollow rants (which began when her ideological comrade snidely labeled 500,000 Americans “anti-semitic” simply because he disagrees with their philosophical values and principles)… She wanted to stop talking about her and her comrades’ hyperpartisanship in favor of a suggestion:
While Illinois Reason chooses to vent about the “dangers of hyperpartisanship” I suggest a little thought about the danger of Iran. Or al-Qaeda.
If she wishes to discuss the dangers of Iran or al Qaida then let us do so.
Yes, Iran and al Qaida are dangerous entities. No one is denying or ignoring this.
That is why, in part, Sen. Obama on the presidential campaign trail has suggested we figure out a way to better handle both because the current strategies clearly aren’t working (ie, where’s bin Laden)?
Iran…
Specifically, with Iran, saber-rattling about their nation allegedly arming Iraqi insurgents (none of which have been proven true) is only provoking more tension — especially in light of the fact that Bush’s Pentagon has lost track of 190,000 weapons in Iraq, letting tons of US weapons and armor fall into Iraqi insurgent hands.
As for any nascent Iranian nuclear program, clearly saber-rattling isn’t doing a darned thing to help in that regard as the upstart Iranian president only stiffens his spine. If, instead, a Western leader were to try and calm the stormy seas in that region through some mature diplomacy, perhaps the world would be the better for it. But if a nuclear weapons program is ever found to exist (and not by using “evidence” of faked-up sort provided in the lead-up to the Iraq war) then there’s a damn good argument to be made for strategic strikes. (Strategic strikes making the most sense seeing as how on the one hand, given the size of that nation and the influence of its dominant religious sect worldwide, an all-out invasion is implausible and on the other hand, the Iranian youth [the largest demographic segment by far] had been leaning pro-West before the beginning of Bush’s failures in Iraq, as conservative Newt Gingrich puts it).
al Qaida…
As for al Qaida, one only needs to read the bizarrely two-faced criticism from conservatives regarding Sen. Barack Obama’s statement that he would capture or kill bin Laden even if the president of the nation that is de facto harboring him will not. Since when is a strategic hit or a covert op an “invasion”?
If Ms. Leary truly thinks al Qaida is so dangerous perhaps she ought to encourage her comrades to concentrate more on Afghanistan and the nether regions of Pakistan, which is al Qaida’s homebase, instead of continuously propping up Pres. Bush’s own change-of-subject, his war in Iraq.
Democrats are willing to spare no expense to actually attack and capture al Qaida’s chief. Conservative partisans on the other hand seem wont to spare no smear or distortion in verbally attacking those who would suggest such a common sense thing. Perhaps this is because they don’t want anyone calling attention to how obviously weak their strategy of inflating the so-called ‘global war on terror’ has been (this is the war that even Newt Gingrich acknowledges is a fake prop, just as John Edwards calls it nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan).
First, a little background: Early last week one of Congressman Mark Kirk’s strongest supporters, Andy Lappin, distributed an attack email based on lies, innuendo, and twisted logic. Mr. Lappin’s targets were the two current Democratic candidates seeking the nomination to challenge Mr. Kirk next fall.
Mr. Lappin and his wife have in the past contributed the max dollar amount to Mr. Kirk, and clearly (through his smear email) Mr. Lappin is attempting to lend his direct support to him as well. Reaction to the smear campaign was swift from throughout not just the Tenth Congressional District but also the region.
Several partisan conservatives (as opposed to honest conservatives, who are forthright about lies when they see them) attempted a strange sort of counterpunch, charging that a blog called Daily Kos is somehow anti-semitic. The Daily Kos blog was the subject of Mr. Lappin’s email, as he attempted a weak guilt-by-association tactic against the Democratic candidates. Because it is free and open, anyone can read the Daily Kos blog for themselves and determine if they think it is the least bit “anti-semitic”.
The fact of the matter is that while random jerks do occasionally post to that blog — it’s a free blog — the entirety of the site itself is not anti-semitic and any such actual postings, rare as they may be, are routinely dealt with quickly and forcefully by the other 130,000+ Daily Kos users who oppose such off-color bunk.
Now that we’re all caught up…
I must’ve struck a nerve with conservative-partisan Anne Leary since her response to my post on the dangers of hyperpartisanship was a feeble attempt to change the subject to Iran (?) and al Qaida (?) and away from the utter lack of facts or reasoning in the conservative-partisans’ rants about the Daily Kos blog (including her own vitriol over it).
She labels her weak reply “Slander and Slaughter” … which is strange because nobody has slandered her and, unless I’m mistaken, no bloggers have slaugtered anyone either. Always good to start with some definitions, lest the partisan cons try their hand at redefinition one more time.
Anne Leary pipes up at Backyard Conservative about the recent fallacy-based attack email circulated by Mark Kirk supporter Andy Lappin.
Ms. Leary takes it upon herself to declare people are denying that anti-semitic writings are posted at Daily Kos with a post called simply enough, “Deny It All You Like” … yet she offers no evidence that anyone is denying these things are posted at Daily Kos because the fact is, no one is denying that people post off-color crap at Daily Kos.
One has to wonder if Ms. Leary and those like her had her V8 because what people are denying is that Daily Kos in its entirety is anti-semitic. We deny that claim because, well, because it’s not … and anyone with an Internet connection can see this for themselves by visiting the Daily Kos site for themselves instead of relying on partisan conservative activists who carefully edit material to find the worst, most offensive material possible, often removing context surrounding the material in the first place to make it appear even more dire.
Before going further it is worthwhile to note that hard-line conservative-partisans are attempting to redefine the word “anti-semitism” to include a political meaning, as Ellen Beth Gill and others have been saying for some time.
Just heard this on WXRT’s news break. Apparently a portion of Pearl Jam’s performance at Lollapalooza was somehow cut out of AT&T’s webcast of the event. AT&T has been heavily promoting their “Blue Room” webcasts of concerts and other events to tout their high-speed network. The 21st Century version of Ma Bell was also a ‘palooza sponsor.
CMJ and Down With Tyranny! have more info on this.
The portion that ended up disappearing into the ether at the hands of AT&T’s “Content Monitor”? An extended version of “Daughter” in which the band sang lyrics opposing President Bush to the tune of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall”.
AT&T is claiming their Content Monitor made a mistake — human error.
Rock star band Pearl Jam is claiming it was intentional.
The truth may lie somewhere in between but the larger picture points to the reason why the citizenry (and not the corporations) should be left in charge of issues related to media consolidation, net neutrality, and the like. Industries may claim they self-regulated themselves, but with the number of toys being found with lead in them … and the food (imported and domestic) found with contamination … and the citizens that are somehow accidentally edited (or, in the case of the Dixie Chicks, outright blacklisted) … it’s difficult to see how self-regulation actually works. Incidents like these reveal where the concept of a “free” market is flawed.
You can learn more about Net Neutrality at The Future of Music, an effort promoting Net Neutrality which was founded, in part, by Pearl Jam.
Net Neutrality is about preventing large networks like AT&T from controlling the free flow — ie, the “free” market — of information crossing the Internet. Essentially, Net Neutrality calls for their to be no gatekeepers which could prevent information from being transferred via the Internet (in China, the government acts as gatekeeper and locks out various websites in order to censor the info).
Full disclosure: I own some Pearl Jam CDs. 
(h/t Kagro X)
Lots of folks in conservative-partisan circles are gesticulating wildly with accusations that a soldier in uniform was “censored” or “kicked out” of a panel discussion at the recent Yearly Kos convention in Chicago.
Unfortunately for them this is yet another case of premature vacuity.
Bill Baar admits it was “unwise” of the fellow to wear his uniform, but still tries to somehow sluff it off by posting to a biographical page of another soldier which shows a picture of him in uniform. (Here’s a clue Mr. Baar, it’s a bio page, not a political statement. Besides, it’s perfectly legal to use past photos of yourself in uniform which is why both conservatives and progressives do it.)
The likes of Anne Leary, Roger Simon, Michelle Malkin, Newsbusters, Powerline and much of the rest of the con netroots (they seem to prefer “nutroots” though, don’t they?) also hopped on the fallacy bandwagon. Time for a basketful o’ facts for these folks.
Let’s lay the facts out on the table, shall we?
- The soldier was in uniform. We know this from eyewitness accounts of both the opening keynote speech (in which the sergeant was in uniform and engaged Retired Gen. Wesley Clark in conversation) and from video taken by conservative-partisans who were monitoring the convention in their attempts at finding dirt.
- The soldier was at a conference of politically active bloggers who were discussing politics in their panel sessions called YearlyKos 2007.
- Soldiers are prohibited from making political statements (of any type) while wearing their uniform lest they appear to be promoting one political agenda or another as a member of the Armed Forces — see DoD regs here and here.
- Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org was the lead of the panel in which the soldier rose to ask a question is himself a veteran, and knows the edict on prohibited political statements full well.
- The panel at which the soldier had stood in line to ask a question had ended by the time it was his turn. The attendees (those Kossacks who have been so denigrated by the conservatives these past few weeks) encouraged panel leader Soltz to allow the man to have his say. (Oops, there goes the “censorship” smear.)
- Soltz, a Captain in the Reserves, gave the soldier the same warning Gen. Clark had given the man the night before — it is illegal to publicly make political statements while in uniform.
- The soldier in uniform at a political conference attended by political activists proceeded to make politically-influenced statements — which is illegal — to a panel of men whose careers earned them several medals and the sacrifice of a collected 8 combat deployments. (In fact, the second of this soldier’s angry points was false to boot.)
- Soltz reprimanded the soldier for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice and confronted the sergeant, lest he and the others on the panel and in the audience be viewed to have condoned this action and face consequences themselves.
Censorship had nothing to do with it folks. There were plenty of hard, opposing questions posed throughout the conference sessions.
It was all about the soldier doing what he was doing while in uniform and the discipline it takes to be a soldier. He was reprimanded right then and there for knowingly and flagrantly violating military regs. Now I’m not sure if Mr. Baar and Ms. Leary served in the Armed Forces but if they had, they certainly should have known this. Indeed, Markos Moulitsas, a veteran himself, has argued that military personnel ought to be allowed to wear their uniforms while engaging in political activities but only the Pentagon or the White House can change those rules should they so choose. Til then, rules is rules as Kos’ adversaries at Red State quickly pointed out (which, strangely enough, puts Red State on the side of Jon Soltz given the incident at Yearly Kos), and without rules the military cannot enforce discipline.
As it is, had he been in flip-flops (as conservative pundit Dan Proft erroneously jabs) he would certainly have been allowed to pose his politically-motivated statement, despite the fact the session had already ended.
Pretty simple really, but far be it from conservative-pundits like Bill Baar, the Pajamas Media collective, or the like from bothering with facts and logic.
From Ellen’s blog, we are reminded again of the number of partisan-conservatives who rail against soldiers who criticize the war while wearing their uniform. Now, we see this same set of folks hypocritically supporting a soldier who also wanted to make a political statement while in uniform.
Either it’s illegal for soldiers in uniform to make political statements or it’s not. Doesn’t matter if the politic statements are agreeable to you or not. If it’s illegal, it’s illegal.
It doesn’t magically become ok just because you happen to be nodding your head at what the guy is saying (even though what he’s saying is false anyway).
During last night’s AFL-CIO sponsored presidential debate at Soldier Field, former LTV Steel employee Steve Skvara spoke for millions of Americans:
After 34 years with LTV Steel I was forced to retire because of a disability. Two years later, LTV filed bankruptcy. I lost a third of my pension and my family lost their health care.
Every day of my life I sit at the kitchen table across from the woman who devoted 36 years of her life to my family and I can’t afford to pay for her health care. What’s wrong with America and what will you do to change it?
We already know Pres. Bush’s response to this sort of question. In 2005, he told Nebraskan Mary Mornin he thought it was “uniquely American” that she had to work 3 jobs just to make ends meet and cover the necessities for herself and her kids. It’s only “uniquely American” in the sense that conservative-partisans’ loathing for efficient government forces Americans like Mrs. Mornin and Mr. Skvara into the situations they find themselves in.
This gets to the core difference between our nation’s two dominant political philosophies: progressives recognize that we stand stronger when we are united and will stand up to see things through. Modern-day conservative leaders, like Pres. Bush and Minnesota’s Gov. Pawlenty, believe in shrinking our society’s responsibilities for each other back to such a degree that our basic infrastructure is decrepit and the experiences of Mr. Skvara are commonplace.
Life ain’t fair. But progressives haven’t given up fighting to make it more fair… whereas conservative-partisans seem to have thrown in the towel in the name of “smaller government” or “tax relief” or whatever hollow talking point they can get out of a focus group.
By the by, that AFL-CIO debate was open to all presidential candidates — from both parties (see the 6:00pm entry). That only Democrats completed the requisite questionnaire and showed up to answer direct questions from real Americans is telling; even moreso given the fact Republicans have also been balking at their YouTube debate which, again, would involve answering to real Americans instead of talking-head media types.
The Internet is abuzz with folks blowing razzberries over the distortion-laden attack email Mark Kirk-supporter Andy Lappin sent out earlier in the week. The fallacy-based hit piece was directed at denigrating Democratic candidates Dan Seals (Kirk’s 2006 opponent) and Jay Footlik, one of whom will earn the primary nomination and become Rep. Kirk’s 2008 opponent.
Ellen of the Tenth strongly reiterates points she has made several times:
It’s an email from a Kirk supporter basically accusing anyone who does not support Kirk’s pro-war position as anti-semitic. [...] As my readers know, I am Jewish, not at all anti-semitic, not at all self-hating and pretty fed up with people who presume to tell me and others what we are supposed to think with the threat of being marked anti-semitic for any disagreement. I am also fed up with the new spin on anti-semitism that leaves us vulnerable to real anti-semitism now unchecked in the new church merged with state country Bush wants for us, and supported by Mark Kirk who never says anything about its dangers.
The email goes further to insinuate that Jay Footlik and Dan Seals should not speak to anyone left of center and certainly not anyone who would use that pesky old free speech, a mere holdover from those Jefferson/Madison days. [...] (emphasis added)
Ellen concludes with this salient point:
As I always say, “it is what it is” and the above email from Kirk’s camp looks a lot to me like it’s from someone who does not believe in the America of liberty and free speech I grew up in and in which I watched a post-WWII Jewish community thrive. To be sure there is some language on Kos that is not good, but that does not mean that thought and speech should be stifled and that no one on Kos should be talked to or listened to. We can have the liberty our founders intended for us, the one that gives everyone opportunity to live and work and prosper, or the intellectual vacuum of one-sided, hateful thought police that Bill O’Reilly and Mark Kirk’s supporter want and was never conducive to a thriving minority. (emphasis added)
The recently completed Yearly Kos conference certainly seems to have thrown partisan-conservatives of all stripes into a tizzy. Indeed, one recent offspring of the burgeoning anti-Kos rhetoric has led Daily Kos diarist James Boyce to note that he is not anti-Semitic.
This might seem like an odd thing for someone to feel a need to write about, but Mr. Boyce’s diary is a direct response to an email recently making the rounds in Illinois’s Tenth District. (I myself do not know Mr. Boyce, though Mr. Boyce does seem to know Jay Footlik one of the Democratic candidates seeking to challenge Mark Kirk. Mr. Footlik is himself Jewish and his wife is Israeli, according to the Footlik for Congress website.)
The email itself is the basest form of attack by innuendo and smear, replete with half-quotes, lies, and twisted words. The acidic email is aimed squarely at Democratic Tenth CD candidates Dan Seals and Jay Footlik.
This email was apparently written by one Andy Lappin, a district resident who by all accounts appears to hawkishly support Israel. Mr. Lappin, and apparently his wife, have both contributed significantly to Mark Kirk over the years.
These people have no business blaspheming Christ’s teachings with drivel like this. Next up, they’ll be complaining that Scott Baio gave them pink eye.
This fiction-based money-making scheme is little better than Sean Hannity and Ollie North’s own self-enrichment scam which is supposed to be for the orphans of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country.
Despicable.
Dan Curry’s “Reverse Spin” has a new