Thieves in the Temple.

Inaccuracy in Media, part 227.

Cliff Kincaid is a big fat idiot. There is no way to be civil about this matter, now that one of the ringleaders of Accuracy in Media has written that "Anti-War Protests Kill Americans."

It's even better than you think. Despite that provocative headline, Kincaid doesn't have the guts to reaffirm the title in the article's text. Instead, he answers his hypothetical question with distorted evidence and craven qualifications like "it's worth considering" and "one thing's for certain." And then he does what they all do when they don't have a leg to stand on: he piles on further inflammatory, unsupported, and irrelevant allegations (irrelevant to the question of whether anti-war protests actually kill Americans). Thus, before the rage-inhibited can seriously consider the evidence of the first four paragraphs, Kincaid moves quickly to al-Zawahiri's supposed comparison of Iraq to Vietnam and then to al-Jazeera's "emergence" as "another powerful weapon at (the enemy's) disposal," neither of which directly relates to "whether anti-war protests kill Americans."

Anyway, let's get back to the pertinent question, of whether anti-war protests kill Americans. I've already said that my right to give honest counsel to my Representatives in Congress and to the President is inviolate, and the right to protest is implicit in that right. I've also already said that there are plenty of more compelling reasons Americans are dying in Iraq -- the foolishness of the mission and the incompetence and greed of our war leaders chief among them. So what motherlode of evidence does Cliff Kincaid to suggest I'm wrong? Here's all of it: a) "October was reported to be the deadliest month for U.S. troops since January," and the media gave "heavy publicity" to the September 24 anti-war march; and b) "one of the organizations behind the event posted an article urging 'solidarity' with the 'Iraqi fighters' and 'resistance' killing American troops and innocent civilians in Iraq."

What a formidable feat of rhetorical invention. As for point a): the "since January" is an arbitrary deadline imposed by the author. The months of January 2005, November 2004, April 2004, and November 2003 were far deadlier than October 2005, and only one of these four months followed a significant (and, more to the point, not well-covered) anti-war protest. As for point b): an article circulated by "one organization," even one "behind the event," obviously doesn't prove that everyone in the anti-war movement feels "solidarity" with the "Iraqi resistance." Anti-war protestors are a diverse lot; they even include many war veterans and political conservatives. I guess it's just easier for Kincaid to stereotype us.

Remember, kids, there's no need to find out what's going on in George W. Bush's America. All you have to do is seize upon the first factoid that confirms your prejudices. It works for Cliff Kincaid (or "insert name of other right-wing blowhard") and it can work for you, too.

a la carte nation!

Congress is off this week, so I can complain about the media all I want!

Ralph Nader, America's greatest citizen, reminds us that serious voices have almost entirely disappeared from the public airwaves. To think that you or I could once have been on the Merv Griffin Show because we actually had ideas worth hearing, and not just because we bought a sonogram machine in order to watch our starlet-wife's unborn fetus kick around in the womb. When Nader criticizes the fact that "audiences have become so hyped with the weird and the sexual," he sounds the clarion call for moral values exactly as it should be sounded (and not, for example, the way rageaholics like Brent Bozell do it). Read the entire thing, but get your reading glasses out; the font in this article is diabolically small for some reason.

Is the FCC about to do something right for a change? Word on the street is the FCC may reverse course and embrace the idea of a la carte cable programming. But the FCC also seems enamored of the "themed tier" idea, which smacks of being a compromise with the cable companies, and I'm not in a compromising mood. I explain why I hold the same position on a la carte programming as many far-right-wingers here, and I should add that the reason cable companies almost uniformly oppose a la carte cable is advertising: advertisers can buy time on any cable channel with the hope that a lot of channel-surfers will see their ad sooner or later. Given that I believe advertising revenue is one of the great evils of our modern corporate megamedia, I am of course not impressed.

And quelle surprise -- while the Parents Television Council and Focus on the Family remain unlikely allies in my war on cable monopolies, the big televangelists remain my enemies, opposing a la carte because they want to "reach the unconverted." No doubt the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells will soon be crowing that giving citizens the right to pay for cable channels one at a time is tantamount to "religious discrimination." As if we needed another reason to become a la carte nation!

(I'm compelled to use Mediachannel links for the above two articles, because the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times are both registration-required sites.)

how the media puts the Christ in Christmas.

I know the Friday after Thanksgiving is a slow news day, but did the local CBS affiliate have to spend the first nine minutes of its Friday noonday news broadcast on Black Friday shopping? That's nine minutes out of thirty, gang. They had three reporters "on the scene" at three different shopping centers. They had anchorfolk, reporters, and shoppers harping on the "stress" of Christmas shopping the whole time. It makes me damn sick. And the media wonders why it gets no respect?

Now, I'm not saying it shouldn't have been covered at all -- I'm as much an observer of the odd social habits of my fellows as anyone. I'm saying two minutes at the end of the broadcast, where the lightweight "human interest" stories typically go, would have been far more appropriate. Dedicating a third (or more, I stopped watching) of your broadcast to "Black Friday" is just a way of avoiding more important matters. Likely it's a way of avoiding more important local matters, as well.

Philadelphia Freedom!

More proof that talking plain and being smart and having moral values can all coexist happily in the same place:  the Friday edition of the Philadelphia Daily News juxtaposes two related items on page three.  On the left, we read about the impending marriage of Elton John and his beloved in Great Britain; and on the right, we read about the impending divorce of that mid-thirties boy-band guy and that mid-level pop singer who played Daisy Duke in that Dukes of Hazzard remake.

Just to reiterate:  happy gay couple to get married after twelve years of committment, unhappy hetero couple getting divorced after three years of getting far too much publicity for their marriage, and the Daily News puts them right next to each other.

Ha, ha, ha.

But I guess I shouldn't laugh too hard.  Mr. John and Mr. Furnish are getting married in Great Britain.  In America we have religious bigots to "protect" marriage from people like Sir Elton.

(Officially, registration required to read these two articles, but again, I had no trouble reading them without registering today.)

America gets a week off.

The House won't reconvene until December 6; the Senate won't reconvene until December 12. We can all breathe a little more easily for a while.

what the world expects of conservatives.

Albert Camus, who was an atheist, asked many years ago "what the world requires of Christians."  Noting that, among other things, the Catholic Church turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the Holocaust despite Christ's command that his followers should help those in need, Camus answered simply that "what the world requires of Christians is that they should continue to be Christians."

And so it goes with our current troubles.  As a liberal, all I expect of conservatives in America is the same:  that they be conservative.  I expect that they be fiscally responsible; I expect that they demand a society where hard work finds reward; I expect that they mistrust federal intrusion into private life; I expect that they defend traditional cultural values; I expect that they defend the right of the smallest possible community to make the decisions that impact that community; I expect that they denounce hifalutin social-engineering solutions that make social problems worse; and I expect that they apply consistent and rigorous standards in ethics, commerce, and education.

I expect nothing of conservatives that they don't supposedly already expect of themselves.  But how do today's "conservatives" measure up?

They are not fiscally responsible, for when they're not mystifying the growing budget deficit and the national debt, they're making excuses for it.  And now they seek "fiscal responsibility" only by cutting the mostly small programs that actually help Americans, not by cutting the real fat in the budget or by demanding that the rich and powerful pay taxes according to their need and ability.

They do not care about "hard work," or they would not worship the casino the American economy has become, an economy whose manufacturing base has been destroyed over the last 25 years, an economy which only rewards CEOs who slash their payrolls, an economy with a stock market that operates almost entirely on hearsay, an economy which does not create skilled jobs for its educated college graduates but rather outsources those jobs to foreign workers whom American corporations are free to treat worse.

They do not hold that privacy must be protected, for they either tolerate or openly cheerlead for expanded federal surveillance of the citizenry, and many of them deny that a right to privacy even exists in the Constitution.

They do not stand for traditional values like "tell the truth" and "do unto others"; they stand for reactionary values like "hate all gays" and "let no woman have access to birth control."  And do they refuse to support the megacorporations that actually make our culture more coarse and decadent?  No, they blame people who drink lattes and wear Birkenstocks, because the blame game is easier than controlling your own urge to consume.

Today's conservatives care little for the right of small communities to make decisions -- indeed, historically the conservative "commitment" to states' rights mostly begins and ends with oppressing black folk.  Today's conservatives are happy to let large corporations become even larger, so they can wipe out the small businesses that are actually responsive to a community's needs.

Today's conservatives don't warn us that some solutions are worse than the problem; they are themselves the progenitors of hifalutin social engineering solutions like "opportunity zones," whereby large corporations get tax breaks so they can help "rebuild" communities by hiring more janitors and waiters and keeping most of the profits for themselves.

And how do today's conservatives apply "consistent and rigorous standards"?  By howling about the corruption of Bill Clinton and Jim Wright while excusing that of Lewis Libby and Tom DeLay; by cheerleading for Chris Cox as new SEC Chair because he'll let corrupt CEOs police themselves; by calling me a bigot for opposing the teaching of intelligent design in science classes and by supporting the huge unfunded mandates in No Child Left Behind.

I don't need to add, of course, that today's "conservatives" do all of the above not by reasonably advancing well-constructed arguments, but by yelling and screaming and questioning my patriotism and suggesting that my "weakness" will probably be the direct cause of more Arabs causing more planes to hit more American buildings.

Real conservatives would make societies stronger -- if they'd actually be conservative, not just corrupt and opportunistic bigots.

UPDATE.  Thanks to stc, three corrections have been made to the above:  "intrusion" is now correctly-spelled in paragraph two; "whom" has replaced "what" near the end of paragraph five; and "commitment" is shorn one "t" in paragraph eight.  I'm not nearly as sharp an editor as I used to be, so feel free to pass along any corrections that need to be made.

"Ex-FEMA Head Starts Disaster Planning Firm."

Yeah, he'll be planning some disasters all right.

My favorite paragraph is this one:

"Brown said officials need to 'take inventory' of what's going on in a disaster to be able to answer questions to avoid appearing unaware of how serious a situation is."

You mean you don't need to "take inventory" of what's going on so you can prevent the disaster from spiraling out of control?  He hasn't learned a damn thing, has he?

That's what you get from "conservatives" these days -- all they care about is how they look.  They never care about what they do.  Hence Accountability One, who can't manage a budget or a war.

In other news:  Pat Robertson starts international conflict management consulting firm.

speaking of local politics!

Attention New Jersey residents: S. 1987 still hasn't come up for a vote in the New Jersey Senate. I described this a while back, but that was, like, a while back ago already, so let me set the table here again. Dozens of New Jersey municipalities (and two counties) have passed pay-to-play ethics reform legislation more stringent than what the state passed last June (in S. 2). But S. 2 opens existing pay-to-play laws up to local court challenges; S. 1987 would specifically permit municipalities to pass stronger pay-to-pay laws than the state's. Acting Governor Codey is a co-sponsor of this legislation; give him a call at 609.292.6000 and ask him to post S. 1987 for a vote by December 8. (Not long after December 8, the Senate will go home for the year, so give a call soon.)

Once again, I feel that large governing bodies should allow small governing bodies to have the freedom to determine what's best for them. This does not mean that small governing bodies should have the right to pass less stringent pay-to-play laws than the state wants, because pay-to-play shouldn't exist anywhere. Pay-to-play turns small communities into the fiefdoms of a few large businesses, and if your community has become a fiefdom of a few large businesses, it doesn't have the freedom to determine what's best for it.

why "voters don't know" about clean elections.

One of our so-called local papers ("so-called" because it's really a Knight-Ridder paper) reports that most New Jersey voters were unaware of New Jersey's "clean elections" campaign.

Now I've already suggested why the effort failed in Camden and Monmouth Counties: the requirements for candidates to qualify for matching funds are too high (the New Jersey program requires about 1,500 contributions where the Arizona program requires 200). Read the full analysis here. Done reading? Good. Now let's add another reason clean elections campaigns fail: the media hardly covers them -- it's not sexy enough, I guess -- except to report that "voters don't know anything about them," as if they, the media, have absolutely no power to tell the voters about them. How offensive, that our sick and decadent culture continues to reward such abject hypocrisy.

Assemblyman Joe Roberts (no, I voted against him) planned to testify this week that the state should fund an education program to tell people about the Clean Elections campaign. How many times must I tell these pimps! The state doesn't need to fund an education program to tell people about the Clean Elections campaign. The state needs to study the successful Maine and Arizona programs and imitate them. That's all the state needs to do. The state certainly doesn't need to furnish Republicans with more ammunition against Democratic "fiscal irresponsibility," so they can lie their way into power and be even more fiscally irresponsible.

And if the media feels like covering it, well, good for them. If they don't, I don't want to hear them whining about their dropping profit margins.

(Registration required for Philadelphia Inquirer article referenced above -- I think! I was able to access it this morning wihtout registering, which is unusual.)

snark attack!

And the hits just keep on coming! A leaked British government memo suggests that Mr. Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazeera, the news network occasionally referred to as "the Arab CNN," but was talked out of it by Prime Minister Blair.

One source says the discussion was "deadly serious," while another suggests Mr. Bush was just joking (for five pages). If Mr. Bush was indeed joking, I guess that means he has been attending the Bill O'Reilly School of Comedy. Everyone needs to be an A student somewhere, I guess.

help for the 2006 Republican Congressional campaigns.

Paul Craig Roberts, in his most recent withering Jeremiad against Republican policy (specifically the Graham Amendment that essentially destroys habeus corpus), inadvertently gave me an idea with his closing paragraph.  It reads:

"When a Republican next campaigns, all he can say is 'vote for me because I want power to lock you up and torture you.'"

What a fantastic slogan -- it's tight and it's powerful and it's absolutely true!  And now I'm going to try to write as many similar campaign slogans for the Republicans in 2006 as I can!

Here are some I've come up with already:

"Vote for me, because I want the government to abandon you when you need it."

"Vote for me, because I want to pollute your air and water."

"Vote for me, because I'll prevent veterans from getting good health care when they come home."

"Vote for me, because I'll put my hatred of homosexuals, and thus, quite possibly, also of myself, above all other legislative priorities."

"Vote for me, because I want to give your tax money to corporations that already have too much money."

"Vote for me, because I want to keep fighting that awful war that killed tens of thousands of people only so we could make Bush's crony corporations richer."

"Vote for me, because I want to play roulette with your Social Security funds."

"Vote for me, because I want you to suffer."

All right, maybe that last one was too easy.  And, of course, I'm not as good at this game as Paul Craig Roberts is.  But maybe you are!  And thanks to the miracle of the "leave comment" link, you, too, can play along at home!  Together we can give the Republicans more free help than they've ever had before!

The internet is wonderful!  The free market is wonderful!

that was the week that was.

I leave the house for one week and what happens? The House passes its nefarious $50 billion in budget cuts -- the ones that were "for Katrina," except that an even larger tax-cut-for-the-rich is on tap that would wipe out whatever gains were "for Katrina." The House passes that goddamn amendment watering down organic farming certification standards so that even that goddamn Wal-Mart can claim their Frankenfoods are "organic." A senior conservative Democrat/Vietnam war veteran in the House says we should withdraw from Iraq now, and Dick Cheney responds by saying said Congressman has "no backbone." That's right, Dick Cheney, who needed five deferments to get out of Vietnam, including two reversed by drunk-driving convictions and one that couldn't be reversed only because it was a paternity deferment, lecturing us about "courage." And the PATRIOT Act renewal bill coming out of conference is so hot-and-steaming that three Republican Senators you've almost never heard of denounce it. I swear, you can't leave little Georgie alone in the house even for a minute before he starts breaking everything.

(Memo to Bill O'Reilly: the above paragraph, in which I compare Mr. Bush to an unruly child and compare the average citizen like myself to an occasionally neglectful parent, is an example of a "joke." Among other things, a joke is "funny," and a "joke" like "let al-Qaeda bomb San Francisco" is only "funny" to the kind of psycho that would have shot up Columbine.)

Well, I said there was no vacation from being a citizen, so let's try to get some work done with a minimum of snarkiness.

Read more about the expansion of the PATRIOT Act here. If you want to call your Congressfolk, you can use my tools above or these EFF-provided tools, and you can also sign this People's Email Network-provided petition protesting the expansion of the PATRIOT Act.

Also, since I'm a fan of meme generation: the Campaign for America's Future has just bought some primo billboard space less than a mile from Wal-Mart's Arkansas headquarters, and they're looking for a slogan to put on it. This is where you come in, dear citizen -- come up with something snappy that exposes Wal-Mart as the corporate welfare queen that it most assuredly is, and you win, well, a smidgen more hope that one day all the Wal-Marts will be driven from the face of our planet. That ain't enough for the cynical bastards who admire the casino economy they call the American Free Market, but it's enough for you and I. It's enough for you and I because we have real "moral values," versus the "moral values" that politicians use to beat up gays with.

information must be free!

I'm going to be out of town for the next week. I have no idea if I'm going to have time to post -- I've posted while out of town before, but not with any regularity. So tell Congress they better not try any tricks until I get back.

Or, if you feel that's a little too much to expect from Congress, you can also check out the "struggle" links on the left. You can join email action lists from many of these pages -- and if you do, you'll figure out how I write this blog. You might even try to do it yourself, and that would be terrific, because in my ideal world millions of people would be doing what I'm doing, and they'd be doing it better than I.

Friday on my mind.

I had Lindsey Graham pegged as the front-runner for the 2008 Republican nomination for President, but not now, because he really sprang a surprise on the Senate this past Friday, and Senators don't like surprises. Senator Graham proposed and got passed (with the votes of five Democrats and, oddly, without the votes of about 12 Republicans) an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill which would prohibit judges from reviewing the legality of Guantanamo-style detention. Perhaps Graham is trying to sweeten the pot so Mr. Bush will swallow the anti-torture amendment, but his amendment is still a horrible idea -- you never bargain to keep rights by giving away other rights, because they're rights. Senator Bingaman of New Mexico (he's up for re-election in 2006) has proposed a corrective amendment, S. ADMT. 2517, for which you may express support here.

Those of you who thump your chest and say "so what? People at Gitmo are terrorists and don't deserve rights" had better think hard about what might happen to you under a future Administration that would be otherwise less sympathetic to your beliefs. The First District Court (in a decision joined by John Roberts) recently held that the President could designate American citizens as enemy combatants, thus depriving them of their rights as citizens, such as the right to confront their accusers and answer their charges. Mr. Bush probably won't designate any of the many, many people working to impeach him (including myself) as an enemy combatant, because he's not terribly popular right now and that would be far too obvious even for Tha Bush Mobb. Under a President Hillary Clinton, however -- who I'd think would be more ruthless than Bush and a lot smarter about it -- I suspect that a great many fellows who've discovered their Inner Angry Father since 9.11 will think a lot more clearly about the Constitution and the rights it guarantees.

downhome killah.

Capitol Hill Blue reports that "a confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders" lists scenarios that could bring the Republican Party back into the public's favor -- and, surprise, surprise, among them is "a devastating attack by terrorists that could 'validate' the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to 'unite the country' in a 'time of national shock and sorrow.'"

We must be a cynical and decadent culture. We should be tens of millions strong marching on Washington at this moment if this is the kind of thinky-think horsedoodle going on at the highest levels.

The report suggests that a second terror attack won't do as much for Mr. Bush's popularity as the first. It doesn't have to. All it needs to do is scare the population into acquiesing to the rest of his nefarious program, which I suppose will include war with Iran, Syria, Freedonia, and the man in the moon. No one will be doing popularity polls after a second terror attack.

Call your damn Congressfolk and tell them you're on to this. And don't accept "it was just a memo" or "this is the kind of stuff that always gets floated around in memos" as explanations from anyone. Certainly don't accept "I don't hear you saying anything about the Bretton Woods memo" as an explanation.

staying "on the offensive."

The Republicans postponed their $51 billion reaper's scythe through social spending yet again this week.  They even dropped Tha Bush Mobb's plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve from the budget reconciliation process.  But now is no time to rest on our laurels.  Now is the time to keep showing them their arrogance and their pride.  Toward this end, MoveOn wants speakers to talk publicly about their experiences with the social services Republicans want to cut, which include student loans, Medicaid, and food stamps.  As of now, MoveOn has over 100 "speakouts" planned in communities all over America for Wednesday, November 16.  I think our representatives in Congress also deserve to hear from us on every day ending in "y" next week, during every hour containing a number.

Remember, also, that the Republicans still plan to give away another $70 billion in tax cuts to the rich.  Simply put, this means that when they say they need to cut social services to pay for reconstructing New Orleans, they are lying.  Saving $51 billion in spending and then cutting $70 billion in revenue puts the government $19 billion in the hole.  We all learned how to add and subtract in first grade, but our elected leaders, desperate as they are to mystify the process of governing, seem to think we've forgotten how to do that.  They're wrong, and they need to hear that we are on to their lies.

on Veterans Day.

New York City area residents, take note:  Veterans for Peace and Vietnam Veterans Against the War will both be marching in a Peace Contingent in today's Veterans Day parade in New York City.  Nothing prevents you from bringing signs and banners and cheering on the Peace Contingent from the sidelines.  The parade begins at 11.00 am and marches up 5th Avenue from 26th Street to 56th Street.  Also, Code Pink hosts an event at Columbus Circle that evening at 7 pm, and tomorrow afternoon, from 2.30pm to 6.30pm at the 1199 Break Room (330 W. 42nd St., 9th floor) veterans and military family members will speak about the war, the treatment of veterans, depleted uranium, traumas inflicted on women veterans, and other topics; among the organizations contributing speakers are Iraq Veterans against the War, Veterans for Peace, Black Veterans for Social Justice, Military Families Speak Out, and Gold Star Families for Peace.

Now we hear from some folk that if we don't support the war, we don't support the troops.  The line of reasoning goes like this:  if the troops know we're iffy about the wisdom of their mission, and we say so, it'll hurt their morale and embolden their enemies, thus endangering their mission.  This line of reasoning insults my intelligence.  Our soldiers fight a country that did not attack us, and (according to the noted pro-deterrence non-liberals at the Cato Institute) wasn't stupid enough to try.  Our soldiers fight a country which also wasn't stupid enough to harbor al-Qaeda terrorists no matter how many desperate connections non-cons try to make over decades and continents, but which country is now, even according to our most conservative commentators, a breeding ground for terrorists as a direct result of our presence there.  Our soldiers barely hold their supply lines with their inadequate manpower and inadequate armor, and their Secretary of Defense makes excuses like "you go to war with the army you have."  And from this evidence we are to conclude that anti-war sentiment is the reason we're losing this war?

And all that is secondary to my point.  The point is that my duty as an American citizen is inviolate, even in a time of war.  Presumably soldiers have died to defend my duty as a citzen.  My duty is not to "support the war effort" if I believe the war is wrong.  My duty is to offer the President and my representatives in Congress my honest counsel at all times.  To do otherwise is unpatriotic, even dangerous -- especially in a time of war.  "Supporting the President in a time of war" is an abject perversion of my duty as a citizen.  We are not supposed to be supporting the President at any time; the President is supposed to be supporting us.  The President is supposed to execute the will of the people, which will was never that strongly in favor of deposing one of the most hated tyrants in the world no matter how much Tha Bush Mobb tried to stoke the fear and rage of my countryfolk.  The people must not to be forced to "support" the President's lies about weapons of mass destruction, or his "desire" to "spread democracy," or his judging from his "gut."  The President is subject to our wisdom and our judgment.  Keeping my mouth shut in a time of war is not "supporting the President."  it's enabling the President.  And this particular President has had more than enough enablers over the course of his lifetime.

The best way to support the troops is to never put them in harm's way unless absolutely necessary.  By going to war with Iraq over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and nonexistent ties to al-Qaeda, we failed to support our troops.  They are counting the cost, and their families are counting the cost, and we are counting the cost.

"protection."

Gays had a good day in Maine yesterday, as voters refused to repeal anti-discrimination laws benefiting them, but they had a bad day in Texas, as voters approved a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  And they also had a bad day in the U.S. Senate, as S.J. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment, passed out of committee, with Arlen Specter, in classic George Voinovich fashion, simultaneously opposing the amendment and voting to let it go to the full Senate.  Specter's cowardice is well-calculated, as usual:  where Mr. Bush managed to install Bolton during a Congressional recess after Voinovich failed to stop the Bolton nomination from going to the full Senate, this amendment needs two-thirds of both houses to pass, and I don't imagine it'll get it.  We still need to call our Reps and Senators, though, to let them know we're not going to be ambushed.

As a staunch believer in the right of homosexuals to have equal access to the 50% divorce rate, I must ask:  why must marriage be "protected" from homosexuals?  Wouldn't it be more incumbent upon our Senators -- if we would even assign them this task -- to "protect" marriage from Hollywood actors, spoiled rich kids, serial child abusers, sex-crazy politicians, and all the other species of weaklings and emotional cripples?

The answer is obvious:  they don't hate Hollywood actors, spoiled rich kids, serial child abusers, sex-crazy politicians, and all the other species of weaklings and emotional cripples anywhere near as much as they hate gays.  No matter how reasonably or calmly they put it, they hate gays.  I know them by their actions.  And hate is no reason to make a law about anything.

Take a tablespoonful of this, religious bigots:  if you really believe that the knowledge of some married gay couple, somewhere, is really is a "threat" to your marriage, requiring government intervention to "protect" its "sanctity," then guess what?

Your marriage means nothing to you now.

Your marriage isn't "sacred" to you now.

Your marriage can't be "protected" now, because it only exists on paper.

Really, now.  Is a relationship only meaningful if some people are excluded from enjoying its fruits?  I'd argue exactly the opposite:  with apologies to Groucho Marx, the more exclusive a club, the more I wouldn't want to be a member.

Now don't anyone start in on "special rights."  I can't believe that meme hasn't yet been smashed into dust.  What's "equal rights" for us is not "special rights" for everyone else.  I don't claim that the state can compel churches to marry gays, obviously.  But I think gays should have the option of going to the justice of the peace.

By the way, look for Mr. Bush to flip-flop on this like he's done every other time it's come up.  The gutless bastard ought to commit one way or the other.

two fists of fury!

The Ford Motor Company finished last in the EPA's ranking of automobile manufacturers in fuel efficiency in 2005 -- where it has finished, oddly enough, in each of the last six years. Toyota has declared it wants 25% of its American cars to be hybrids by 2010, and while I personally don't see the reason for the holdup, Ford hasn't made a similar committment to raising fuel efficiency (thereby lowering household gas budgets and cutting down on carbon emissions). But jumpstartford.com has planned a national day of action this Saturday, November 12: outside over 75 Ford dealerships in the United States and Canada, good citizens will be protesting Ford's fuel efficiency policies, and here's where to find an event near you.

But it isn't just oil company execs -- on Capitol Hill this week to whine that the "volatility" of world oil markets makes them so mad for profit, not vice versa -- who are rearing their ugly heads. Religious bigots are pushing for H.R. 1445, a.k.a. the Workforce Religious Freedom Act of 2005. Sound familiar? It should. Past iterations of H.R. 1445 (to be debated in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce today) were classic bait-and-switch: they actually allowed employees and employers to circumvent civil rights laws in the name of "religious freedom," all in the name of compelling employers to make "reasonable accommodations" for their employees' religious needs. With the cast of characters in Congress a bit worse than in 2004, why would we expect this iteration to be different? Religious bigots don't want "equal rights" with the rest of us; they want the rest of us to have no damn rights. But there is that shiny new "find Congressional Committee members" tool I put up in the toolbox not long ago. This would be a good day to use it.

a "thieves in the temple" AV Club alert!

Robert Greenwald, of "Outfoxed" fame, has made a new movie, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price." Theatres in New York and Los Angeles will show the movie, but, if you're like most people, you don't live in New York and Los Angeles. Luckily, during the week of November 13, schools, religious organizations, small businesses, labor groups, and plain old good citizens will be showing the movie, and you can find a showing near you just by entering your zip code in the appropriate spot. And if you like low prices and buying in bulk, you can also find a CostCo near you, since they treat their workers much better than Wal-Mart does, and since they resist pressure from Wall Street (I almost typed "Wal-Street") to lay off workers just to boost stock prices. (Er, I don't have a link for that; I'd recommend searching the Yellow Pages.)

That subject header is just a gag, by the way. I have no intention of putting that much effort into following the entertainment business for real.

viva Virginia and Pennsylvania! and to hell with Ohio.

Jon Corzine survives both his ex-wife's apparent endorsement of Doug Forrester and Bill O'Reilly's "reluctant" endorsement of same to become New Jersey's next governor.  In Virginia, Tim Kaine "survives" both Jerry Kilgore's claim that Kaine wouldn't have executed Hitler and Mr. Bush's last-minute appearance on Kilgore's behalf.  Kaine (who opposes both abortion and the death penalty) repeatedly stated that, despite his opposition to the death penalty, he would enforce death penalty regulations in Virginia because -- dig this -- it's his job to enforce the law.  This means that, between Mr. Kaine and Mr. Bush, we now have a total of one executive who understands the meaning of the word "executive."

In other terrific news, voters in Dover, PA turned out eight school board members up for re-election in favor of a "pro-evolution" slate, and the main proponent of intelligent design recorded the fewest votes of any board member.  Unfortunately, aspiring Darwin-Award nominee Heather Geesey was not up for re-election this year, but I sincerely hope that she, too, will ultimately count the cost.

But every silver lining has a dark cloud, and this cloud comes from Ohio, where voters rejected four measures that would have reformed voting procedures there.  The measures would have lowered campaign contribution limits, permitted voting by mail, and appointed bipartisan boards to redistrict the state and oversee elections.  I've overestimated Ohio's politicians in the past; I'd hate to think I've overestimated their voters as well.

UPDATE. That's eight school board members in Dover, PA. I neglected to specify that the first time, but I've rectified the error above.

three more paragraphs about oil and money.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will take public comments on proposed revised fuel economy standards through November 21.  Apparently their revisions won't do a damn thing for better fuel economy -- what, you expected better from Tha Bush Mobb? -- and so the Union of Concerned Scientists has gone on the offensive.  Go right to the action page to submit a comment demanding better fuel economy standards, or watch a short "Extreme Makeover" parody here, which will eventually take you to the action page anyway.

Er, here's another "last chance saloon" for the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, from the League of Conservation Voters.  The Senate failed us, so now it's up to the House to stand up for ANWR.  I don't like the odds either, given Denny Hastert's demonstrated willingness to kowtow to corporate welfare queens, but a dozen or so Republicans are feeling the heat.  Moreover, your House Representative is up for re-election in less than one year now, and you may want to remind him/her of that.  (No, I swear, no matter who it is, they're up for re-election next year.  No lie.  You can look it up.)

Finally, Reagan-era assistant Secy. of Defense Lawrence Korb has identified $60 billion that could be slashed from the defense budget to pay for (among other things) New Orleans reconstruction.  Among the standouts on his list is, you guessed it, missile defense.  Download and read the editorial here and then, if you think it's a good idea, TrueMajority can help you write a letter to your Congressfolk about it.

"what moral values?"

Not long ago, I promised that the theme of "conservative hypocrisy on values" would be in heavy rotation on this blog. Yet somehow I missed this excellent dissection by M. Juaaid Alam on this very subject. So there.

I guess some non-cons (that's thievespeak for "conservatives who are in no way conservative but who still beat up anyone who disagrees with them") will just look at the author's name, decide it sounds vaguely non-white, and feel comfortable dismissing it. And I will feel so inadequate if I'm unable to reach such people! Oh, wait, no I won't.

your Election Day affirmation.

If anyone has any problems voting today -- said problems may include, but are not limited to, finding the polling place, voter intimidation, accessibility issues, voting machine problems, and provisional ballot issues -- or if anyone witnesses anyone having these or any other problems, the Verifiable Voting Foundation has a toll-free line for you to call. It's 1.866.OUR.VOTE -- or if, like me, mnemonic devices such as "OUR VOTE" actually slow you down considerably when you're trying to dial, that's 1.866.687.8683. Don't be skittish or ashamed about making that call; they're there to help.

Voting, in my opinion, is a citizen's absolute minimum duty in America. This is our government, no matter how little it resembles a good government, and we have the obligation as citizens to make it a good government, first on Election Day and then on every day thereafter. There are only bad reasons for not voting. Negative campaigning is an especially bad one -- you do realize politicians run negative campaigns in order to alienate voters and make them stay home, right? If you stay home, you can't vote against them! And cynicism about the state of the nation is not only a bad reason to stay home, it's a bad reason to do anything. Sure, things get pretty discouraging at times. But I refuse to drink from the cup of cynicism, and I pray that I always have the strength to refuse that cup.

on missile "defense."

One tiny point of light in the continuing saga of the budget reconciliation process:  Senators Reed and Levin have reintroduced a measure to cut $50 million out of Tha Bush Mobb's missile defense budget and use it on projects to stop nuclear proliferation.  The Senate plans to vote on this amendment today, so they need to hear from us today.  Senator Levin offered a similar amendment to the Energy Bill, but the amendment didn't make it to the finish line.

Frankly, $50 million out of the $8.8 billion Tha Bush Mobb spends on missile defense ain't much, and this program is a total corporate welfare boondoggle.  Interceptor missiles cost tens of millions of dollars each, can be easily thwarted by ICBMs through less expensive means, and generally don't hit their targets -- even in tests Tha Bush Mobb has rigged in favor of the missiles.  A far better solution would be to park your aircraft carriers outside of rogue states and arm them with conventional missiles.  If you feel as strongly about it as I do, you can skip the link offered above and make your true feelings known to your Senators using the links in the toolbox above.

this post does not contain any difficult concepts.

So Congress still wants to cut $50 billion in social services "to help pay for Katrina reconstruction" -- and then give $70 billion in new tax cuts for the rich? Tell Congress we're not stupid, and also tell them that if they're in the House they're all up for re-election next year.

Oh, and ye who obsess about "fiscal responsibility" only when it concerns helping the poor, and never when it concerns making Welfare Queens of corporations: go read your damn Bible again.

damn inconvenient human rights!

Like a baseball team that knows by late March it's going to finish thirty games under .500, Tha Bush Mobb already has their mea culpas ready for when they screw up the fight against avian flu. In a feat of rhetorical invention worthy of the individual who concocted the Welfare Queen in the first place, HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt posits the existence of town mayors who choose wrongly between buying Tamiflu and buying a swimming pool. And Mr. Bush has asked $7 billion from Congress so we can have a comprehensive plan in place -- by 2010! Accountability One leaves open the question of whose fault it'll be if bird flu is impolite enough to hit us in 2005, or 2007.

It gets better, though. Antiviral drugs tend to be patented, which prevents individual companies other than the patent-holders from manufacturing them, which will probably causes shortages of antivirals if and when bird flu hits. When U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan asked U.S. HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt if patent rights could be suspended so that other countries can prepare as many stockpiles of antiviral drugs (such as Tamiflu) as possible, Leavitt responded that American "intellectual property rights" would prevent that.

Let's see if I get this straight: the right of corporations to make money off the products they develop (which is what Leavitt means by "intellectual property rights" in this case) is more important than the right of human beings to live. In short: corporations matter more than you do.

I must ask myself: why do they hate America?

More to the point, you may want to ask your Congressperson why Tha Bush Mobb hates America so much that they would further ostracize us from the world community by withholding vital life-saving supplies in the name of "intellectual property rights." The tools are in the upper-left-hand corner; don't let them get rusty.

errata.

On Thursday, I said Jim McGovern had already introduced a bill to halt spending toward the war in Iraq. In fact, he did not introduce the bill until Friday. Please make a note of it.

The bill is H.R. 4232 if you want to look it up on thomas. H.R. 4232 has a dozen co-sponsors, who are mostly stalwart anti-war Democrats.

more in the crosshairs.

Kenneth Tomlinson has resigned from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting board of directors.  Some say "was pushed out" in place of "has resigned," but what does it matter?  His study "exposing" "liberal" "bias" at PBS turned out to be so one-sided it identified Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as a "liberal" merely for criticizing Tha Bush Mobb.  And now his calling card is the same as the others -- "I started a debate about things people didn't want to talk about," though they didn't want to talk about those things, Ken, because those things were stupid.  Speaking of "debate," I never heard him take Bill Moyers up on the latter's offer of a public debate.  But enough Ken Tomlinson-bashing:  there are plenty of other right-wing operatives at PBS who also need to go, and you may want to let Congress know how you feel about that.

You've been hearing about how the economy's bouncing back, right?  Well, it's not.  Wages are, once again, not rising fast enough to keep up with inflation, and apparently the gap between the two is the largest on record.  I suppose the far-right pundits will continue to point to "average" wages and the total GDP as being far better indicators of the country's economic health.  But if you're in any of the billion boats not being lifted by this nefarious tide, then you know better.

the more we speak of the worst, the more we can fight it.

DailyKos wonders if the detection of tularemia in both San Francisco and Washington, D.C., concurrent with anti-war protests in both areas, is more than just an accident.

Many of the comments to the aforementioned post are appropriately skeptical, but I think it's suspicious that the government seemed to have an answer ("the protestors were kicking up dust") at the ready.

(Hat tip to News Dissector.)

how "conservatives" put the Christ back in Christmas.

I'd long wanted to explain why today's "conservatives," with all their chest-thumping about "moral values," are themselves weak and lacking in values.  But Elaine Cassel did it for me.  Thanks, Elaine!

Of course, this tune will be in heavy rotation on "Thieves in the Temple."

Roveprints!

U.S. Senator Jon Corzine, who's running for Governor in New Jersey, had just opened up a lead on his opponent, former West Windsor Mayor Doug Forrester, when Corzine's ex-wife (they divorced in 2003) suddenly lashed out at him. "He did let us down, and he'll probably let New Jersey down, too," she said. Strangely, Forrester's wife, Andrea, said something similar in an ad that worked fairly well for Forrester last month: "He's never let his family down, and he won't let New Jersey down."

Anyone else see the Hand of Rove in this? I shudder to think what they'll inflict on Tim Kaine in Virginia.

Of course, this could backfire: 2005 ain't 2004, New Jersey ain't Illinois (right, Jack Ryan?), and Philadelphia Mayor John Street promptly opened up a double-digit lead on Sam Katz after police found an FBI bug in his office in October of 2003.

I hope it does backfire. Republicans ought to try winning races with better arguments, not soap-opera tactics.

last chance saloon for the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

The Senate rejected the Cantwell/Kerry amendment to preserve the ANWR by two votes, which was pretty much how it went earlier this year.  But -- sorry, Jesse Ventura -- there's a reason we have two houses in Congress, and this is it:  having failed in the Senate, we can contact our Representatives in the lower House and see if they will stop the drilling.

You know why we shouldn't drill in Alaska, right?  Because it probably won't save consumers any money for about twenty years, as one of the Bush Administration's own reports said?  Because there won't be enough oil there to make a dent in our consumption?  Because Alaska already gets far more than its share of pork from the federal government?  Because we really ought to spend money on renewable sources of power, which are viable now?  Because Tha Bush Mobb wants ANWR drilling so badly mainly so they can stick it to the environmental movement, and a health society always frowns upon such childishness?  And last, but certainly not least, because it'll destroy the Gwich-'in people and the Porcupine herd of caribou with whom they coexist?  Like so many Bush Mobb initiatives, ANWR drilling is wrong for so many reasons.  In fact, I may have left a few out.

You know, having mentioned John Kerry in a positive light twice in two days, you might think I like the guy or something.  Not really, no.  He's been a noticeably better Senator since he lost the election (and incongruously declared himself "rejuvenated" immediately thereafter), but I'm generally not a fan of his work.  Thing is, when someone does something right, I praise them.  And when they do something wrong, I slam them.  Check out my archives (of posts I made at my blog's previous location) and you'll understand what I'm talking about -- I spend a lot of time praising Republicans when they get it right, and a lot of time excoriating the cowardice of Democrats.

war and peace.

Senator Kerry issues a call to bring 20,000 troops home by Christmas.  I don't forget (or forgive) that he's up to now been just another Democrat who wants to fight Mr. Bush's war but better, and I don't suspend my call to bring them all home, but I'll sign onto that.  It doesn't preclude me from calling for more troops to come home later, obviously.  Obviously, that is, unless you're a pedant.

More to the point, Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern has introduced legislation that would cut off all Iraq war funding, and I'll definitely sign on to that.  Oh, how amusing it will be to hear right-wingers gloat that they'll do to this anti-war McGovern what they did to the last one.  It'll be even more amusing to stop their damn war despite a bunch of Republicans running everything.

you know what you need, citizen? even more stuff to do.

Courtesy of Operation Truth (whose Executive Director is, you guessed it, an Iraq war veteran), you may call upon your local news organ to dedicate a space on Page One for daily casualty reports.  You know, those daily casualty reports Brit Hume thinks aren't that impressive.  It's worth mentioning again:  no Rube Goldbergian statistical contraption can deny the fact that 2,000-plus soldiers is a lot to lose to a country whose military stands to ours as the Washington Generals stand to the Harlem Globetrotters.

Now that Karl Rove has for the moment escaped indictment, the corporate media seem eager to resume their role as Mr. Bush's coddler and enabler, but you can help keep the media focused on the issue by writing a letter to the editor reminding them that Libby's act was a serious breach of national security.  You can call it "treason" if you like, but I won't respect that; you all already know how I feel about spraying the word "treason" around (the Founders set a high bar, and for a reason, too).  You can also call upon Congress to demand a full investigation into the real issue -- that, all together now, "the facts and the intelligence were fixed around the policy."

Not that you'd know from watching the corporate media, but the General Accounting Office found a hornet's nest of problems with voting machines.  The GAO found that hacking into many electronic voting machines was chillingly easy, and that some electronic voting machines didn't even have password-protected supervisory functions -- which absence would essentially have allowed a very small number of operators to access an entire network and change votes.  You can download the entire report here; the report strains to use neutral language, which makes its findings even more horrifying, I think.  In a perhaps related development, despite over 150 sponsors, Rush Holt's "gold standard" electronic voting bill can't get a vote in the House.  Have you convinced your Representative to be a co-sponsor yet?  You may want to try again, mentioning the GAO report.  You might as well tell your local and national media outlets to report on the GAO report as well.  It took a lot of pressure to get even a blip of coverage for the Downing Street Memos, but we're not politicians, so we can keep the pressure coming as long as we like.

(Hat tip to Virginia Metze.)

a "doing-your-damn-job" thing.

Dover, PA school board member Heather Geesey didn't bother to research intelligent design before voting in favor of it, because two other board members assured her it was a "scientific thing," and anyway it wasn't her job to research intelligent design because she didn't serve on the curriculum committee.  It gets better.  According to the Dover School Board's website Ms. Geesey is the School Board's Vice President -- which the aforementioned Philadelphia Inquirer article fails to mention.

Those of you who are served (and how!) by the Dover school board may at the very least want to remind Ms. Geesey (whose email address can be found at the aforementioned site) that it is in fact her job to research the things she votes upon, regardless of what committee she's on or isn't on, and that it in fact is more incumbent upon her to research the things she votes upon since she has assumed a mantle of leadership.  I demand this of myself as a voter and a citizen; why would I ask less of a representative?

"It wasn't my job."  Really.  Only a selfish and decadent culture would tolerate such whining.  And America is not a selfish and decadent culture, is it?  Well?

(Registration required for Inquirer article.)

heaven and hell.

Rep. John Conyers has a petition in which you demand that Mr. Bush allow the wheels of justice to grind on his advisers should any of them be caught in it. I'm well aware that indictment isn't equal to conviction, but pre-emptive pardoning denies the people the chance to see justice done. Pre-emption seems to be in style these days, so do a little pre-empting yourself.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has prepared a resolution of inquiry to demand access by Congress to all documents from the notorious White House Iraq Group, led by Dick "Mr. Clean" Cheney himself and widely presumed to be the font from which all nefarious Iraq policy springs. Mr. Bush will tell us that such a request would compromise the ability of the President to get candid advice, etc., but the President is supposed to be heeding the candid advice of the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, not mystifying the business of governing. You may support his call here.

In a chilling reminder that it could always be even worse -- not that this means I should shut my mouth about the bad I can more directly affect -- Iranian blogger Omid Sheikhan was sentenced to one year in prison and 124 lashes for making fun of Iranian political figures on his blog. Well, actually, he wasn't convicted of *that* per se -- even in Iran, it looks bad to put someone in jail for satire -- but of various trumped-up "morals" violations. The Committee to Protect Bloggers has created a petition to protest this monstrous act. (Hat tip to the Electronic Freedom Foundation.)

"it's scaaaaaaaaary, kids!"

Who in America does not now know who wears the pants in Tha Bush Mobb? The far right forced Harriet Miers out, and now they coo over the new guy. Democrats (and, oddly, John McCain) are holding their cards close to their chest, and for once that's good strategy, for only a massive popular outcry can defeat this nomination. And voila! Over 350,000 have signed a petition to protest Mr. Bush's appointment of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court and you can join their number. I'll grant that fifteen years of judging is a whole lot better than two, which was the cumulative experience of Mr. Bush's last two nominees, but Alito's spent those years kowtowing to large corporations at the expense of workers and the disenfranchised. So what if he's polite and restrained? All the rageaholics have by now learned to smile in public. And I'm such an ungrateful little liberal that I only care for good deeds these days.

If you've ever made biscotti (the one batch I made for an office party in 2003 was, miraculously, the one batch I didn't screw up), you've probably used Blue Diamond almonds. Well, no more. The federal government is investigating them for threatening workers with termination if they formed a union. I don't brook that; I have not set foot in Whole Foods since the infamous "improper disposal of a latte" incident in Madison in 2002. If you're less stubborn than me, though, you might try to write Blue Diamond and tell them not to be so aggressively anti-union.

I don't know if I'll be in time for this, but I have three tools with which to save the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve: one courtesy of the People's Email Network, one courtesy of Senator Kerry, and one courtesy of the League of Conservation Voters. The first two links, actually, lead you to phone numbers to call your Congressfolk, not unlike my links in the upper left-hand corner. They're faster, though.

good afternoon; now fire Brit Hume.

Brit Hume tells black _Fox News_ pundit Juan Williams on the 10.30 _Fox News Sunday_ that "someone needs to hose you down." Get it -- "hose you down"? Because Juan Williams is black? And because police used to fight black civil rights protestors by hosing them down in the street? That Brit Hume is such a trickster! In a previous time and place, I guess Brit Hume would be telling some Jewish pundit that "someone needs to do a Krystallnacht in your neighborhood."

Seriously -- "someone" "needs" to fire Brit Hume, and pronto, because he's a damn bigot.

Hume's defenders will have their excuses, because they always do. Let's examine some of them.

"Wasn't Williams just pulsing with anti-Bush hate?" No, he wasn't -- like most of Fox News's liberals, Williams seems unable to achieve any degree of fierceness even when he's indisputably right.

"Wasn't Hume just joking? He must have been, since Chris Wallace/Bill Kristol laughed, right?" Number one, what irony-addled idiot thinks that's funny? Number two, hiding behind a "joke" is lame. When I was a boy, I would hide my invective behind "jokes," too. But I became a man, and put away childish things. The well-paid anchor of Fox News's flagship program, though, hasn't.

"What right do you have to be offended, since Williams didn't even acknowledge the remark?" My mother instilled in me the importance of fighting racism wherever I see it. You gonna mess with my mother? Didn't think so. Besides, I so love it when people try to tell me how to feel. And even if laws prevented anyone but the offended from dealing with offensive remarks, how would that magically make Hume's remark harmless?

"Hey -- you're 'reading into' what he said. Aren't you the real racist? Aren't you projecting your own racism onto this incident?" No, don't laugh -- I have been fed exactly this line of hot-and-steaming, that the anti-racists are the real racists, merely because we notice racism and point it out! But living, as I do, in a reality-based community, I find that the racists are the folks who actually commit the racism.

And Brit Hume is one of them. Don't waste my time asking how I can really "know his heart." I know a man's heart by his actions. He could have "respectfully disagreed" with Williams or used a common idiom like "hold your horses" or even told him he's full of it, but he chose to say Juan Williams should be "hosed down." Hey, it's not like I made him talk.

The relevant email address is comments@foxnews.com, even though they don't care what you think.