No Free Speech in Gilead
AP (via Buzzflash):

Two teachers arrested at a 2004 campaign rally for President Bush and strip-searched at a county jail have filed a lawsuit alleging law officers conspired to violate their constitutional rights.

Alice McCabe and Christine Nelson, both in their 50s, were among five protesters arrested at the Sept. 3 rally. The pair were handcuffed, taken to the county jail, strip-searched and charged with criminal trespass. The charges were dropped months later . . .

McCabe and Nelson — described in the lawsuit as political novices motivated by their opposition to Bush administration policies in Iraq — attended the rally at a city park, where McCabe held a sheet of paper urging, "No More War," and Nelson wore a John Kerry button.

As Pamela Leavey writes, "The questions must be asked. What is so threatening about a “No More War” sign or a Kerry button? Have these free speech items been deemed deadly weapons? Are they considered illegal contraband?"

Good questions all. I have one more. If more of us showed up at these events, would law enforcement be less likely to pull stunts like this?
- posted by TJ @ 10:45 PM |

 
This'll Make You Laugh
Go check out what Pastor Fred "Batshit Insane" Phelps had to say about SpongeDob this week (via tena at first draft).
- posted by TJ @ 3:36 PM |

 
Are they Fracturing?
Via Sullivan, for whom I hold no brief and so I won't link to him, it seems that there is a definite trend in the conservative blogosphere to sound the alarm over the growing influence of fundamentalist Christians in the halls of government:

Example #1. John Cole, of balloon-juice, had this to say about the report that the Air Force Academy had become a center for proselytizing evangelicals to impose their religious views on cadets:

Shocked? You should be, and no, I won't calm down, Jay, because I don't think I am being hysterical or shrill. I simply fail to understand why reasonable people on my side of the aisle continue to run political cover for these folks.

I fully expect to be told I am getting 'worked up over nothing,' that these 'are just a small portion of conservatives,' and that 'everyone has a right to be heard.' Whatever. These aren't your average every day pople who just want to practice their religion freely. We are talking about a coalition of proselytizing zealots who want to control government, codify their religous outlook, and most of all, who want to control you . . .

I am particularly dismayed by the people who want to pooh-pooh these groups, claiming they are just a fringe element that should be ignored. Many want us to believe that all of these groups are individual actors- even people like Jay, who can clearly recognize the political ties between George Soros, Media Matters, America Coming Together, etc., but wants to pretend there is not a coordinated effort to impose a specific brand of Christianity on everyone.

Andrew Sullivan is sometimes over the top in his rhetoric, but he has an excuse- he is homosexual. They are gunning for him, first. You and I are phase two. We ignore these folks and abandon Andrew at our own peril, and if we do not confront these people, you can kiss goodbye the coalition that has swept Republicans into power.

When faced with a choice of this loose-knit coalition of frauds, bigots, hucksters, and letting the 'evil' loony left in charge, well, suddenly MoveOn doesn't seem that damned scary anymore, particularly when you consider how marginalized the Cynthia McKinney crowd is. They may tax the hell out of me and leave us with an impotent foriegn policy, but I can count on them staying out of my bedroom, my science classes, my pharmacy, my science class, and my Doctor's office.

Go ahead- force me to make a choice.

Example #2. Another blogger, who appears to be a right-wing libertarian(?), took a closer look at the bill proposed by Alabama state legislator Gerald Allen, who wants to ban books that feature gay characters, or that are by gay authors:

But as is so often the case when a wingnut legislator feeds his wingnut base, the true impact of the bill as-written would be far worse . . . Here's the sentence in the bill, emphasis mine:

No public funds or public facilities shall be used by any state agency, public school, public library, or public college or university for the purchase, production, or promotion of printed or electronic materials or activities that, directly or indirectly, sanction, recognize, foster, or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of the state of Alabama.

It's not surprising that Allen is stupid, or that he's written a bad law, or that he doesn't seem to have even read the criminal code his law references. It is surprising that the MSM has focused on this as "a law to ban gay authors and characters" (which is appalling), and missed the fact that the law as written is really "a law to ban gay authors and characters, unmarried characters who suggest that oral sex may be enjoyable, and male characters who have ever deceived women in order to sleep with them."

The question isn't what books, plays, and movies would be banned from Alabama schools, universities, and libraries. The question is what would be left.

So, do you think the Republican coalition will fall apart if the religious extremist wing of the party continues to call in its chips? Does it matter? And even if the conservatives splinter, is this good for America, or will it lead to a further rightward shift in American politics, as people like John Cole join the Democrats, seeking privacy without progressive values? Discuss.
- posted by TJ @ 3:03 PM |

 
Mayor of Gilead
Go check out Lebanon, TN Mayor Don Fox's open letter published on his "news blog" regarding the upcoming National Day of Prayer.
- posted by TJ @ 2:56 PM |

 
More News that CNN is Ignoring
From Ted Rall:

They've vanished into the netherworld of a Homeland Security gulag and their story has already disappeared from the headlines, but the shocking case of two 16-year-old girls from New York City arrested a month ago ought to inspire outrage among every American worthy of the name. Since the government's reasons for the girls' imprisonment could apply to virtually any teenager, it should also spark fear.

[snip]

Based solely on an essay written by one of the two, the FBI says both girls are "an imminent threat to the security of the United States based upon evidence that they plan to become suicide bombers." But the feds admit that they have no evidence to back their suspicions. Nothing.

"There are doubts about these claims, and no evidence has been found that such a plot was in the works," one Bush Administration official admitted to the Times. "The arrests took place after authorities decided it would be better to lock up the girls than wait and see if they decided to become terrorists," another told the New York Post. The same logic could be used to justify locking up any Muslim, or anyone at all. Heck, maybe that's the idea.

[snip]

When this story first broke I didn't write about it because I assumed that a public outcry would soon lead to its reasonable resolution. Sadly, this has not happened.

Thanks, CNN! Way to do your job. You remember, journalism?

Go. Read. The. Whole. Thing.
And then hug your kids, if you have them.
- posted by TJ @ 1:26 PM |

 
"Every Good Marriage Begins in Tears"
NYTimes:

More than half of Kyrgyzstan's married women were snatched from the street by their husbands in a custom known as "ala kachuu," which translates roughly as "grab and run." In its most benign form, it is a kind of elopement, in which a man whisks away a willing girlfriend. But often it is something more violent.

Recent surveys suggest that the rate of abductions has steadily grown in the last 50 years and that at least a third of Kyrgyzstan's brides are now taken against their will.

The custom predates the arrival of Islam in the 12th century and appears to have its roots in the region's once-marauding tribes, which periodically stole horses and women from rivals when supplies ran low. It is practiced in varying degrees across Central Asia but is most prevalent here in Kyrgyzstan, a poor, mountainous land that for decades was a backwater of the Soviet Union and has recently undergone political turmoil in which mass protests forced the president to resign.

[snip]

The practice has technically been illegal for years, first under the Soviet Union and more recently under the 1994 Kyrgyz criminal code, but the law rarely has been enforced.

"Most people don't know it's illegal," said Russell Kleinbach, a sociology professor at American University in Bishkek whose studies of the practice have helped spur a national debate.

The few prosecutions that do occur are usually for assault or rape, not for the abductions themselves. There are no national statistics on how many kidnappings go awry, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that some end in tragedy.

Four days after the sister of one of Mr. Kleinbach's students was kidnapped a few years ago, her body was found in a river. The family that abducted her was never charged with murder . . . Families use force to keep the women from leaving or threaten them with curses that still have a powerful impact in this deeply superstitious land. Once a girl has been kept in the home overnight, her fate is all but sealed: with her virginity suspect and her name disgraced, she will find it difficult to attract any other husband.

Brutal as the custom is, it is widely perceived as practical. "Every good marriage begins in tears," a Kyrgyz saying goes.

The article also recounts the tragic story of Ainur Tairova, a beautiful young woman threatened with abduction multiple times beginning on the eve of her highschool graduation. Ms. Tairova managed to escape one serious abduction attempt by falsely claiming she was not a virgin, but was not so lucky the next time:

Then, one balmy September evening, she again found herself in a car filled with men, ostensibly on their way to a restaurant to meet other friends. But the car drove into the countryside and soon arrived at the farmhouse of her suitor's parents.

By then Ms. Tairova was hysterical. The men dragged her from the car and carried her kicking into the house. She swore at her future mother-in-law. She ducked and struggled when the women tried to put the jooluk on her head. Close to midnight, she broke free and ran outside into the darkness, but the men caught her.

Back in the house, Ms. Tairova refused to eat, drink or sleep as the night wore on. The next day her parents arrived and urged her to consent.

"I was angry and I felt betrayed," Ms. Tairova said, adding that she had cried the whole day.

But as with many Kyrgyz women, she eventually accepted her fate. She since has reconciled with her in-laws and says she is happy with her husband now.

Let us not forget that millions of women in this world live in Gilead every day. For information on how you can help women like Ainur Tairova and other victims of abduction in Kyrgyzstan, contact the Association for Women's Rights in Development.
- posted by TJ @ 12:30 PM |

 
Missing the Real News
CNN has apparently (I refuse to watch) spent most of the day covering the story of a missing bride in Georgia, who had cold feet and told her fiance she had been kidnapped. This story is of no significance to anyone but her family. CNN is failing to report real news, and deliberately choosing to focus on this non-story for sensationalism and ratings. Here are some facts to help put it in perspective:

According to the National Center for Missing Adults (NCMA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Crime Information Center (NCIC) reports that as of July 30, 2004 there are 47,842 active missing adult cases in NCIC with 30,622 missing adults missing one year or more.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in "the year 1999, an estimated 797,500 children were reported missing; 58,200 children were abducted by nonfamily members; 115 children were the victims of the most serious, long-term nonfamily abductions called "stereotypical kidnappings"; and 203,900 children were the victims of family abductions."

According to this article in the Christian Science Monitor (thanks to GWPDA for the tip), 274 female factory workers in the border town of Juarez have been murdered in the past 9 years, perhaps by an American serial killer.

As Atrios points out, 4 make that 5 soldiers were killed today in Iraq . . . and the violence continues to escalate. Thousands of Iraqi civilians, including women and children, have been killed since the beginning of the invasion, with virtually no reporting from the major media on the number of deaths or the U.S. military's failure to avoid civilian casualties.

CNN chooses to report meaningless fluff. Thousands of adults go missing every year, but we hear about this one (who isn't even missing anymore) because she's white and wealthy and was about to have a Princess Di wedding. Frankly, CNN and the rest of the cable news media do not deserve the use of the public airwaves any longer.

UPDATE: Atrios and Hecate nailed another facet to CNN's hyperfocus on this story--the implication that women are not allowed to go anywhere in America without their parents', husband's or fiance's permission. Everytime I turn around, Gilead. What the hell is happening to this country?
- posted by TJ @ 11:30 AM |

 
Just What America Needs
Oh, great. "The Antichrist to the World" has decided it's time to start advertising on national television:

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO— As nanny Jo Frost helps the Christiansen family handle their strong-willed boys on the May 2 finale of TV's Supernanny, millions of viewers will be introduced to Focus on the Family via a nationwide spot scheduled to air twice during the program. This is the first time Focus has purchased ad time on national network prime-time television.

Just what we need, more sheeple (because, really, who else watches crap like "Supernanny") for Dobson to add to his group and soak for cash.
- posted by TJ @ 10:10 AM |

 
Wag the Dog
Not that this is surprising, but the same administration that brought you the rescue of Jessica Lynch, Bamboozlepalooza and the reporting of "Jeff Gannon," "Karen Ryan," Maggie Gallagher and Armstrong Williams, apparently also staged fake interrogations for VIPs at Guantanamo:

The U.S. military staged the interrogations of terrorism suspects for members of Congress and other officials visiting the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to make it appear the government was obtaining valuable intelligence, a former Army translator who worked there claims in a new book scheduled for release Monday.

Former Army Sgt. Erik Saar said the military chose detainees for the mock interrogations who previously had been cooperative and instructed them to repeat what they had told interrogators in earlier sessions, according to an interview with the CBS television program "60 Minutes," which is slated to air Sunday night.

"They would find a detainee that they knew to have been cooperative," Saar told CBS. "They would ask the interrogator to go back over the same information," he said, calling it "a fictitious world" created for the visitors.

Saar worked as a translator at Guantanamo from December 2002 to June 2003. During that time, several members of Congress reported visiting the base, but military officials said they do not know precisely how many toured it.

Saar also told CBS, and claims in his upcoming book, "Inside the Wire," that a few dozen of the more than 750 men who have been held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay were terrorists, and that little valuable information has been obtained from them.

What's next? Fake battle scenes? Is anything coming out of this administration not staged?
- posted by TJ @ 8:54 AM |

 
Access Denied
Blogger laura k wrote a sobering piece for CommonDreams.org back in January, in which she makes the argument that decreased access to abortion has already made Roe irrelevant for millions of women. Please go read what she has to say--it is no less important or true today.
- posted by TJ @ 9:26 PM |

 
Fair and Balanced
Also from World O'Crap:

Oh, and speaking sex and children, and how gays shouldn't have either, Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum advocacy group, was on CNN last week to debate the proposed Texas law that would prevent same-sex couples from being foster parents. And it seems that she used info from our old friend Paul "Gerbil Boy" Cameron during the debate.

The Wall Street Journal has the whole story, strangely enough:

The proposed ban attracted national media attention, and several "pro-family" groups seeking to drum up support for the bill have been circulating some troubling stats about gay parents. Among the most striking, stated during a CNN program: children in foster homes with same-sex parents are 11 times as likely to be sexually abused as those with heterosexual parents.

To get on CNN, that number snaked through a twisting path, from a little-noticed Illinois study published by an antigay scientist/activist in a psychological journal, to several conservative Web sites, to, finally, the attention of a Texas activist who presented her misinterpretation of the study on national television, essentially unchallenged. It's a textbook example of how flawed numbers can gain national attention if advocates work hard enough -- especially when there aren't widely-known conflicting estimates.

The WSJ explains the faulty data, "leaps in logic," and fallacies that led Ms. Adams to her claim. Read the whole thing. And then think twice (at least) whenever you hear anyone spout numbers on Kyra Phillips's CNN program.

The only difference between CNN and FOX is that FOX is relatively honest about which side it's on. CNN still tries to pretend that it has no agenda.
- posted by TJ @ 8:42 PM |

 
What Would Serena Joy Do?

"In the garden behind the house the Commander's Wife is sitting, in the chair she's had brought out. Serena Joy, what a stupid name . . . Her real name was Pam. I read that in a profile of her, in a news magazine . . . By that time she was worthy of a profile: Time or Newsweek it was, it must have been. She wasn't singing anymore by then, she was making speeches. She was good at it. Her speeches were about the sanctity of the home, about how women should stay home. Serena Joy didn't do this herself, she made speeches instead, but she presented this failure of hers as a sacrifice she was making for the good of all."---Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale

Via World O'Crap (and let's all send s.z. a big giant GET WELL SOON, because her work is par excellence), we learn of this column at townhall by Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America:

Postmodern thinking offered women the opportunity to “have it all.” Women flocked into the marketplace where they are having unprecedented success. Entry level MBA women now make higher salaries than their male counterparts. [um, BULLSHIT.] Sadly, though, sexual liberation came as part of the post-modern package and gals began rivaling the guys in bed-hopping, too.

Because only guys should be allowed to bed-hop. Presumably with each other, since women sure as hell aren't supposed to.

Now we are learning the price those women are paying. Turns out sexual “freedom” wasn’t exactly free. This week, the Beverly LaHaye Institute (the think tank for Concerned Women for America) released its latest Data Digest which chronicles a disturbing trend for women: since 1976, the rate of childlessness has gone up between 50 and 90 percent among women in every age bracket, and the rate of singleness among women over age 30 has tripled.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody mentioned in the mid-70s that “having it all” would not include marriage and children. Many young women, now that it is too late, are lamenting the cost of careerism and promiscuity as they discover that marriage and children are not likely in their future.

As s.z. notes, "Women like poor, sad Ann Coulter!" hee hee.

So-called sexual freedom, loudly touted by libertines and radical feminists, has brought soaring rates of sexually transmitted diseases and plummeting rates of marriage. Abortion has eliminated 45 million pregnancies and left behind a host of problems: heartbreak, as well as physical and emotional distress. Millions of women are finding, through bitter experience, that while the wonders of modern communication technology can distract much of the time, at the end of the day –– when the iPod and cellphone sit in their chargers, when the television’s relentless barrage is finally silent –– there is no hand to hold and no baby to cuddle.

If you have no husband to care for or baby to cuddle, you are a worthless piece of garbage. Be fruitful and multiply, goddammit! That is your only purpose in life, women.

Nature will not forever be denied; women are beginning to see the costs of imbibing the unnatural cocktail of self-centeredness served up by me-centered post-modernism.

Is that cocktail made with Stoli? So anyway, then she goes on to blast feminist groups for failing to recognize the choices made by today's Stepford wives, and continuing to drag out that old chestnut about wage inequality:

The statistical mantra that the feminist groups cite – that women make 76 cents for every male dollar – compares the average full-time working male to the average full-time working woman. Ironically, the NOW materials refuse to recognize the validity of the career choices women make to spend more time with their young children, which differs from most men’s choices.

Those sneaky NOW bitches! They dared to compare men's and women's salaries!

Naturally, I was intrigued by "Doctor" Crouse and thought it might be a good idea to learn a little bit more about her. Well, here's her bio from the CWFA website. Want to make a bet about whether Dr. Crouse stays home like she urges other women to do? I didn't think so:

1) During the Bush Administration, she was a White House senior writer on domestic issues. She authored major presidential policy addresses and edited the Presidential White Paper on Welfare Reform.
2) Prior to the White House, Dr. Crouse wrote for the Honorable Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). During that time, she prepared briefs for congressional hearings and coined the phrase "Healthy Start."
3) As president of Crouse Communications, Dr. Crouse worked with the Institute on Religion and Democracy, where she drafted, edited and produced the Christian Women's Declaration and led the Washington Summit, a coalition of female Christian leaders.
4) Prior to that, she was Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs at Taylor University.
5) She was a professor and debate coach at Asbury College and at Ball State University, where she was selected as a mentor teacher and her debate team ranked in the top ten nationally.

But don't pay any attention to that, ladies. She is sacrificing so that the rest of you women can stay home, clean house and make babies. Isn't that comforting?
- posted by TJ @ 8:25 PM |

 
Rove Speaks, FRC Listens
Looks like Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council got Karl Rove's message loud and clear:

Last night, President Bush was questioned about comments made by the Family Research Council and its President, Tony Perkins, regarding the fight to end the unconstitutional judicial filibuster by the current minority party.

The following is Tony Perkins' response:

"We have never said that Democrats aren't people of faith, in fact, we have specifically stated that our single purpose on this issue is to obtain an up-or-down vote on President Bush's judicial nominees. It's that simple. These nominees deserve to be voted on one way or another so they can move ahead with their lives and good works in whatever capacity that may be.

"We did not make this issue about religion. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and others like him have twisted this issue and manipulated our words for the advancement of their own agenda. Senator Schumer specifically stated that a key nominee was not qualified to sit on the second highest court in the nation because of his 'deeply held personal beliefs,' please note he did not say because of his 'judicial philosophy.'

"I agree with President Bush, religion is a private matter. We do not hold people's chosen faith or even their lack of faith against them. The way that people choose or choose not to worship is their own decision; but for nominees to be held back from opportunity because they have chosen a faith that might advise against abortion, same-sex 'marriage' and similar issues is deplorable. The Senate's job, according to the Constitution is to 'advice and consent' not obstruct and filibuster."

We did not make this issue about religion.??? What a liar. Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you Albert Mohler, key speaker at Injustice Sunday:

"We are not calling for people to be moral, we want them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ."

As Salon's Michelle Goldberg put it, That's a valid position for a religious figure to take, perhaps, but since Mohler also argued that Christians can't separate their public responsibilities from their spiritual obligations, it seemed as if he was arguing for the right of judges to impose Christianity. If so, the real problem isn't discrimination against "people of faith." It's the claim that "people of faith" have the right to discriminate.
- posted by TJ @ 4:11 PM |

 
Rhetoric of Hate
Over at the Corner today, Stanley Kurtz pulled his head out of his ass just long enough to complain about what he thinks the Democratic strategy for the coming election will be:

The strategy seems to be to tar the Republicans as captive of Dominionist Christians–folks who want to force every American to pay church tithes and bring back capital punishment for blasphemy and witchcraft.

Imagine that. The Democrats plan to tell Americans that the Senate and House majority leaders, not to mention a host of other elected officials, are hand-in-glove with people like Al Mohler and James Dobson and Tim LaHaye. Kurtz seems to think this is preposterous, as he explained in his column yesterday, which was such a piece of garbage that it's worth dissecting:

Harper’s Magazine’s May cover stories about “The Christian Right’s War On America,” frightened me, although not the way Harper’s meant them to. I fear these stories could mark the beginning of a systematic campaign of hatred directed at traditional Christians. Whether this is what Harper’s intends, I cannot say. But regardless of the intention, the effect seems clear.

The phrase “campaign of hatred” is a strong one, and I worry about amplifying an already dangerous dynamic of recrimination on both sides of the culture wars. I don’t doubt that conservatives, Christian and otherwise, are sometimes guilty of rhetorical excess. Yet despite what we’ve been told, the most extreme political rhetoric of our day is being directed against traditional Christians by the left.

Really? What about the vile statements from the putrid mouth of Pastor Fred Phelps? Or Ann Coulter? Or Michelle Malkin? What about Tom DeLay's diatribe against the judiciary? What about James Dobson's comparison of the Supreme Court to the KKK?

It’s been said that James Dobson overstepped legitimate bounds when he compared activist judges to the Ku Klux Klan. Yes, that was an ill-considered remark. I hope and expect it will not be repeated. But Dobson made that comparison extemporaneously and in passing. [snip]

Oh, okay. It was only said in passing, on the radio. He was only funnin'. And I bet he's very restrained when he's off the air.

Chris Hedges, who wrote one of the Harper’s cover pieces, is . . . worried about extreme Christian theocrats called “Dominionists.” He’s got little to say about who these Dominionists are, and he qualifies his vague characterizations by noting in passing that not all Dominionists would accept the label or admit their views publicly. That little move allows Hedges to paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless “Dominionist” Christian mass. Hedges seems to be worried that the United States is just a few short steps away from having apostasy, blasphemy, sodomy, and witchcraft declared capital crimes. Compare this liberal fantasy of imminent theocracy to the reality of Lawrence v. Texas and Roper v. Simmons (the Supreme Court decision that appealed to European precedents to overturn capital punishment for juveniles). Both of these decisions relied on the existence of a supposed national consensus on behalf of social liberalism. In conjuring up that false consensus, the Court treated conservative Christians as effectively nonexistent. That is the reality of where the law is, and where it is
headed . . .

Not if Jesus Frist and his followers change the Senate rules on filibusters, you moron.

For a very long time now, secular liberals have treated conservative Christians as the modern embodiment of evil, the one group you’re allowed to openly hate. Although barely noticed by the rest of us, this poison has been floating through our political system for decades. Traditional Christians are tired of it, and I don’t blame them. That doesn’t justify rhetorical excess from either side. But the fact of the matter is that the Left’s rhetorical attacks on conservative Christians have long been more extreme, more widely disseminated, and more politically effective than whatever the Christians have been hurling back. And now that their long ostracism by the media has finally forced conservative Christians to demand redress, the Left has abandoned all rhetorical restraint.

Notice the continual references to a supposed rhetoric of hate from those of us on the Left without any specific examples being cited, other than the Harper's article, which he discusses only generally. I don't know a single liberal who advocates anything but tolerance for the religious practices of others. Like I've said before, I don't give a shit if these people want to worship goats. What I want is for them to keep their religious beliefs to themselves and stop forcing them on others. You don't like abortion? Fine, don't have one. You don't agree with same-sex marriage? Don't marry someone of your own sex. You think contraception is wrong? Don't use it. But stop preventing others from doing so. That is the difference that Kurtz pretends not to understand.

Conservative Christians have good reason to fear cultural ostracism. The mere expression of their core religious views is being legislated against. The courts have banned traditional morality as a basis for law and have turned instead to secular Europe for guidance. Traditional Christians can’t even set up a college in New York City. And now Harper’s is calling them evil fascists. Yes, conservative Christians have the ear of the president and of the Republican leadership — you bet they do. Given the way they’re being treated in the culture at large, they’d be fools not to protect themselves by turning to politics.

Those poor oppressed Christians. They're just trying to defend themselves. And so what if they are pulling the strings behind the Republican puppet President and House and Senate Majority Leaders. We need not fear them.

[I]f Christians are increasingly bold and political, they’ve been forced into that mode by 40 years of revolutionary social reforms. David Brooks has already explained how Roe v. Wade unnecessarily polarized the country, making it impossible for religious conservatives to have a voice in ordinary political give and take. We’re still paying the price for that liberal judicial arrogance.

Now judicial imposition of same-sex marriage has poured fuel on the fire. When Frank Rich compares conservative Christians to segregationist bigots, when Chris Hedges compares conservative Christians to evil fascist supporters of Hitler, its the Christian understanding of homosexuality that’s driving the wild rhetoric. None of the American Founders would have approved of same-sex marriage, yet suddenly we’re expected to equate opposition to gay marriage with Hitler’s genocidal persecutions . . .

Leaving aside Bobo's utter crapfest of a column, isn't it amazing how Stanley Kurtz can commune with the dead and let us all know what the Founding Fathers thought about same-sex marriage? Wow.

If “Dominionists” try to force all Americans to pay church tithes, or call for the execution of blasphemers and witches, I will oppose them.

It will be too late by then, you idiot.

But that is not the danger we face. The real danger is that a growing campaign of hatred against traditional Christians by secular liberals will deepen an already dangerous conflict. The solution is to continue our debates, but to change their framing. Conservative Christians cannot stop complaining of exclusion and prejudice until cultural liberals pare back their own excesses. Let’s stop treating honest differences on same-sex marriage as simple bigotry. Let’s stop using the courts as a way around democratic decision-making. Let’s stop trying to criminalize religious expression. Let’s allow Christians to establish their own institutions of higher learning.

Because right now they are prohibited from doing so? WTF?

And let’s stop calling traditional Christians fascists. It would be nice if the folks complaining about “Justice Sunday” addressed these issues as well.

We can debate with the fundies from now until the Crapture, they are not going to change their minds about same-sex marriage, or abortion, or abstinence education, or any of the myriad other social issues they are so worked up about. The Bible tells them so, as the song says. Basically, Kurtz wants the Democrats to roll over and lube up, because then it won't hurt as much. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll pass.

(Please note that I did not use any rhetoric of hate against anyone except Stanley Kurtz throughout this entire post, although, now that I think about it, James Dobson is a fucking fascist.)

Update: Despite Kurtz' pooh-poohing of Democrats' concern that witches could again face persecution in the New Dominionist World Order, just yesterday it was reported that the ACLU filed a petition for an en banc review of the Fourth Circuit's recent decision upholding Chesterfield County's "right" to refuse to allow Cynthia Simpson, a witch of the Wiccan faith, to lead the invocation at its Board of Supervisors meetings (only members of the Judeo-Christian faith need apply, as far as this Virginia county is concerned).
- posted by TJ @ 11:29 AM |

 
Gilead Air Force Academy
According to the LA Times, Americans United for Separation of Church and State have issued a 14-page report detailing numerous instances of religious bias at the United States Air Force Academy:

There have been 55 complaints of religious insensitivity over the last four years, often made by cadets who feel evangelical Christians dominate the institution. [snip]

The report's authors were told that cadets who refused to attend chapel after dinner were marched by upperclassmen back to their dorms in a ritual called "heathen flight." They found that teachers introduced themselves as "born again" Christians and invited students to be saved as well. A history instructor ordered students to pray before a final exam, the report said. And a Christmas greeting in the base newspaper said Jesus was the only hope for the world; it was signed by 300 people, including 16 heads or deputy heads of academic departments, nine professors, the dean of faculty and the football coach.

The report said that Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, commandant of cadets and professed "born-again" Christian, had developed a system of code words shared with evangelicals.

During a chapel service, Weida reportedly told cadets the New Testament parable about building a house on a rock. The story is meant to convey the importance of a solid foundation for one's faith.

"Gen. Weida then instructed cadets that, whenever he uses the phrase 'Airpower!' they should respond with the phrase 'Rock Sir!' thus invoking the parable," the report said. "Gen. Weida advised the cadets that, when asked by their classmates about the meaning of the call and response, the cadets should use the opportunity to discuss their Christian faith."

Such incidents, critics say, give cadets the impression that they must embrace the beliefs of their commanders in order to succeed at the academy.

Now, imagine this scenario at every school and workplace throughout the nation. That is what the fundies want, that is why they are trying to change the filibuster rules, so that extremist judges who would allow such activities are placed on the bench.
- posted by TJ @ 9:24 AM |

 
Call Your Senators
Focus on the Fascist Family has issued an alert on its website, urging their zombie followers to call the following key Senators who "are resistant to constitutionally ending Democrats' filibusters."

No reason why they can't hear from those of us who want them to steadfastly maintain that resistance:

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Phone: (202) 224-4843
Fax: (202) 228-1371

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AK)
Phone: (202) 224-2353
Fax: (202) 228-0908

Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Phone: (202) 224-5852
Fax: (202) 228-5036

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Phone: (202) 224-5274
Fax: (202) 228-2183

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Phone: (202) 224-5623
Fax: (202) 228-1377

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Phone: (202) 224-5824
Fax: (202) 224-9735

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Phone: (202) 224-2523
Fax: (202) 224-2693

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Phone: (202) 224-5344
Fax: (202) 224-1946

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Phone: (202) 224-2043
Fax: (202) 224-7776

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Phone: (202) 224-2551
Fax: (202) 224-1193

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Phone: (202) 224-4224
Fax: (202) 224-5213

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Phone: (202) 224-6551
Fax: (202) 228-0012

Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Fax: (202) 228-4131

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Phone: (202) 224-5521
Fax: (202) 224-2852

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NE)
Phone: (202) 224-3542
Fax: (202) 224-7327

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Phone: (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Phone: (202) 224-3753
Fax: (202) 228-3997

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Phone: (202) 224-5842
Fax: (202) 228-5765

Sen. John Warner (R-VA)
Phone: (202) 224-2023
Fax: (202) 224-6295

I would imagine that Reid is listed purely for harassment purposes. As far as I know, the Republican Senators listed have publicly expressed doubts about the Frist nuclear option. I'm not sure about the views of all the Democratic Senators (but see here for a dailykos report on the Democratic position); however, I do know that Landrieu is a DINO--of all the Dems who might cave on this issue, she's where the smart money is.

So, pick up the phone and call these Senators. Tell them you do NOT support the nuclear option, and you are appalled at the growing influence of the religious right in the halls of the United States Senate. Don't let the fundies be the ones making all the phone calls.
- posted by TJ @ 5:30 PM |

 
"Our First Official Handmaid"
Via watertiger, we learn that Jeb!'s pet agency, the Florida Department of Children and Families, has intervened to prevent a 13-year old girl from getting an abortion, on the grounds that the unfortunate girl is "too young and immature to make an informed medical decision."

So, she's too young and immature to decide to have an abortion, but she's not too young and immature to carry the baby to full term and become a parent? Fuck you, Jeb.

The ACLU has filed an appeal. I'll keep you posted.
- posted by TJ @ 1:21 PM |

 
War against Women
Gretchen Cook has an in-depth article on the war on contraception over at Salon (and yes, I know viewing the ad is annoying, but really it's worth it for this article. trust me.):

From conservative pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills to abstinence-only programs and anti-condom campaigns, access to contraception is facing tough challenges from the right. The strategy is similar to one that conservatives have used for abortion: Since overturning Roe vs. Wade looks unlikely in the near term, opponents have turned their sights on limiting access to the procedure. Now members of the religious and political right -- including the Bush administration -- are focusing on contraception, raising concern that they will succeed in curbing women's birth control choices and the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

"I am deeply concerned that they have gone further than I have ever seen them. This is far past a woman's right to make decisions regarding abortion to the point now that it's about their right to make decisions on contraception," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., told Salon. Murray and her Senate colleague Hillary Clinton have blocked President Bush's nominee to head the FDA, Lester Crawford, over his inaction as acting director of the agency to approve the morning-after pill for over-the-counter sale. An FDA advisory committee has given the drug overwhelming support as safe and effective, and Canada approved its nonprescription status last week. Publicly, Crawford says his indecision on the drug has nothing to do with ideology, but privately he told Murray it raises his concerns about "behavior," apparently alluding to arguments that the pill will encourage promiscuity.

There are also indications Crawford sides with those that equate Plan B with "chemical abortion." During his confirmation hearing two weeks ago, Clinton asked Crawford: "Would you clarify for the committee that emergency contraception is a method for prevention of pregnancy, not the termination of pregnancy?" Crawford responded: "I may need to confer with the experts in the FDA about exactly what the physiology of it is." Labels on Plan B, the name that its maker, Barr Laboratories, has given it, say "for the prevention of pregnancy."

[snip]

Opposition to Plan B is just the latest and most visible drive by conservatives to curtail contraception, according to Heather Boonstra of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research group for reproductive issues. "There's a constituency out there that equates all contraception with abortion, and they're organizing in concerted ways to denigrate it," she says. That constituency includes a number of social and religious groups, but the one that takes the abortion-contraception connection perhaps the most literally is the American Life League (ALL), one of the largest antiabortion lobbyists. Founded 25 years ago, it claims 300,000 families as members.

"Many forms of so-called contraception work by preventing the implantation of an already created human being, and that kills a baby in the womb, and we consider that to be an early abortion," says ALL's vice president, Jim Sedlak. He says ALL's main mission is to inform women that all hormonal birth control methods and the IUD "are actually causing abortions themselves" and to force manufacturers to put that description prominently on contraceptive labels.

ALL's STOPP International campaign also seeks to cut government funding for Planned Parenthood, which it believes misinforms women about how contraception works. Sedlak says STOPP has been successful at the city level -- closing over 100 clinics around the country in the last 10 years -- and is now targeting state funding. He pointed to the Texas Legislature's recent decision to cut Planned Parenthood's state funding as one of ALL's biggest victories. "It's not as fast as we would like, but we'll take it, and we believe it will have a snowball effect and that when people understand what they're doing we'll be closing clinics even faster."

ALL is not the only threat to Planned Parenthood's funding. In every one of his budgets, Bush has frozen funds for Title X, the 30-year-old program that pays for family-planning services for low-income women. Susanne Martinez, Planned Parenthood's vice president for public policy, says that although Congress has restored some of that money, this "assault on family planning" has crippled Planned Parenthood's contraceptive distribution -- about 95 percent of the Title X funds it receives go directly to that service. She is also concerned Bush has appointed to agencies like the FDA and Health and Human Services "people who have very publicly said they opposed the use of birth control for the unmarried. It's something [Bush] has been doing in a very strategic way."

The article goes on to discuss abstinence-only education, conscience clauses for pharmacists, the campaign against condoms, and insurance coverage for birth control, to name just a few issues at stake under the Bush regime. This morning's Associated Press article on the House approval of tougher abortion-consent laws noted that, if approved by the Senate (and Frist has indicated it is a priority for him), it will be the fifth law reducing access to abortion since Bush took office in 2001:

Four [other] bills aimed at reducing the number of abortions have been enacted since Bush won the White House in 2001:

Last year, Congress made it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.

Another law last year denied federal funds to state and local agencies that act against health care providers and insurers because they don't provide or pay for abortions.

In 2003, it outlawed a procedure — generally carried out in the second or third trimester — in which a fetus is partially delivered before being aborted.

In 2002, lawmakers amended the legal definitions for person, human being, child and individual to include any fetus that survives an abortion procedure.

Separately, Senate abortion opponents last month defeated Democratic amendments to a bankruptcy bill that would have restricted the ability of abortion clinic protesters to file for bankruptcy when confronted with large court fines or damages.

I believe it is time for the women of America to say enough. We need to expose the religious right's war on contraception and reproductive freedom to the vast majority of Americans who support women's rights to contraception and choice. As Senator Patty Murray says, "I think the American public is basically outraged. People just cannot believe that access to birth control is in jeopardy. So the more they're aware, the more they'll act." Tell your neighbors, your friends, your family. Attend a local NOW chapter meeting (the New Orleans meeting is May 15--find out when and where yours is here). Contact the FDA. Maybe it is time to organize a march on Washington. One thing is certain: we can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines.
- posted by TJ @ 12:39 PM |

 
"Face it. We're Selfish."
What Tbogg said. Is it too early to nominate for Koufax Awards yet? Because, just, wow. Ranks up there with Athenae's rant a few weeks ago.
- posted by TJ @ 11:31 AM |

 
Salazar is the Man
Hee hee. According to gilliard, Herr Dobson is pissed that Senator Ken Salazar called his little fascist family group "the antichrist of the world."

From here on out, that is how they shall be known. I love it.
- posted by TJ @ 9:54 PM |

 
Because We Really, Really Need Cannon Fodder
AP:

FORT RUCKER, Ala. - An Army officer was acquitted by a military judge Wednesday of raping a soldier in her barracks room, a claim the defense said she concocted to keep from being sent to Iraq.

First Lt. Mike Hall, 35, had testified in his court-martial that a night of dancing, flirting and kissing with 1st Lt. Jennifer Dyer, 26, last August led to consensual sex, not rape as she alleged.

He said Dyer invited him into her room at Camp Shelby in Mississippi and that, during two short episodes of intercourse, he stopped both times when she said "No."

Hall was also acquitted on an adultery charge but convicted of having sex without informing his partner that he had genital herpes. The sex transmission charge is part of the military justice code that refers to acts "unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman."

Prosecutors wanted Hall to be sentenced to a year in prison or dismissed from the military on the sex transmission charge. But the judge, Col. Richard Gordon, ordered Hall to forfeit $1,000 of his monthly pay of some $3,700 for four months. He said Hall would receive a written reprimand.

The judge said Hall's deployment to Iraq to rejoin his unit would be up to his company commander, who has said he is in favor of it.

"I want the opportunity to still go serve with my unit," Hall said. "I want to show what I did was a mistake."

The prosecutor, Capt. Richard Dodson, said the evidence against Hall showed he "has no respect for Army values."

The judge acquitted Hall, who lives in Murfreesboro, Tenn., on the most serious charge of rape after a three-day trial at which Dyer testified that Hall forced her to have sex twice. She said she was too afraid of Hall to call for help in the barracks.

Dyer cried when the verdict was read and was escorted away without making any statement. Dyer, a National Guard soldier from New Jersey at the time, has since been honorably discharged and returned to her law enforcement job with a sheriff's department in New Jersey.

Dyer went public with her story on CBS' "60 Minutes," complaining that Army investigators doubted her claim and put her in a hotel room without access to a phone for two days.
- posted by TJ @ 9:01 PM |

 
It's about more than just Roe v. Wade
The religious right has women's reproductive rights squarely in its sight. As I've been discussing here for the past few months, our right to birth control is under attack. The right to abortion is being chipped away slowly as well:

Today, the House passed a bill that will "make it illegal to dodge parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines for abortions." So, if you are 15 years old and live in a state that requires parental notification prior to abortion, your father has been raping you and you get pregnant, you now have only 2 options: ask that same sexually abusive parent to help you get an abortion, or petition the court for one without their consent (yeah, right). Young girls used to have the option of getting an older friend, or teacher, or relative to drive them to a state with less stringent notification laws, but not any longer. What if you're being raped by your uncle, and you're afraid to tell your parents? Well, you are just fucked. What if you have fundie parents, like I did? Also screwed. And don't forget that 54 Democrats voted for this abomination.

Late last year, the Justice Department omitted information regarding emergency contraception from the final draft of its long-awaited rape treatment Protocol distributed to police and health care workers:

Gail Burns-Smith, one of several dozen experts who vetted the protocol during its three-year development by Justice's Office on Violence Against Women, said emergency contraception was included in an early draft, and she does not know of anyone who opposed it.

"But in the climate in which we are currently operating, politically it's a hot potato," said Burns-Smith, retired director of Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services. [snip]

"In too many hospitals, the nurses and doctors are still reading the rape-kit directions while they're doing the exam," said Linda Ledray, who directs the Sexual Assault Resource Service in Minneapolis.

One of the most inconsistent aspects of care is the morning-after pill. A 2002 analysis of national emergency-room data by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey found that only 21 percent of sexual-assault victims received it. In a 1998 survey of urban Catholic hospitals, a University of Pennsylvania study found that 12 of 27 centers had rules against informing rape victims about the method.

The risk of pregnancy after rape is small — less than 5 percent — but the vulnerable group is large. Of 333,000 sexual assaults and rapes reported in 1998, about 25,000 resulted in pregnancies — of which 22,000 could have been prevented, a Princeton University population researcher estimated.

That's 22,000 too goddamn many. But here's where the article really gets interesting:

"I think it's very smart not to put that in the guidelines," said Dr. George Isajiw, a board member of Physicians for Life, a Philadelphia anti-abortion group.

By giving emergency contraception, he said, "you're giving a dangerous drug that's not doing any good, or else you're causing an abortion. As a moral principle, a woman has the right to defend herself against an aggressor. But she doesn't have the right to kill the baby."

The fundies' plan is gradual, but clear. Eliminate late-term abortions. Make it harder for women and girls to get abortions. Restrict access to birth control. Overturn Roe v. Wade and leave it up to the states. And in those states where they can, deny abortion even in cases of rape. We are nothing but wombs to them, and so we CANNOT stop fighting.

Update: Dr. George Isajiw is also opposed to abortion in cases where the mother's health is at risk. In fact, he claims that such a thing never happens.
- posted by TJ @ 8:30 PM |

 
What are the odds
that this cigar was a Cuban too?

A couple of years ago, Tom DeLay was chomping on a cigar at a Washington restaurant with some lobbyists. The manager went over to tell him he couldn't smoke because the restaurant was on property leased from the federal government, which bars smoking.

"I am the federal government," DeLay replied, in words that will follow the one-time exterminator from Sugar Land, Texas, like ants at a picnic.

What an arrogant prick.

(Courtesy of Jonathan Alter at the News-Press.)
- posted by TJ @ 7:56 PM |

 
And This Makes Us Safer How?
Well, this should improve our image in the Arab world. Not.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has authorized the sale of as many as 100 large bunker-buster bombs to Israel. One expert said the move should serve as a warning to Iranians with nuclear ambitions.

I wonder if that's because the Iranians have made it clear they are not afraid of US sanctions? And, because your day wouldn't be complete without some Newspeak:

"This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been, and continues to be, an important force for economic progress in the Middle East," the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a press release.

Although the proposed sale will give Israel a significant new capability to attack underground targets, the agency said the move would not upset the balance of military power in the region.

And the war in Iraq is going swimmingly, our skies are cleaner, the economy is great. Whatever.
- posted by TJ @ 7:30 PM |

 
And you thought Chavez was exaggerating...
...a few days ago.

via Rising Hegemon (one of my very favorite blogs), it seems that the US has decided to "move to a more confrontational approach" vis-a-vis Venezuela. I guess the coup wasn't confrontational enough (Seattle Times):

The U.S. government knew of a plot to oust Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chávez, in the weeks before a 2002 military coup that briefly unseated him, newly released CIA documents show, despite White House claims to the contrary a week after the coup.

Yet the United States, which depends on Venezuela for nearly one-sixth of its oil, never warned Chávez, Venezuelan officials said. [snip]

While one government is not required to tell another government with which it has diplomatic relations that it may be facing a coup attempt, such an alert would be in keeping with the spirit of the Inter-American Democratic Charter of which both Washington and Venezuela are members, according to international-relations experts.

No definite proof has yet emerged that the maladministration was directly involved in the coup attempt. But, as attaturk says, if people don't realize "that the Bush Administration's fingerprints were all over this coup they are living in fantasy land." Half of America lives there, unfortunately.
- posted by TJ @ 2:54 PM |

 
Blood for Oil
News today was that exactly half of Americans polled believe that President Bush "deliberately misled" the nation about whether Iraq had WMDs in making his case for the invasion of that country. This means that half of all Americans, either still believe that Iraq had WMDs or that Bush did not deliberately deceive. Of course, Iraqi, not American, civilians, are the ones paying the price for Bush's lie, so perhaps that makes it easier for some to swallow (from The Independent):

Terrified US soldiers are still killing civilians with impunity, while the dead go uncounted
By Patrick Cockburn, 24 April 2005

An American patrol roared past us with the soldiers gesturing furiously with their guns for traffic to keep back on an overpass in central Baghdad. A black car with three young men in it did not stop in time and a soldier fired several shots from his machine gun into its engine.

The driver and his friends were not hit, but many Iraqis do not survive casual encounters with US soldiers. It is very easy to be accidentally killed in Iraq. US soldiers treat everybody as a potential suicide bomber. If they are right they have saved their lives and if they are wrong they face no penalty.

"We should end the immunity of US soldiers here," says Dr Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Kurdish politician who argues that the failure to prosecute American soldiers who have killed civilians is one of the reasons why the occupation became so unpopular so fast. He admits, however, that this is extremely unlikely to happen given the US attitude to any sanctions against its own forces.

Every Iraqi has stories of friends or relatives killed by US troops for no adequate reason. Often they do not know if they were shot by regular soldiers or by members of western security companies whose burly employees, usually ex-soldiers, are everywhere in Iraq.

[snip]

It was obvious to many American officers from an early stage in the conflict that the Pentagon's claim that it did not count civilian casualties was seen by many Iraqis as proof that the US did not care about how many of them were killed. The failure to take Iraqi civilian dead into account was particularly foolish in a culture where relatives of the slain are obligated by custom to seek revenge.

The secrecy surrounding the numbers of civilians killed reveals another important facet of the war. The White House was always more interested in the impact of events in Iraq on the American voter than it was in the effect on Iraqis. From the beginning of the conflict the US and British armies had difficulty in working out who in Iraq really was a civilian.

Marla Ruzicka, the American humanitarian worker who was buried yesterday in California, had established in her last weeks in Iraq that figures were kept based on after-action reports. Officially, she found, 29 civilians were killed in fire fights between US forces and insurgents between 28 February and 5 April. But these figures are likely to be gross underestimates.

US soldiers are notorious in Iraq for departing immediately after a skirmish, taking their own casualties but sometimes leaving damaged vehicles. They would not have time to find out how many Iraqis were killed or injured.

[snip]

The immunity of US troops means that there is nothing to inhibit them opening fire in what for them is a terrifying situation. For all their modern armament they are vulnerable to suicide bombers and roadside bombs. In the first case the attacker is already dead and in the second the man who detonates the bomb is probably several hundred yards away and in cover. With nobody else to shoot at it is the civilians who pay the price.

Meanwhile, BP announces record profits for the first quarter of this year:

For the first three months of the year, the UK's biggest listed company made $5.49bn (£2.87bn). The figure, the equivalent to earnings of £1.3m an hour, comes two months after BP announced a record annual profit of £8.7bn - a result that sparked calls for a windfall tax on energy companies.

David Sirota had an excellent post this morning on the build-up of cash reserves at Exxon, and Bush's total silence on the issue of price-gouging by oil companies in his few public statements on the rising cost of gas. These profits are not simply coincidental:

Perhaps The UK's rush to war was in part fuelled by a desire to see its corporations at the front of the queue in post war Iraq? Lord John Browne, chief executive of BP has made no secret of his company's desire to re-enter Iraq, where it helped to discover oil reserves before it was forced out by nationalisation.

And, sure enough, as the AP reported last month, "Through 15 years of conflict and sanctions, major oil companies never lost sight of Iraq's enormous proven reserves: the world's second-largest after Saudi Arabia . . . The world's three biggest integrated oil companies - BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp. and Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Cos. - recently struck cooperation or training deals with Iraq."

Blood for Oil.
- posted by TJ @ 1:41 PM |

 
What Steve Says
Gilliard offers a history lesson and makes the excellent point that the fundies are not to be feared:

But the danger of the fundies is not raw, naked power, but the illusion of great power, and the fear people have of it. Unless people stand up to it, a fundie will have the power Stephenson had and we will have to rely on their undoing to save the day.

In case it has not been clear, let me just say that the point of this blog is not to stir up fear of the fundies, but to draw attention to their hypocrisy and fight back every time they try to interfere into our lives. Anyway, go read the whole thing--the history lesson alone is worth it...
- posted by TJ @ 9:18 PM |

 
It's Official
The war was all for nothing.

There are no words that can ever make up for the lives lost, the families destroyed, the hearts broken. George W. Bush is a war criminal. He and the rest of his soulless cronies should be tried for their crimes against humanity.

That is all.
- posted by TJ @ 8:43 PM |

 
Because only Evangelicals are True Christians™
Via def at Roachblog, we learn that the fundies' brief love affair with Pope Hitler Youth and his religion is quickly coming to an end:

One of Charlotte's best-known churches has withdrawn support for a food pantry that serves the needy because the pantry works with Roman Catholics.

Central Church of God explained its decision in a letter March 1 from minister of evangelism Shannon Burton to Loaves & Fishes in Charlotte: "As a Christian church, we feel it is our responsibility to follow closely the (principles) and commands of Scripture. To do this best, we feel we should abstain from any ministry that partners with or promotes Catholicism, or for that matter, any other denomination promoting a works-based salvation."

Loaves & Fishes isn't the only ministry with which the Sardis Road mega-church has cut ties, and Catholics have not been the only reason they've given.

The Rev. Tony Marciano, executive director of Charlotte Rescue Mission, said Burton told him the church could no longer support the agency after it allowed three Muslim students from UNC Charlotte to help serve a meal at the uptown ministry in November. Founded in 1938 by eight businessmen, including Charlotte-born evangelist Billy Graham's father, Charlotte Rescue Mission offers Christ-centered residential care for people fighting drugs and alcohol.

Doug Hartjes, director of development for Crisis Assistance Ministry in Charlotte, said Central Church of God told them it will not provide financial support this year. Crisis Assistance provides emergency financial aid and other help to people. Hartjes said 200 congregations representing Christian, Jewish and other faiths donate money and volunteer time, as do people with no religious affiliation.

The church also ended funding for Love Inc., which provides services for the poor, elderly and disabled in Mecklenburg County.

This is seriously fucked up. Religion is a cancer on society. But even I will admit that there are many individual churches and denominations who actually follow the teachings of Christ and attempt to help the poor. I guess in fundie universe, only True Christians™ should be allowed to help the poor and needy. Muslims, Jews, Catholics, not so much.

I wonder, you think this church is getting any money from Shrub's Center for the Violation of Church and State?
- posted by TJ @ 8:20 PM |

 
Knock 'em dead, Harry
Senator Reid continues to surprise me. He is turning out to be a much better Minority Leader and fighter than I ever expected, and far more effective than Daschle ever was. According to the AP, he is attempting to work out a deal with Frist on the filibuster issue, but refuses to negotiate unless the nuclear option is off the table. I especially like his straightforwardness--the man calls a spade a spade, and if the President tells a lie, Reid tells it like it is:

Reid on Monday also repeated his assertion that President Bush promised him that the White House would stay out of the Senate's fight over the filibuster rule. "He either misspoke or was not being honest with me a week ago last Wednesday when he said they would not be getting involved," Reid said.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Friday he would vote to ban the judicial filibuster if the Senate deadlocks, and called the Democrats' filibuster threats "inexcusable."

Senate Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on CNN Sunday that it was "really not helpful — and that's a very mild word — for Senator Reid to say that the president was not honest."

But Reid said there was no doubt what Bush meant when he said he would not get involved in the Senate fight. "It's not hard to understand when someone tells you: 'I'm not getting involved. That's a Senate problem, I'm not getting involved,'" Reid said. It's "a little hard to interpret that any other way."

It's about damn time someone called Bush for the liar that he is. Thanks, Harry.
- posted by TJ @ 7:28 PM |

 
Gilead is Watching You
Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency, which eavesdrops on electronic communications around the world, receives thousands of requests each year from U.S. government officials seeking the names of Americans who show up in intercepted calls or e-mails — and complies in the vast majority of cases without challenging the basis for the requests, current and former intelligence officials said.

The volume of requests and the NSA's almost reflexive practice of disclosing Americans' identities — which under federal law are shielded unless there is a compelling intelligence reason for releasing a name — have come as a surprise even to some members of Congress and government officials deeply involved in intelligence matters.

Huh. I bet your average Jane or Joe Citizen isn't surprised at all.

Officials from the NSA and other agencies say that the disclosures are proper and that there are significant protections against abuse. But the practice is coming under new scrutiny because of the recent disclosure that John R. Bolton, President Bush's nominee for ambassador to the U.N., submitted numerous requests for the identities of U.S. officials whose conversations were recorded by the NSA while monitoring overseas targets.

During his confirmation hearings, Bolton — the undersecretary of State for arms control and international security — initially said he had made such requests "on a couple of occasions, maybe a few more." His reason, he said, was that in evaluating intelligence reports, sometimes "it's important to find out who is saying what to whom."

The State Department subsequently revealed that Bolton had sought the names of Americans in at least 10 cases since 2001, and that the department as a whole had submitted about 400 requests during that period.

Well, well, well. I'm sure Bolton wasn't engaged in any retaliatory tactics or anything like that. But, then again...

One issue is whether Bolton, who had access to highly classified intelligence, had legitimate reasons for requesting names or was seeking information on Bush administration rivals.

What was it Ari Fleischer said? Oh yes--"People have to watch what they say and watch what they do." Because the NSA is watching you.
- posted by TJ @ 7:02 PM |

 
Only Christians Need Apply
Fundie Whackjob Sunday is over. If you missed the hatefest, Athenae at first draft liveblogged it.

Frist's speech was fairly bland--he wants to have his cake (the evangelical vote) and eat it too (get a pass from the media on aligning himself with those who have been calling for violence and other retaliation against the judiciary). However, under the standards applied by the Republicans and the corporate media to Democratic and progressive events, Frist should be held accountable for the entirety of the speeches and remarks at Sunday's Bund Rally™ (see gilliard), including this statement from Albert Mohler, as reported by the AP (with thanks to dave at Eschaton for the tip):

Putting more evangelicals on the court will mean rulings more in tune with the religious convictions of churchgoers, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

"We are not asking for persons merely to be moral," Mohler said. "We want them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ."

So there you have it, folks. If you don't profess to be a Christian, you can't be a judge in Frist's America. How long until they start making it a requirement of citizenship?

PEOPLE, WAKE THE FUCK UP OR YOU WILL BE LIVING IN GILEAD BEFORE YOU KNOW IT.
- posted by TJ @ 12:34 PM |

 
Iraq was only the beginning
Venezuela has oil, too:

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that a woman linked to the U.S. military had been arrested while photographing a military installation, and several U.S. citizens were also arrested for taking pictures of a refinery, signs, he added, that Washington may be plotting an invasion of his country.

[snip]

Chavez pointed to the arrests of the woman and the other Americans as signs that the United States may be plotting an invasion.

Minutes before announcing the arrests, he aired a video of the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, a U.S.-backed effort to topple his close friend, Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Venezuela is a top U.S. oil supplier, but tensions have risen due to U.S. criticism of Venezuela's purchase of 100,000 assault rifles from Russia and to Chavez's criticism of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Chavez accuses Washington of being behind a brief 2002 coup against him and of supporting other plots to oust him. U.S. officials deny the claims.

It's all about getting enough oil to meet our bloated energy needs. Peak Oil is here. And we are SO not ready...
- posted by TJ @ 10:04 PM |

 
Don't Forget
Today is Social Justice Sunday:

The national response to Senator Frist's and the Family Research Council's cynical "Justice Sunday" telecast will be held at 2:30 pm on April 24, 2005 in Louisville, Kentucky.

"Social Justice Sunday," as the response event is known, will take place in the Central Presbyterian Church at 318 W. Kentucky St.

According to this website, CBS News is committed to sending a reporter and two cameras and the NYTimes also plans to cover the event.

If you didn't already know about the Orwellian-named Justice Sunday, go read Frank Rich's column. It's a beaut.
- posted by TJ @ 11:06 AM |

 
Today Was a Good Day
I went to Jazzfest and heard the incomparable Irma Thomas and her band The Professionals give a fantastic performance on an absolutely gorgeous day here in New Orleans. And saw lots of people wearing "Make music, not war" stickers, even as they joined Dave Bartholomew in singing "God Bless America" in support of the soldiers stuck in Iraq.

Today, for a brief shining moment, it actually felt good to be an American. The American people will survive this administration. Well, maybe.

ps--but see Nestor's comment for another perspective.

Update (4/26/05): That didn't last long.
- posted by TJ @ 9:33 PM |

 
Update: War on Contraception
More news from the front lines in the war on birth control:

The N.C. Board of Pharmacy now allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for "morning after" birth-control pills but requires them to find alternative arrangements for the client.

The new policy comes in response to a battle over emergency contraception that is being waged in drugstores, courthouses and legislative chambers throughout the country.

North Carolina is no exception. A Wake Forest couple was denied some prescribed "morning after" pills, which can be used after intercourse to prevent pregnancy, by a pharmacist at the Kerr Drug store at Wakefield. Recently, Thomas D'Andrea, chief pharmacist for the state's Medicaid program, was ordered to remove his contact information from an anti-abortion Web site for pharmacists.

Jonathan and Lauren Gaines of Wake Forest said they were stunned when James Morgan, a Kerr Drug pharmacist, refused to fill a prescription more than a year ago.

The pharmacist told the married couple his religious beliefs prevented him from filling the order.

Morgan's refusal left Lauren Gaines in tears.

Her husband filed a complaint with the state pharmacy board but withdrew it when Morgan's employment at Kerr Drug was ended.

"There's room for people of good conscience to have their beliefs," Jonathan Gaines said. "But I don't feel they should be in a position to impose their beliefs."

The new policy requires pharmacists who object to the "morning after" drugs to do all they can not to obstruct their delivery.

"That pharmacist has an obligation to find another pharmacist who will fill the order in a timely manner," said David Work, executive director of the pharmacy board.

Last week, three bills were introduced in Congress that essentially convey the same principle. Four states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota -- have passed laws or regulations that allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives. Four other states -- California, Missouri, New Jersey and West Virginia -- are considering legislation that would compel pharmacies to fill any legal prescription.

A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina said women are routinely refused "morning after" pills by pharmacists who cite religious objections to abortion. Leigh Ann Robbins, the Planned Parenthood hot line coordinator, said her organization gets one or two calls a month from women complaining they can't get their prescriptions for emergency contraception filled.

Jebus. One or two calls a month. More:

The day after he refused to dispense the drug to Lauren Gaines, Kerr Drug fired him. A company representative wouldn't comment on his case but said pharmacists in Kerr's 105 stores do have a right to refuse to fill a prescription. In those cases, though, it is the pharmacist's responsibility to turn the prescription over to an associate or take the order to another pharmacy.

"It's their obligation to get it filled in a timely manner," said Diane Eliezer, Kerr's director of marketing.

CVS Pharmacy has a nearly identical policy, said Michael DeAngelis, a company spokesman. An Eckerd Drug representative said pharmacists may not refuse to fill a prescription on the basis of any religious, political or moral beliefs.

Morgan said he works at an independent drugstore but would not give its name.

The Gaineses said that another pharmacy filled their prescription but that they wondered how far pharmacists would go in applying their beliefs on the job.

"What the next thing?" asked Jonathan Gaines. "Is a pharmacist not going to fill an AZT prescription for a person with AIDS?" he asked, referring to the drug that inhibits the HIV virus.

Adam Sonfield, an associate with the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which focuses on sexual and reproductive health research and policy analysis in Washington, said that as reproductive technologies develop, some pharmacists might object to future medications, especially drugs for embryonic stem cell treatment.

"It's a rather scary prospect," Sonfield said. "It's not clear where it's going to end."

On a more immediate level, advocates for contraception say there's already a problem. According to the database at Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina, 75 percent of pharmacies across the state don't stock "morning after" pills, including Wal-Mart, which has a pharmacy in most locations.

"In small towns, it's of particular concern," said Robbins, the hot-line coordinator. "We need more pharmacies to carry the pills all the time."

Ladies, if you have time this week, send an email or a letter to Eckerd's letting them know you support their policy that forbids pharmacists from imposing their religious beliefs on women seeking to have legal prescriptions filled.

And, as if you needed another one, this is just one more reason NOT to shop at Walmart.
- posted by TJ @ 11:02 AM |

 
Religion, the new Science
Microsoft is in the news right now because of its sudden turn-around on gay rights, but what I find far more fascinating is the link between Bill Gates and the right-wing think tank, The Discovery Institute (with huge thanks to commenter michael reynolds at gilliard's place for the info):

Founded in 1991 by former Reagan administration official Bruce Chapman, the Seattle-based Institute has an operating budget of over $2 million. "Intelligent design" creationism has become such a central feature of the organization's work that it created a separate division, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, to devote all of its time to that cause.

The Institute enthusiastically endorses what law professor and ID champion Philip Johnson calls the "wedge" strategy. (See "Insidious Design," page 8.) The plan is straightforward: use intelligent design as a wedge to undermine evolution with scientific-sounding arguments and thereby advance a conservative religious-political agenda.

Wingnut futurist and former owner of The American Spectator George Gilder also helped found the Institute, where he is a Senior Fellow and Program Advisor on "Technology and Democracy." Gilder has publicly stated that "[The United States] must eliminate all government programs, from coed job training to affirmative action, that fail to face the crucial differences between the sexes that make marriage possible." He also claimed that "[Poor women] are on welfare in the first place because they would not or could not get jobs that remotely compete with welfare benefits. On the whole, white or black, these women are slovenly, incompetent and sexually promiscuous." For a sampling of some of Gilder's other outrageous quotes, check here. Mr. Gilder would obviously be right at home in Gilead.

Gilder has also written widely on tech issues, and back in 1996 he had this to say about accusations of monopoly against Bill Gates' Microsoft: (page one), (page two), and (page three).

Blinded by the robber-baron image assigned in U.S. history courses to the heroic builders of American capitalism, many critics see Bill Gates as a menacing monopolist. They mistake for greed the gargantuan tenacity of Microsoft as it struggles to assure the compatibility of its standard with tens of thousands of applications and peripherals over generations of dynamically changing technology (avoiding the dialectical babel of the more open Unix, for example). They see the Internet as another arena likely to be dominated by Microsoft and a few giant media companies, increasing the wealth of Wall Street at the expense of the stultified masses of consumers and opening an ever-greater gap between the "information rich" and the "information poor." Focused on the summits of the industry -- CEO sŽances among media conglomerates and software kings -- all the critics can foster the impression that the Internet is a questionable, unpromising venue, vulnerable to monopoly and trash, thereby vindicating the Luddites and the Cassandras. [snip]

The Internet creates jobs by making workers more productive, and thus more employable, regardless of where they live. By engendering more investable wealth, it endows new work, providing the key remedy for the job displacement entailed by all human progress. By aggregating distant markets, the Internet enables more specialization, and more productivity and excellence. It will help all people, but most particularly the poor, who always comprise the largest untapped market for enterprise. And the Internet will continue to grow, transforming the global economy with its power and building a new industry even larger than the PC's. [snip]

In prophesying centralization and tyranny, the Cassandras miss the centrifugal forces of the Law of the Microcosm, overthrowing all monopolies, hierarchies, pyramids and power grids of established industrial society and endowing individuals with the power to be transcendent and free.

I would imagine Mr. Gates appreciated this Randian screed at the time, don't you think? (Many of Gilder's predictions would founder in the post-2000 tech meltdown. Interestingly, from what I can gather from Taibbi's hilarious review, Friedman appears to have borrowed heavily from Gilder's analysis in his recent book The World is Flat.) Anyway, Bill Gates has another connection to the Discovery Institute, via Mark Ryland, its Vice President. Ryland is a former director of Microsoft's Standards Strategy Group. He left the company in 2000.

Back in August of 2004, Lawrence M. Krauss, Chair of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University, in a fascinating interview about string theory, parallel universes, dark energy, scientific illiteracy and a host of other issues, made the following observation:

I'm not against teaching faith-based ideas in religion classes; I'm just against teaching them as if they were science. And it disturbs me when someone like Bill Gates, whose philanthropy I otherwise admire, helps finance one of the major promoters of intelligent design by giving money to a largely conservative think tank called the Discovery Institute. Yes, they got a recent grant from the Gates Foundation. It's true that the almost $10-million grant, which is the second they received from Gates, doesn't support intelligent design, but it does add credibility to a group whose goals and activities are, based on my experiences with them, intellectually suspect.

The interviewer went on to ask, "Why do you find this grant so particularly disturbing that you single it out here?" and Krauss continued:

Because we're living in a time when so many scientific questions are transformed into public relations campaigns--with truth going out the window in favor of sound bites and manufactured controversies. This is dangerous to science and society, because what we learn from observation and testing can't be subject to negotiation or spin, as so much in politics is. The creationists cut at the very credibility of science when they cast doubt on our methods. When they do that, they make it easier to distort scientific findings in controversial policy areas. We can see that happening right now with issues like stem cells, abortion, global warming and missile defense. When the testing of the proposed missile defense system showed it didn't work, the Pentagon's answer, more or less, went, "No more tests before we build it."

This scares me (what doesn't, these days, right?). Bill Gates has significant ties, and is giving considerable amounts of money, to a think tank--founded by a well-known misogynist--whose "real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers." As far as I'm concerned, that's just as good a reason to boycott Microsoft as the company's decision to suddenly withdraw its support for legislation that would protect the gay community from discrimination.
- posted by TJ @ 11:19 PM |

 
The Buck Stops...Somewhere Below Bush
The Bush assministration continues to avoid responsibility for the torture at Abu Ghraib. From Reuters:

The Army has exonerated Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq, of wrongdoing in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, but relieved another general of her command amid evidence of dereliction of duty, defense officials said on Friday.

An Army investigation by a 10-member investigative team that last October began assessing any wrongdoing by top brass in Iraq found that Sanchez and three other senior officers had not committed dereliction of duty, the officials said. These four will not face criminal or administrative punishment.

But the investigation found that "allegations of dereliction of duty were substantiated" in the case of Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who had commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade at the heart of the Abu Ghraib abuse, said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. [snip]

(Karpinski deserves everything she gets and more, but the real big fish are not getting fried.)

Human rights activists sharply criticized the Army's failure to take action against Sanchez and reiterated their call for an independent investigation of detainee abuse. Human rights groups and other critics have blamed the abuse on actions by top U.S. commanders in Iraq as well as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials. [snip]

The other senior officers exonerated by the investigation were: Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, Sanchez's former top deputy; Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, formerly Sanchez's top intelligence official; and a colonel who served as Sanchez's top legal adviser. Fast was a one-star general at the time of the prisoner abuse, but has since been promoted.

That's just terrific. We promoted someone involved with torturing prisoners of war. No wonder they hate us. What happened to the all the hype about Bush's "outreach to the Islamic world"? Wasn't Bush's Nanny™ supposed to come along and spin, er, fix all this, with her non-Arabic communication skills and extensive foreign policy experience? Apparently that plan got postponed, because, you know, there's no rush on improving US--Middle Eastern relations:

Karen Hughes, who was appointed a month ago to craft a bold new approach for U.S. public diplomacy, is not expected to take the job until as late as the fall, according to administration and congressional sources. The delay is already undermining U.S. credibility, with a well-placed U.S. official warning about "the gap between rhetoric and reality."

That last sentence pretty much says it all, doesn't it? But wait, there's more:

The delay comes as a Government Accountability Office report released this month criticized the administration for failing to develop a strategy to improve the image of the United States as "recent polling data show that anti-Americanism is spreading and deepening around the world."

"Such anti-American sentiments can increase foreign public support for terrorism directed at Americans, impact the cost and effectiveness of military operations, weaken the United States' ability to align with other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives, and dampen foreign publics' enthusiasm for U.S. business services and products," the report warned . . . [and] despite the administration's repeated pledges of outreach, the State Department's main program directed at the Islamic world has no Muslim staff, U.S. officials say.

Feel safe yet? Iran, here we come.
- posted by TJ @ 10:00 PM |

 
Enron Elites "Can't Tolerate" Prison Like Us Regular Folk
The Houston Chronicle has set up a special section on its website solely to cover the various Enron trials. Just found it myself, and thought I'd let you know. It's pretty comprehensive. For example, today I learned that two Merrill Lynch employees involved in the sham Nigerian barge deal received lower sentences than those requested by government prosecutors, largely because the U.S. Supreme Court has "given judges the ability to treat the guidelines as simply advisory" (a good thing).

However, the judge also gave another, not-so-good, reason for the relatively low sentences imposed:

But Werlein had other reasons for going below the government requests for harder prison time.

The judge said white collar criminals are deterred by shorter sentences and can't "tolerate" the same kinds of long sentences as other felons.

And he said he was impressed by some 70 letters written by family and business associates in support of Bayly, whose stellar reputation the judge called Boy Scout-like. The jurist also said he was impressed by Brown's support and how he'd made a successful life out of troubled family beginnings.

The judge called the barge sale scam a "rather small and benign" fraud in the constellation of Enron fraud.

White collar criminals can't tolerate prison the way other criminals can? WTF? How is a drug addict who buys some crack more able to tolerate prison than one of these assholes? Prison sucks for everyone, not just the wealthy elite. And what is this bullshit about letters from family and business associates? What, did they enclose checks?

And, the worst part about this decision is that it gives Ken Lay a reason to cheer: "The sentencing guidelines are finally beginning to drift away. Judges all over America are tired of it," celebrated Mike Ramsey, Ken Lay's lawyer. "This was the unwholesome issue of the unnatural union of Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurmond."

Fuck. I want that asshole to spend the rest of his natural life in prison. In a cell next to President War Criminal.
- posted by TJ @ 5:05 PM |

 
Lining the Pockets of the Insurance Companies
Krugman's third column in his ongoing series about health care in America does a really good job of explaining why market competition is not the solution to fixing our broken health care system:

According to the World Health Organization, in the United States administrative expenses eat up about 15 percent of the money paid in premiums to private health insurance companies, but only 4 percent of the budgets of public insurance programs, which consist mainly of Medicare and Medicaid. The numbers for both public and private insurance are similar in other countries - but because we rely much more heavily than anyone else on private insurance, our total administrative costs are much higher.

According to the health organization, the higher costs of private insurers are "mainly due to the extensive bureaucracy required to assess risk, rate premiums, design benefit packages and review, pay or refuse claims." Public insurance plans have far less bureaucracy because they don't try to screen out high-risk clients or charge them higher fees.

And the costs directly incurred by insurers are only half the story. Doctors "must hire office personnel just to deal with the insurance companies," Dr. Atul Gawande, a practicing physician, wrote in The New Yorker. "A well-run office can get the insurer's rejection rate down from 30 percent to, say, 15 percent. That's how a doctor makes money. ... It's a war with insurance, every step of the way."

Isn't competition supposed to make the private sector more efficient than the public sector? Well, as the World Health Organization put it in a discussion of Western Europe, private insurers generally don't compete by delivering care at lower cost. Instead, they "compete on the basis of risk selection" - that is, by turning away people who are likely to have high medical bills and by refusing or delaying any payment they can.

Yet the cost of providing medical care to those denied private insurance doesn't go away. If individuals are poor, or if medical expenses impoverish them, they are covered by Medicaid. Otherwise, they pay out of pocket or rely on the charity of public hospitals.

So we've created a vast and hugely expensive insurance bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing. The resources spent by private insurers don't reduce overall costs; they simply shift those costs to other people and institutions. It's perverse but true that this system, which insures only 85 percent of the population, costs much more than we would pay for a system that covered everyone. [snip]

Why do we put up with such an expensive, counterproductive health care system? Vested interests play an important role. But we also suffer from ideological blinders: decades of indoctrination in the virtues of market competition and the evils of big government have left many Americans unable to comprehend the idea that sometimes competition is the problem, not the solution.

Interestingly, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice reached a similar, if less boldly stated, conclusion last July: the two agencies issued a joint report which stated that "Competition cannot solve all of the problems facing American health care."

However, the report also concluded that "The American free-market system is built on the premise that open competition and consumer choice maximize consumer welfare – even when complex products and services such as health care are involved." This premise is the crux of the problem--competition does not maximize consumer welfare with regard to health care. All it maximizes is insurance company profit. It will always be more profitable for an insurer to deny coverage.

The Bush agenda for health care will make the problem worse, not better: The President believes that creating a competitive marketplace across state lines can increase the availability of health care coverage and help drive down the costs for everyone. He proposes to give people this freedom to shop for the best buy on the health coverage that best meets their individual needs. This proposal will help individuals save on health insurance, and includes provisions to prevent fraud and abuse. (from the GOP website)

The Republican answer is simply wrong. We don't need freedom to shop for better rates--we need a system that guarantees all Americans health care services when they are sick. Period. People should not be forced into bankruptcy by catastrophic illness or long-term care needs. In a country as wealthy as ours, that is obscene.

I think Americans are ready for a national health care plan. The question is whether the Democrats have the political courage to actually propose one. Plans are out there--the Physicians for a National Health Care Program (PNHP) has a detailed proposal on its website, including an explanation of how to pay for it:

Financing for the national health program would transfer funds into the public program without disrupting the general pattern of current revenue sources. We suggest a funding package that would augment existing government health spending with earmarked health care taxes. Because these new taxes would replace employer-employee insurance premiums and substantial portions of current out-of-pocket expenditures, they would not increase health costs for the average American.

I am relatively young, in good health, and blessed with a job that provides excellent health care benefits. However, if a national plan means that every American will receive care when they are sick or injured, I don't care if it would increase my health care costs. I think most Americans would agree. The American belief in individualism is not so strong that it cannot also embrace the concept of good health for all.
- posted by TJ @ 2:26 PM |