Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Cartoon of the Day


Tom Toles, NYTimes

The Results Are In

What was the highlight of last night's primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina? No, not that the results may mean the end of the campaign for Hillary Clinton. Options Dwindling for Clinton.

It was the success of the new voter ID law recently upheld by the Supreme Court, see Supremely Partisan Court. As the caption by Fired Up! Missouri put it:

Sisters of St. Mary's Convent Foiled in Plot to Steal Election Through Vote Fraud.

Yes, showing just how prescient the court's ruling was as a necessary measure, an obviously planned fraud by a team of Nuns was prevented. The elderly sisters tried to circumvent the voter ID requirement by approaching another sister from the convent at the polling place, but luckily she turned them away. After all, who knows who's really hiding under those habits without a photo ID?


The AP describes the scheme, in Indiana nuns lacking ID denied at poll by fellow sister:

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
Clearly, they intended to create havoc by trying to get around the new law. And as a sign of their hubris, they refused provisional ballots, as reported by Talking Points Memo:
They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. 'You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts.'
Whenever I doubt it, God always finds a way to come up with a good joke. This one's on the Catholic boys on the Supreme Court: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito.

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Who's Wright?

After being occupied with a variety of things this week, I've been somewhat removed from my usual close (obsessive?) inspection of news and politics. Which, I might add, is not a bad thing.

In trying to catch up on what's been happening, when I mentioned the Reverend Wright to my husband, he said that he was sick of hearing the man's name. True that, but I forced him to watch Bill Moyers' follow up essay on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and he agreed that Moyers provides the best "explanation" of Wright, to the extent any is needed. See It's All Wright, for my earlier post on Wright's appearance on Bill Moyers Journal last week.




I also realize that many are offended by Wright's words, but I have to say that the truth is that sometimes the truth hurts, as the maxim says. In all honesty, I haven't heard much that I truly disagree with. Sure, I can't say that I believe that the government intentionally caused the AIDS virus, but I also can't say that it didn't. Other than that, he's flamboyant, but he addresses issues that are not pleasant and may be negative about our country, but in the end, Wright is right.

Manila Ryce of The Largest Minority said it best:

Moyers discusses the racist double standard in the corporate press which has led to the lynching of Reverend Wright. Sorry Keith, but Bill Moyers is the real Edward R. Murrow of our generation.
And then there's Frank Rich of the NYTimes, the Moyers of the written word. He too mentions the Reverend, noting the disparity in the treatment of race and religion between Democrats and Republicans. As he observes in The All-White Elephant in the Room:
BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.

What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.

Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race.

* * * *

Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. But those who try to give Mr. McCain a pass for his embrace of a problematic preacher have a thin case. It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.

* * * *

I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full “Great Whore” glory. But Mr. McCain didn’t have to fear so rude a transgression. Mr. Hagee’s videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright’s. A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have the telegenic zing of a theatrical black man.

Perhaps that’s why virtually no one has rebroadcast the highly relevant prototype for Mr. Wright’s fiery claim that 9/11 was America’s chickens “coming home to roost.” That would be the Sept. 13, 2001, televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers. (Mr. Wright blamed the attacks on America’s foreign policy.) Had that video re-emerged in the frenzied cable-news rotation, Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers “agents of intolerance” and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006.

* * * *

There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.

A near half-century after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, this is quite an achievement. Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.”

Gee, maybe Wright's antics last week were merely his right wing, evangelical imitation. If so, he did a damn good job. And with his performance, as Frank Schaeffer, one of the founders of the Religious Right said, if Wright were white, he'd be a darling of the Republican Party. See Point, Counter-Point.

For more of Bill Moyers, visit his PBS website, Bill Moyers Journal.

Cartoon of the Day


Mike Luckovich, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Intrusions of Life

When things get particularly hectic, one of my favorite expressions is that life keeps interfering with my life. It seems to be happening a lot lately.

I barely had time to recover from last week-end's engagement party when I had to make a trek to Scranton because of the death of an uncle. Then, this week-end was filled with a work-related fundraiser, as well as the Senior Prom for the soon-to-be graduate. Thankfully, the prom preparations weren't quite as dramatic as last year (when we discovered that the security tag was left on the dress). But of course, she still managed to run behind schedule, causing the last minute dash to the Top of the Tower just in time for the dinner.

However, my Scranton trip brings to mind the latest Scranton mention, as was noted in The Times-Tribune. My cousin Jim & I both lived down the street from the Rodham family home and we're convinced that at some point the story will evolve to Hillary really did grow up in Scranton and actually was one of the kids who walked to school with us. The Daily Show visits Scranton to interview childhood friends/neighbors of Hillary Rodham Clinton:


Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Cartoon of the Day


Signe Wiklinson, Philadelphia Daily News

Supremely Partisan Court

I'm in the middle of Jeffrey Toobin's book on the Supreme Court, The Nine, so the partisan intrusion by the Court into the electoral process in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore case has been recently recalled for me, in all of its infamous "glory."

Acting again to ensure that the Republicans maintain as much control over the electoral process as possible, the Supreme Court upheld a voter ID requirement, enacted by a Republican controlled state legislature in Indiana intended to "prevent fraud" -- or code for the ability to impede the poor and minorities from easily exercise their voting rights.

The SCOTUS Blog describes the result in Court rejects voter ID challenge:

The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID before they may cast a ballot.

* * * *

The voter ID ruling may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters. The GOP for years has been actively pursuing a campaign against what it calls “voter fraud,” and the Court’s ruling Monday appears to validate that effort, at least in part. The main opinion said states have a valid interest in preventing voting by those not entitled to do so, even if there is no specific proof of that kind of fraud in the state.

While the Court’s main opinion said it was “fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role” in enacting the photo ID law, it went on to say that that law was neutral in its application and was adequately supported by the justifications the state had offered.

Got that? Even though everyone knows that this law was an intentional attempt on the part of partisan Republicans to suppress votes, because they were able to cobble together a semblance of an excuse to justify what they did, it's OK.

As the NYTimes observed, In a 6-to-3 Vote, Justices Uphold a Voter ID Law:
The 6-to-3 ruling kept the door open to future lawsuits that provided more evidence. But this theoretical possibility was small comfort to the dissenters or to critics of voter ID laws, who predicted that a more likely outcome than successful lawsuits would be the spread of measures that would keep some legitimate would-be voters from the polls.

Voting experts said the ruling was likely to complicate election administration, leading to both more litigation and more legislation, at least in states with Republican legislative majorities, but would probably have a limited impact on this year’s presidential voting.
See also, Supreme Court: States free to require photo IDs for elections.

I guess the best that can be said is to echo the sentiments of Michael Froomkin at Discourse.net:
My first reaction to today’s decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is that it is not as bad as it could be. But then, my expectations for this Supreme Court are pretty low.

The Forgotten Man



Let's be perfectly clear about this -- I used the word forgotten, not forgetful, in the Caption, referring to John "Double Talk" McCain. I wouldn't want to be accused of ageism because John McCain's so old.

And, as Jon Stewart notes, there is another candidate running for president. Someone we wouldn't want to forget about. It's the media's candidate, Republican John McCain. Stewart best exposes the pass the media provides to McCain, surely just a prelude of what's to come in the fall, when the campaign begins in earnest.

It's All Wright

After Jeremiah Wright's appearance on Bill Moyers Journal on Friday evening, I was surprised to see little or no mention of it in the media. See also, Why Is It So Quiet After the Moyers-Wright Interview?.

The blog Make it Stop! Make it Stop! expressed my thoughts on the interview exactly, The Wright stuff:

I hope everyone saw the Bill Moyers interview with Senator Obama's former minister, Jeremiah Wright. From the media coverage and the fiery Youtube video footage--very selectively edited, of course--I was convinced I was going to behold the devil incarnate, right there on pbs. What I found instead was an eminently personable, highly educated and thoughtful individual who kept Bill and the audience spellbound for the whole hour with commentary on the Bible, African-American history, his ministry and congregation, American culture and yes, politics.
See also Wright Is Right-On Bill Moyers Last Night and Jeremiah Wright on Bill Moyers' Journal.

Of course, I didn't understand what all the fuss was about to begin with, since his words expressed the truth, albeit in fiery prose. See Point, Counter-Point. But that was never the point. If the press (and his opponents) couldn't find much of anything in Barack Obama's past or his record to belittle, then try his friends and associates-- a la Jeremiah Wright.

And rather than expose Wright as the reasonable, intelligent man that he is, as was evident in his Moyers' interview, the media waited for the remaining appearances that Wright had planned before the NAACP and the National Press Club over the past few days, since he was sure to say something that could be construed as inflammatory when taken in snippet. Which he did. And they did. Obama Addresses Ex-Pastors Media Blitz.

To see the real Wright, go watch the Moyers' video.

As an aside, it's also interesting that despite the news blackout on the interview, Bill Moyers' blog received over 1800 posts on the interview, mostly positive.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Love Conquers All

On Saturday night, we hosted an engagement party for one of the LLWL Gang* and a good time was had by all.

Obviously, however, we're really just a bunch of duds. It's clear that we don't know how to have a bang-up affair, like the newlywed couple from Pittsburgh, Love, (Bam!) honor (Pow!) and obey (Wham!): Wedding night brawl lands couple in jail:

On Saturday, they were exchanging their wedding vows. But soon, they were exchanging blows -- with each other as well as with members of another wedding party.

"It was pretty wild," said Ross police Sgt. Dave Syska of a post-wedding brawl that landed a bride and groom in the Allegheny County Jail on their wedding night and left two good Samaritans with injuries.

There was lots of goodies to eat (my barely used Viking range finally got put to good use by a cooking monster LLWL Gang member) and drink, including the obligatory champagne toasts, along with some delicious desserts. The office gang (and mates) intermingled with friends and family of the happy couple and there was lots of good wishes and cheer.

So where did we go wrong? We can't claim an evening to remember like this:

According to a criminal complaint, the Wielechowskis had just checked into the Holiday Inn-McKnight Road in Ross and were ready to enter their room on the seventh floor when they began arguing.

Dr. Wielechowski "then used a karate-style kick with his leg to kick Christa, knocking her to the floor," the complaint reads.

* * * *

Police said both Dr. and Mrs. Wielechowski punched and wrestled with the rescuers, who were left with injuries that included cuts, a tooth knocked out and a possibly broken thumb.

The complaint estimates $1,000 in damage to the hotel, including to the elevator, the planters and plants.

* LLWL = Lady Lawyers Who Lunch (a/k/a my officemates)

The Sound of the Mockingbird



Harper Lee
Born this day in 1926

Before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself.
The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience.


The author of To Kill A Mockingbird also said, "
Well it's better to be silent than to be a fool." See And They Didn't Read This, Either. Too bad the Bush missed that lesson, among others.

And if you wonder why I'm such a fan, see this: Who Am I?

Cartoon of the Day


Tom Toles, NYTimes

Saturday, April 26, 2008

It's the Cheesesteak, Joey

So, the South Jersey Republican who makes a living off gullible tourists visiting Philly (since no one from Philly would actually eat his lousy cheesesteaks) is whining because neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton stopped by Joey Vento's shop during the campaign.

I've written about Joey Vento, the anti-immigration, son-of-immigrants many times before, who is now claiming that the Democratic candidates are wimps for skipping a visit to his place, Vento to candidates: No Geno’s? No guts. No, Joey, it's not that. It's that they heard not only are you an idiot and an asshole, but that you make inferior steaks too. After 45 cheesesteaks, the best were ...

Oh, and then there's always the issue of the flags. As I mentioned in The Flag Flies, Joey Vento is a big fan of the confederate flag. Joey, if Obama had stopped by, would you have shown off your confederate flag tattoos? Or even better, perhaps he could have draped himself in one of the rebel flags you have hanging around the shop. Maybe you have a lapel pin with the confederate flag that you could have given him to quell those stories that he's unpatriotic because he's just like the other 2 presidential candidates and doesn't wear one.

And one more thing Joey-- that affinity for the Rebel flag. Is that your Southern roots showing? I realize it's not a sign that you're a bigot, it's just a reflection of pride in your southern origins. But which South are you glorifying? Is it South Philly or South Jersey?

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Are You Finished?

As I read Karl Rove's words, all I can think of is that he must have been bullied unmercifully as a kid for being a short, chubby, pasty-faced dork.

In his WSJ op-ed hit piece, Rove assesses the Democratic landscape after the PA primary, in
Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?. He claims Obama was "pummeled" by Clinton, who managed to "cobble" a victory despite her own flaws. According to his world view:

The Democratic Party has two weakened candidates. Mrs. Clinton started as a deeply flawed candidate: the palpable and unpleasant sense of entitlement, the absence of a clear and optimistic message, the grating personality impatient to be done with the little people and overly eager for a return to power, real power, the phoniness and the exaggerations. These problems have not diminished over the long months of the contest. They have grown. She started out with the highest negatives of any major candidate in an open race for the presidency and things have only gotten worse.

And what of the reborn Adlai Stevenson? Mr. Obama is befuddled and angry about the national reaction to what are clearly accepted, even commonplace truths in San Francisco and Hyde Park. How could anyone take offense at the observation that people in small-town and rural American are "bitter" and therefore "cling" to their guns and their faith, as well as their xenophobia? Why would anyone raise questions about a public figure who, for only 20 years, attended a church and developed a close personal relationship with its preacher who says AIDS was created by our government as a genocidal tool to be used against people of color, who declared America's chickens came home to roost on 9/11, and wants God to damn America? Mr. Obama has a weakness among blue-collar working class voters for a reason.

After reading Rove's ravings, you would think that the Democrats may as well just pack it in now, since they've already lost the election. Of course, for me, his rants are the biggest favorable endorsement one can get.

Yet, Rove might have missed mentioning a few items of importance in making his predictions of doom. Gee, maybe he ignored the huge increases in voter registration rolls (for the Democrats) and well as record voter turnout. And as much as it can be problematic for the Democrats, the truth of the matter is that the intra-party fighting is the result of the fact that democrats are so enthused for their candidate that they are sniping at each other.

On the other hand, the Republican slate was so lame that Double Talk McCain won by default and the Republicans have to take a double dose of their Stepford juice before they could support him. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Rick Santorum had to take his dose via IV before he was able to pen his latest endorsement of McCain, Why conservatives should support McCain. Of course, he's a Republican, so his earlier screeds against McCain are no longer operative. See, e.g., Even Santorum can’t stay away.

I think that we've thankfully reached the point where the ramblings of Rove are just that.