Cartoon of the Day
*David Horsey, Seattle Post Intelligencer 
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
If I Only Had McCain
Barack Obama was the "Toast of the Town," or at least a hit of the annual Gridiron dinner in DC. He definitely can find a career in comedy. His speech is reprinted at Best of Gridiron: Obama, Lynne Cheney and Bush. Worth a chuckle, so check it out.
The Chicago Trib's Blog, The Swamp, also has an account of Obama and the Roast, including a take off song from the Wizard of Oz, "If I Only Had McCain," about the tiff between the two over ethics reform.
He had some good lines, for example: "You know, the Gridiron Club is an aging institution with a long, proud history, known today primarily for providing a forum for jokes.
"To some,'' he said, "that may sound like the Democratic Party."
Monday, March 13, 2006
Jesus Weeps
The Boston Globe has two articles on the decision of the Archdiocese of Boston to stop adoptions as part of Catholic Charities mission, as detailed in Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions and Church's rift with Beacon Hill grows.
Rather than comply with the non-discrimination policies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regarding gays, the Church has decided to cease all adoptions. That is, the Church determined, "after much reflection and analysis, they could not reconcile church teaching that placement of children in gay homes is 'immoral' with Massachusetts law prohibiting discrimination against gays." The 42 member Board of Catholic Charities had unanimously voted to continue with the adoption policy (which included permitting children to be adopted by gays), but they were overruled by Church officials.
The Catholic Church of Boston has been involved finding homes for orphaned and needy children almost since it's inception there, according to Boston College historian Thomas O'Connor. However, the new Pope (you know, the one who was formerly a member of the Nazi party) declared in 2003 that same sex unions were verboten and adoption by gays was also a no-no.
Of course, they could have continued the mission of adoptions and given up the millions in aid that Catholic Charities receives annually from entities such as United Way, which have non-discrimination policies in place. Instead, they opted to totally halt all adoptions.
Blogger No Blood for Hubris said it well:
Now the church is letting us know that they'd rather have kids languish in foster homes than give up their phobias about homosexuality. Compassionate? Christian?These are not the teachings of the Church I remember. It's a sad day to be a Catholic. Jesus would definitely not hang with this crowd.
Meanwhile, the very same Catholic Church is still hiding their long history of harboring and cosseting pedophile priests who sexually abused defenseless children over decades.
Theme: protecting pedophile priests, that's ok. Cruelly abusing and mistreating kids in slave-like conditions, that's ok. Intruding into the private lives of adults, that's ok. Helping abused and neglected children find adoptive homes, not ok.
Tags:
He's Not the Right Man
Paul Krugman provides some "straight talk" about John McCain, in his NYT column, The Right's Man, in which he tries to debunk the McCain Myth of Moderation.
Krugman's column is timely, in light of articles such as the one that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, McCain status rising for '08?. Steven Thomma analyzes the political landscape for McCain, noting that "[t]he conventional wisdom of the moment - that McCain could win the general election but not the Republican nomination, because conservatives oppose him - may be changing." What is implicit, but not discussed in the piece, is the fact that McCain would benefit from Democratic and Independent voters in the general election. The article itself focuses on his repairing his image with the conservative contingent of the Republican party. He apparently already has his Democratic base locked.
Both sides need to reconsider McCain. As Krugman explains, he doesn't need a make-over. Rather, as he observes:
The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member.My opinion of McCain has been voiced in The Company You Keep and Not the Real McCoy. McCain is a conservative all dressed up in moderate clothing.* * * *
So here's what you need to know about John McCain.
He isn't a straight talker. His flip-flopping on tax cuts, his call to send troops we don't have to Iraq and his endorsement of the South Dakota anti-abortion legislation even while claiming that he would find a way around that legislation's central provision show that he's a politician as slippery and evasive as, well, George W. Bush.
He isn't a moderate. Mr. McCain's policy positions and Senate votes don't just place him at the right end of America's political spectrum; they place him in the right wing of the Republican Party.
And he isn't a maverick, at least not when it counts. When the cameras are rolling, Mr. McCain can sometimes be seen striking a brave pose of opposition to the White House. But when it matters, when the Bush administration's ability to do whatever it wants is at stake, Mr. McCain always toes the party line.
It's worth recalling that during the 2000 election campaign George W. Bush was widely portrayed by the news media both as a moderate and as a straight-shooter. As Mr. Bush has said, "Fool me once, shame on -— shame on you. Fool me -— you can't get fooled again."
Dick Polman, the political analyst for the Inquirer, also describes McCain and Bush: Politics' odd couple. He's at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference and he observes the delicate dance that McCain is engaged in, balancing the need to placate the conservatives while not alienating the moderates who are already in his corner. I just hope he's not a good dancer.
(For those with access to the NYT column, it can be found reprinted at the Economist's View)
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Mindless Musings
There were two pet-related articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer that caught my eye this week, for different reasons. This post is about my meanderings about these items. One nice, one not so much.
The first, SPCA owns up to a mistake in euthanizing rescued cat, tells the sad story about a cat that was accidentally euthanized by the Delaware County SPCA, and the staff then tried to cover it up. Last year, the Inquirer ran a number of stories detailing the serious problems with that shelter, including a Board of Directors with a bunker mentality. The shelter has made substantial improvements since then, with new Board members, hiring a part-time vet, etc.
The new director, Bill Vernon, discovered the cover up and contacted the pet's owners to tell them the truth. He should be commended for acknowledging the problem and taking responsibility for it. A pervasive Culture of Non-responsibility reigns today (promoted by those people currently occupying the White House), so it is refreshing to see someone step forward and accept responsibility. Especially in a situation like this, where you know that you've caused great pain by the mistake that occurred. It had to be very difficult for Vernon to contact the owners and confess the truth. But, he did the right thing anyway. Kudos to you.
The other article tells the unfortunate story of a 73 year old Chester County woman who is losing her home of 50 years to make way for a turnpike ramp. A new turnpike ramp will run her off the road says that the woman lived in an 1801 farmhouse, so I assume that the historic home will be demolished as well. A kennel run by Main Line Animal Rescue will also be displaced, which was providing income to the woman. The state is paying for the property (although they are still arguing over the value), but I wonder if the price includes her lost income. It should, since she no doubt won't be able to move to another location that could support the kennel.
However, the real point of interest for me was the fact that the kennel was run by Main Line Animal Rescue. We moved into our current home about 2 years ago. The house has a big fenced-in back yard, so we promised our daughter the long requested dog after the move. We wanted to get a rescue dog. Our cat is from Morris Animal Rescue, but they didn't have any small dogs when we started looking. We ended up using Petfinder.com to adopt our dog, Ginger. They have a great site, which allows you to search for the pet of your choice by location. You can specify type of animal (e.g., dog), size and area that you live. A description of the pet, with pictures are provided and then you contact the shelter or rescue group directly. That's how we got Ginger (pictured above), who is great. She's not the Pomeranian that we thought that we were getting, but she's a good dog.
However, we found several pups listed with Main Line Animal Rescue and tried to contact them on several occasions, with no success. They never responded to our emails or phone calls, inquiring about puppies listed on their site. Ever. Our then 14 year old daughter was crushed. She wanted a puppy (and you know how patient kids are at that age). We would see a cute pup, send an email, follow up with a call and no response. Nothing. Not even, the pet is no longer available. Nothing. Rude is the nicest word I can use to describe my views of this group. So I had a guilty twinge of Schadenfreude when I read about the difficulties that this would cause the owners of Main Line Animal Rescue. Not the woman who owns the kennel or the animals. Just the people who run the Rescue.
Courteous treatment will make a customer a walking advertisement ~ James Cash Penney
Kiss You Kate
In the PA Senate race for Rick Santorum's seat, Daily Kos provides the good news that Kate Michelman has decided not to run as an independent, in Michelman won't make an independent bid, citing the Inquirer announcing the decision.
I had expressed my serious concerns about her possible entry into the race in Ditto. I concur with the sentiments expressed by Jonathan Singer of MyDD, in Michelman Drops Potential Indie Bid:
Would Kate Michelman have added to the race? Would she have made a good Senator? The answer to both of these questions is probably yes. Nevertheless, in the interest of increasing the likelihood that the Democrats win back the United States Senate in November, it's good to see that she will not make an independent bid and help split the Democratic vote against Rick Santorum, thus helping deliver the Senate Republican Conference Chairman another six years in Washington.Michelman wrote an op-ed piece in today's Inquirer, Pro-choice leader chooses family over politics, in which she explains the valid reasons that led her to consider running. She states that despite her strong belief that the pro-choice movement needs to act because Roe is in substantial jeopardy, she has decided to stay out of the race because of family commitments.
For someone as committed to the cause as Michelman, that just doesn't make sense. Not that family isn't important, but the pro-Choice movement is who she is, it's a fabric of her personality. I assume that the political powers that be (read that: Ed) managed to convince her that she would be hurting the movement in the long run by splitting the vote. In fact, once the word got out that she was considering running as an independent, at least one politician accused her of being responsible for Santorum winning in the first place. See, Get this: Santorum can thank ex-NARAL boss. True or not then, it may well have been true this time around.
In any event, I'm thankful that she's sitting this one out. I'm sure her family will be happy to have her around more as well. So, it's a win-win for all.
Tags:
Sunday Morning Silliness
If you're in the mood for trivia about the day you were born, try the Birthday Calculator. I especially like the breakdown of # of months, weeks, days old you are, along with the estimated date of conception.
(Via PSoTD )
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Sandy D Sings
Daily News Blogger, Will Bunch, reports on a speech given by the dearly departed (from the Court, not life) Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in Sandra Day O'Connor rips into GOP, DeLay, Cornyn, and warns of the "beginnings" of dictatorship.
Nina Totenberg of NPR aired a story about a speech that O'Connor gave at Georgetown University, stating: "In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, O'’Connor said that attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms."
In concluding her report, Totenberg noted:
O'’Connor observed that there have been a lot of suggestions lately for so-called judicial reforms -- recommendations for the massive impeachment of judges stripping the courts of jurisdictions and cutting judicial budgets to punish offending judges. Any of these might be debatable, she said, as long as they are not retaliation for decision that political leaders disagree withA transcript of the NPR report is at The Raw Story. The audio can be heard at NPR. The entire story/transcript is worth listening to.
I, said O'Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and formerly Communist countries, where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O'’Connor said we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
Seeing how the country has evolved of late, there might be a vote in an important decision that O'Connor is regretting these days.
Twilight Zone
There is a commercial from Vernon Robinson, who is running for Congress in North Carolina that is truly scary. Using the "Twilight Zone" theme, Robinson tries to instill fear in conservative Republicans by attacking gays, blacks, judges, immigrants. See it for yourself at Crooks and Liars. He's in the Twilight Zone alright.
Oh, please save me from those "family values."
UPDATE: Word is that Robinson pulled the vicious ad. See Crooks and Liars. Unclear whether it was because of copyright issues re: use of Twilight Zone tape or outcry because of the hateful content. My bet is the former. You can still see the ad at the Crooks and Liars site.
Also, apparently, this guy is black. Must have major self-esteem issues.
Some Family Time
This story gives new meaning to the term "spend more time with the family" as a resignation justification. A month ago, that excuse was used by a Bush policy advisor, Claude Allen, as I noted in Family Time. The explanation is now revealed in this Slate article, Former Bush Aide Charged in Felony Theft:
Allen was arrested yesterday and charged in a felony theft and a felony theft scheme. According to a department press release, Allen conducted approximately 25 fraudulent "refunds" in Target and Hecht's stores in Maryland.* * * *
Allen is charged with practicing a form of shoplifting called "refund fraud."
In general, a refund-fraud scam goes like this: You purchase an item - —a CD player, let's say - —and leave the store with it. Then you come back to the store and pick up exactly the same CD player; you take the CD player and receipt from the original purchase to the returns desk, claiming that this is the item you bought, and get a refund for it. You keep the original CD player, and pay nothing. Professional shoplifters like refund fraud because it's relatively safe.
Eschaton provides an interesting view of Allen, who was "[k]nown as Rove'’s enforcer, Allen wielded a heavy, censorious and punitive hand at HHS." He was a true zealot for the cause.
In my previous post, I wondered what the "real deal" was for this "moral" conservative. I speculated:
Will it be an indictment or a sex scandal? My bet is the latter.
Not only was I wrong on the sex scandal part, I never in a million years would have guessed this one. Of course, I had never even heard of refund fraud before.
Gotta love those Christian conservatives.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Friday videos
The Late Night Shows, from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, to Letterman and Real Time with Bill Maher, have their signature skits. These features tend to provide the best comedy for each show: such as, the New Rules, from Real Time with Bill Maher, The Top Ten from the Late Show with David Letterman and Headlines from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report is joining those ranks. His feature skit, the Word, is often hysterical. Since it's Friday, it's time to enjoy some video comedy.
Here are two truly funny skits from the Word:
The Long War (Via Crooks and Liars) and Monopoly (Via onegoodmove).
As my daughter would say: LMAO.
Tags:
A Lie Told Well
According to the Washington Post, Rick Santorum, the esteemed Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has managed to pull another Tricky Ricky move. As explained in Senator Resumes Lobbyist Huddles:
After saying in January that he would end his regular meetings with lobbyists, Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), the third-ranking GOP leader in the Senate, has continued to meet with many of the same lobbyists at the same time and on the same day of the week.Now, some might think that he was caught in a lie. But not so. If asked, I'm sure the Senator has a good explanation. That is, "Instead of being held in the Capitol, however, the recent meetings were conducted nearby." You need to appreciate the nuances of politics as practiced by Republicans, that's all.
Santorum, whose ties to Washington lobbyists have been criticized by his Democratic challenger, suspended his biweekly encounters on Jan. 30. His decision came as Democrats named him as their top target in November's Senate races, and after the guilty plea of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff to charges of conspiring to corrupt public officials.
But in the month since his announcement, Santorum has held two meetings attended by the same core group of lobbyists, and has used the sessions to appeal for campaign aid, according to participants. Both of those meetings were convened at the same time as the previous meetings -- 8:30 a.m. -- on the same day of the week -- Tuesday -- and they lasted for about as long as the earlier meetings -- one hour.
This arrogant display of mendacity is again in evidence in Santorum: That all depends upon what your definition of the word "charity" is, by Will Bunch of Attytood. Bunch wrote a piece about a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette from Santorum, objecting to the paper's claim that Santorum had a "personal charity," Operation Good Neighbor. Bunch then proceeded to detail the various instances (with accompanying photos) that Santorum referred to Operation Good Neighbor as his foundation.
As I've said many times before, Ricky's Gotta Go.
For some reason, the Republicans don't even seem to care whether their previous contrary views are published or preserved on video. They feel free to deny, adamantly I might add, things that are easily proven otherwise. I think it's just a matter of they think they could. There are no consequences when they are caught in a "red handed" lie. The spin machine is brought out, and it's so fine-tuned, that the lie is lost somewhere in the partisan attack.
I saw a great line somewhere recently saying that GOP stands for George Orwell's Party. This Administration (and its cronies in Congress) has certainly adopted that as their motto.
The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal. -- Mark Twain
Thursday, March 09, 2006
The More Things Change
An Op-ed piece in the LA Times yesterday commemorated the 36th Anniversary of a break-in that occurred in the Media, PA office of the FBI, A break-in to end all break-ins, which preceded Daniel Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon Papers.
THIRTY-FIVE YEARS ago today, a group of anonymous activists broke into the small, two-man office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Media, Pa., and stole more than 1,000 FBI documents that revealed years of systematic wiretapping, infiltration and media manipulation designed to suppress dissent.Sound familiar?
The Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI, as the group called itself, forced its way in at night with a crowbar while much of the country was watching the Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier fight. When agents arrived for work the next morning, they found the file cabinets virtually emptied.
Within a few weeks, the documents began to show up -— mailed anonymously in manila envelopes with no return address - — in the newsrooms of major American newspapers.
* * * *
To this day, no individual has claimed responsibility for the break-in. The FBI, after building up a six-year, 33,000-page file on the case, couldn't solve it. But it remains one of the most lastingly consequential (although underemphasized) watersheds of political awareness in recent American history, one that poses tough questions even today for our national leaders who argue that fighting foreign enemies requires the government to spy on its citizens. The break-in is far less well known than Daniel Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon Papers three months later, but in my opinion it deserves equal stature.
Found among the Media documents was a new word, "COINTELPRO," short for the FBI's "secret counterintelligence program," created to investigate and disrupt dissident political groups in the U.S. Under these programs, beginning in 1956, the bureau worked to "enhance the paranoia endemic in these circles," as one COINTELPRO memo put it, "to get the point across there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."
The Media documents -— along with further revelations about COINTELPRO in the months and years that followed -— made it clear that the bureau had gone beyond mere intelligence-gathering to discredit, destabilize and demoralize groups -— many of them peaceful, legal civil rights organizations and antiwar groups -— that the FBI and Director J. Edgar Hoover found offensive or threatening.
* * * *
Eventually, the COINTELPRO memos -— some from Media and some unearthed later-— prompted hearings . . . on intelligence agency abuses. In the mid-1970s, the wayward agency began finally to be reined in.
It is tragic when people lose faith in their government to the extent that they feel they must break laws to expose corruption.
But a war that had been started and sustained by lies had gone on for years. And a government had betrayed its citizens, manipulating their fear to strengthen its grip on power.
Today, again, many people worry that their government may be on the road to subverting its own ideals. I hope that the commemoration of those unknown activists being held today in Media, Pa., will serve as a reminder that fighting for democracy abroad must remain more than merely an excuse to weaken civil liberties at home.
I wonder what it would take to get these guys out of retirement? Now this is truly something about which you should "Be afraid, Be very afraid."
(Via Attytood)
At The Oscars
As expected, Jon Stewart provided a critique of his Oscar appearance, Jon At The Oscars (via onegoodmove). I especially loved Stewart's intro spoof of the LA scene, with him in sunglasses, gabbbing on his cell as he does his Blackberry thing. Reminds me of one of my old partners, Mr. He Who Shall be Nameless . . . .
A Commentary by Andy Dehnart of MSNBC also critqued Jon Stewart and his celebrity audience in Those big stars just don’t get Jon Stewart.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Ditto
An opinion piece by Deborah Leavy in the Philadelphia Daily News expresses my Bob Casey views perfectly: Yo, Kate: Please don't jump!.
I also winced when I read that:
KATE MICHELMAN, ex-head of NARAL Pro-Choice America and a longtime Pennsylvania resident, is reportedly thinking of jumping into the race for Rick Santorum's Senate seat as an independent.I've expressed my opinion of Bob Casey before, Ricky's Gotta Go, and I agree with everything she says, other than the fact that she was against Humphrey in 1968. I was also was against the Vietnam War and too young to vote (I was the age my daughter is now). But I sure wanted to vote for HHH, my hero. In fact, my passion for politics is largely due to the Happy Warrior. I became a Liberal then and never looked back.
Her interest was sparked by Democrat Bob Casey Jr.'s endorsement of Sam Alito, whose elevation to the Supreme Court threatens Roe v. Wade.
The possibility of Michelman running as an independent reflects the unhappiness pro-choice women - and men - have with Casey's anti-choice views. Although I share Michelman's displeasure, I hope she decides against entering the race.
For pro-choice women like me, Casey's candidacy presents a real dilemma.* * * *
I would love to work for, give to and vote for a candidate who embodies my ideals, and watch Rick Santorum go down in defeat.* * * *
Some think Democrats made a huge mistake in picking a candidate who is not pro-choice to run against Santorum. Reproductive rights are a cornerstone of the Democratic platform, and some feel we shouldn't compromise what we stand for, even if it means losing. Some pro-choice partisans have vowed to stay home on Election Day to send a message that they will not be trifled with.
I'm not one of them. I don't like Casey's positions on reproductive choice, or stem-cell research, or gun control or, most recently, on putting Alito on the Supreme Court. I also have enough reasons to be against Santorum to vote for his opponent even if he's only slightly to the left of Genghis Khan.
But I want more than that. I want reasons to be for Casey, not just against Santorum. To my great relief, I've found many.
One of the most important to me as a pro-choice voter is that, unlike Santorum, Casey supports family planning beyond abstinence-only. This, as well as emergency contraception, which he also supports, will help reduce the number of abortions, a result we can all agree on.
Casey favors separation of religion and state and is not allied with the religious right, who will be working for Santorum. Casey's strong personal integrity stands in vivid relief against the ethically challenged Santorum.
Casey is passionate about the working poor who can't get health insurance, about jobs with decent wages, about poverty, about the environment. These are core Democratic values that clearly distinguish him from Santorum.* * * *
That's a huge difference from Santorum, who votes with Bush 98 percent of the time and wants to dismantle government protections all the way back to the 1930s. "I'm the daughter of a New Deal Democrat, and I think Bob Casey is from that tradition of the Democratic Party," Abbe Fletman, a pro-choice, women's-rights, gay and lesbian activist working with the Casey campaign told me.* * * *
These women told me something else, too: They're tired of losing. In the end, it comes to this: Casey is the one who has the best chance to beat Santorum.
Although I was too young to vote in 1968, I was against the war and hated the fact that Hubert Humphrey was the Democratic nominee for president. That kind of thinking gave us President Nixon. In these dangerous times, sitting out this election, or throwing away a vote for Kate Michelman, is just too risky.
I've grown up since 1968. While I disagree with him on some important issues, Bob Casey, a Hubert Humphrey Democrat, has my support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
