Sunday, May 28, 2006

MARRIAGE: A Blue State Value


. . . and a Red-State Political Issue.
C. WILLIAM BOYER

Bill Frist was on FOX-"NEWS" Sunday, going on about the GOP's SecureAmerica program. Like its predessessor, ContractWithAmerica, it's a piece of marketing conflated with ersatz policy. Central to SecureAmerica is a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. To DEFEND the sacred compact of marriage, is what they're saying.

Mr. Frist: "Marriage is for our society that union between a man and a woman, is the cornerstone of our society. It is under attack today. Right now there are 13 states who passed constitutional amendments in the last year and a half to protect marriage. Why? Because in nine states today, activist judges, unelected activist judges are tearing down state laws in nine states today. That’s why I will take it to the floor of the Senate, simply define marriage as the union between a man and a woman."

It's not about protecting, marriage, Mr. Frist, it's about getting votes. It's about exciting your excitable base into going to the polls, otherwise you know that the GOP's getting tossed out on its ear come this November. So feed the 'Base' something hate and get em voting, right?

And before we get into all that, let me say the Constitution is an amazing document. Do you know why it exists, Mr. Frist? To protect the RIGHTS of American citizens. Our Founding Fathers drew it up as a document that is the rightful heir to the English Magna Carta, which for the first time, put down that NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW, not even the king. The Constitution furthered that cause, and each of the succeeding Amendments furthering these protections. In fact, Mr. Frist, the only Amendment that banned anything, as your marriage amendment would do, was the 18th Amendment. We know how that turned out: it fostered the birth of the La Cosa Nostra, the Mafia, and was later repealed by the 21st Amendment, such that no amendment today bans ANY action, only ensures RIGHTS.

But that's not what's got me so pissed off right now. Your transparently shameless political pandering to the intolerant Evangelical Right's, who make up the sinew and muscle of the Red State's clout that's got me so pissed off. And the fact you're doubly wrong because it's the Democrat BLUE STATES that apparently respect the institution of marriage. The RED STATES? They wipe their collective asses on marriage.

Because I am a liberal and live in a RealityBased Community, let me show you the facts:

Item 1: That map again of of the 2000 elections:

Item 2: A list of divorce rates (Total Population vs number of divorce) of the top 10 divorce states*. Most divorces listed first:

1. Nevada
2. Arkansas
3. Oklahoma
4. Tennessee
5. Wyoming
6. Indiana
7. Alabama
8. Idaho
9: New Mexico
10: Florida

* Divorce Magazine

Hmmm. I think I detect a trend. It would appear that states voting for Bush in 2000 tended to get a bit more divorced than states that voted Gore. But I thought marriage was a RedState value and hence why RedStaters are so hot to get an amendment banning gay marriage. Hmmm.

Okay, let's look at things the other way.

Item 3: Electoral map of 2004 elections crossed with the states with Lowest Divorce Rates*(ranked lowest to highest):
1. Massachusetts
2. Connecticutt
3. New Jersey
4. Rhode Island
5. New York
6. Pennsylvania
7. Wisconsin
8. North Dakota
9. Maryland
10. Minnesota
* Divorce Magazine

I think what this shows is that the Red States, the Right, the GOP or the Republicans, whatever you will call them, are not about protecting Marriage, about Values. About marriage, Bill Frist and his comrades give not a tinker's damn. No, Bill Frist and his ilk are about intolerance and about the politics of Us and Them. Dress it up however you will, they are about Hate and Division and are anathema to the philosophy and consience of this great nation and the Constitution we embrace.

It's right there in Red and Blue to see.

Thursday, May 25, 2006

THREE BRAVE WOMEN

Singing Truth to Power




I was never much of a Dixie Chicks fan, didn't know much about them and I've never been much of a country guy, either. But this new song of there's, NOT READY TO MAKE NICE, is awesome. And when Natalie Maines sings in wonder,

"How in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over
"?

Chills run down my spine. Three brave women who said what they believed and paid a price. In America. For Speaking Out.

Sad.

Backstory? When the Chicks criticized Bush on the eve of the Iraq invasion, they were threatened, threatened with their careers and threatened with their lives. But they fought back, never backed down, and now we know what heroes look like. They wear skirts and stand, sometimes, not much more than five feet tall.

Politics aside, NOT READY TO MAKE NICE is a great song. Enjoy it, as performed for David Letterman.

Forgive, sounds good
Forget, I’m not sure I could
They say time heals everything
But I’m still waiting
I’m through with doubt
There’s nothing left for me to figure out
I’ve paid a price
And I’ll keep paying

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

I know you said
Can’t you just get over it
It turned my whole world around
And I kind of like it
I made my bed and I sleep like a baby
With no regrets and I don’t mind sayin’
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over

Re-Chorus

They say time heals everything

But I’m still waiting

Thanks, Chicks. You Rock.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Beating You with the Big Ol Fear Stick

That's what FOX-NEWS does every damn day.

In my post below this one, you'll see a FoxNews screen-shot asking if the media reporting on the illegal NSA wiretapping could hurt the market. Now, the kool-aid drinkers are asking if Gore's global-warming movie could wreck the economy. My GOD, what a bunch of hysterical freaking weirdos! Listen, Virginia, if one fucking movie can wreck the economy it wasn't much of an economy to begin with, now was it? Shut up then and go back to rubbing poo in your hair, you crack-pot.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Protect Your Money from the Dangerously Insane

The Dow was down 120 points today, prompting Fox News’ David Ruder to suggest it was because USA Today made “the country less safe” by running its story on NSA’s data mining.

But Fox News host Brenda Butler disagreed, saying that Wall Street would “not going to let some puny, little traitor, some leaker who went ahead and compromised our national security, take down this, take down our market, take down our country.” Watch it:

Look at that woman's expression! Is she passing gas?

What's most curious about this, if that's the word, is what's at the bottom of the screen. Besides trying to tie together (in the most fascist way) the need for secrecy in our government to protecting Americans' 401k's, the screen-crawler's just plain economically wrong.

The stocks are selling off partly because of momentum trading but mainly because the dollar's falling and there are fears of incipient inflation, which erodes the essential value of American possessions: your house, your stocks, even your car. And the reason for the falling dollar and rising inflation is due in large part to a massive budget deficit run up by a certain president who need not be named and who Fox will never blame.

What's more amazing at the point central to these Fox anchors' premise, notably that leakers are revealing deep secrets central to America's fight against "The War on Terror", is false. Again, these people are pretty smart and only a moronic terrorist fails to assume that ALL electronic communications are bugged. For chrissakes, if you've ever watched The Sopranos and seen how Tony goes about protecting himself from the FBI, then you know this whole Leakers are Traitors argument is simply to cow people down so as to avoid scrutiny of the Administration's nefarious actions.

So, in essence, Fox News shows it is two things: a hopeless fearmonger; and an inept analyzer of business trends.

Fair and balanced. And inept. Fox News.

We report (innacurately), you decide (based upon erroneous facts). Fox News.

Friday, May 12, 2006

THE NEW REBEL ALLIANCE


Wherein the Heroes of Right and Left Join forces to battle an Evil Empire.

This is what many of us are talking about, the unifying of Right and Left wingers against a common enemy: those who would attack the very soul of this great country by abusing and ignoring the Constitution.

Will there by a New Rebel Alliance?

Here's a Right-Wing radio host who thinks it possible:


SPECIAL TO THE REASONABLE RANT

Now Is the Time for
a Left-Right Alliance

A rebel alliance already exists that could stop Bush administration attacks on the Constitution
By Thomas R. Eddlem

I'm currently a life member of the John Birch Society and formerly served on the staff of the organization for 13 years.

So why should any left-winger reading this care a fig about what I have to say?

Because of a conversation I had with another conservative magazine writer recently. In frustration at the unconstitutional excesses of the Bush administration, I blurted out to him: "The only people doing any good out there are the people at Air America." I expected to shock him with the statement, but his two-word reply shocked me: "And MoveOn.org."

We were both exaggerating for effect, but fact is, as my journalist friend continued, "We probably only disagree on, maybe, 25 percent of the issues." I'd have put the percentage a little higher, though I tacked an ending onto his sentence: "…and those issues aren't especially important right now."

When Air America started, I told myself and my friends that it would fail because it would be redundant. The Left already controls all the television networks besides Fox, along with most of the major newspapers. But here we are a year later, and the most penetrating news analysis on television is – and I'm not exaggerating here – Jon Stewart's Daily Show on Comedy Central.

I tuned into the Boston Air America affiliate when I became a community radio talk show host almost two years ago, thinking that I could use a few of their wild statements as a springboard to bounce my counterpoint. And although I got a few yuks out of quips about "Airhead America," I found that I agreed with the hosts more than I disagreed with them.

They criticized the Bush administration for deceiving us into the Iraq war. No problem there. They criticized Alberto Gonzales for his torture memos. Again, no problem. They criticized deficit spending, the PATRIOT Act, and corporate welfare. Hurray, hurray, and hurray!

So I called into a few "progressive" radio talk shows, identifying myself as a "right-wing radio talk show host," and explained my understanding of these issues. Stephanie Miller told me that I was a "not a very good right-winger." A liberal show host at my radio station even called me a "liberal."

But my views haven't changed one bit since I joined the John Birch Society during the Reagan administration. So this is not a conversion story.
What's changed is that the Bush administration has simply gotten that bad and that, according to some polls, we are almost at the point where most genuine conservatives realize it.

The Left and Right will never agree on the issues that liberal talk show host Ed Schultz likes to call "God, Guns, and Gays." Nor will we agree on most economic issues, such as Social Security or whether the federal government should have a role in health care.

Unlike the Hannitized Dittobots who call the so-called "right-wing" radio talk shows, you won't find me sporting "Club Gitmo" gear. I realize that what happened at Abu Ghraib could happen to any American faster than you can say "Jose Padilla."

These are some issues of common concern that could lead to cooperation between Right and Left. Does a "rebel alliance" against the evil neocon empire sound crazy? Not only has it already begun to take shape today, it's happened before.

The First Rebel Alliance

The American political Left and Right actively worked together on a project that literally saved the U.S. Constitution during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Back then, the Republican Party pushed for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution and became frustrated at failing to get the two-thirds vote in Congress needed to pass it. So the GOP led a push toward the first constitutional convention (con-con) in more than 200 years by pushing state legislatures to call a con-con. They needed calls from two-thirds (34) of the states. By 1987, President Reagan and Vice President Bush needed only two more states to call a con-con, a convention that would have had the same power to tear up our existing Constitution and write a new one from scratch that our Founding Fathers had in 1787.

An odd coalition formed that paired Common Cause with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and the AFL-CIO with the John Birch Society. Conservatives got resolutions condemning the convention from the Daughters of the American Revolution, the American Legion, and even the National Rifle Association, which feared that the convention would tinker with the Second Amendment.

The coalition stopped the con-con steamroller cold, and in 1988 got the states of Alabama and Florida to pass legislation withdrawing their calls for a new convention. The legislatures of Louisiana, Utah, and Virginia followed with their own rescissions in later years, rolling the number of states calling for a convention back to a safer level.

The New "Rebel Alliance"

The entire U.S. Constitution had to be in danger in order for the Left and Right to work together in the past. That's just what it's taken for the alliance to form again. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are in danger again today.

The issues the Right and Left are already working together on are related to the Constitution: (1) Exposing the Bush administration's policy to eliminate the right to trial, as in the case of Jose Padilla, (2) Stopping the Bush practice and advocacy of torture, (3) Ending the administration's unnecessary Iraq War, (4) Eliminating unconstitutional, warrantless wiretapping, and the most objectionable parts of the PATRIOT Act, (5) Stopping multilateral trade agreements such as CAFTA, renewal of the WTO, and the upcoming Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

The current Rebel Alliance is completely ad hoc and has no formal organization, for several reasons. First, we don't trust each other. Groups on the "paleoconservative" Right – those not in the Bush neoconservative orbit who have strong ideological reasons for joining an ad hoc alliance – include some of the organizations most disliked by leftists: The John Birch Society, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the Rockford Institute, the "Buchanan Brigades" of Pat Buchanan's American Cause, libertarian-leaning Lew Rockwell and his Ludwig von Mises Institute. And, of course, Antiwar.com, where the Rebel Alliance meshes and works together best.

Of course, we "right-wingers" don't trust you leftists at all either. Leftists will always view conservatives like me as paranoid radicals, and conservatives will always view the Left as the ideological heirs of Joseph Stalin. It will be hard for either side to even shake hands on the banks of the Elbe River at the end of any alliance of convenience. But a lot more could be accomplished with a little more cooperation, even something as a simple as an e-mail or a phone call regarding tentative campaign plans on issues of mutual interest on critical issues related to the U.S. Constitution.

The second reason that any sort of formal organization in this new alliance is all but impossible is because groups on both sides will likely drop in or out of the coalition, depending on the organization's agenda – or even the clash of personalities involved.

Any successful Left-Right cooperation should focus upon the U.S. House of Representatives. The chief lesson of the con-con battle was that the executive branch and the Senate, the legislative chamber of 100 men and women who want to run the executive branch, were not greatly swayed by grass-roots pressure. But House members are literally running for reelection nonstop and are particularly susceptible to broad-based pressure from the districts. With the Left unifying the Democratic Party, it would only take the swing of a couple of Republican representatives by the right in any committee in order to launch a Watergate-style investigation on the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial or the contemptible policy of "extraordinary rendition."

Liberals are pinning their hopes on Democratic chances in November, but even a slight Democratic majority in the House of Representatives in January (a divided government I dearly hope will come to pass) would not solve the problem. Genuine reform and controls on the unitary executive will elude the nation without the assistance of the Right, as Democratic reforms either die in the closely locked Senate or by Democratic neocon implants in the House (there are Joe Lieberman types in the House too!) Whatever happens in November, the Left is going to need the Right to peel away more Republicans away from Bush and find more congressmen like Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

A little more coordination of effort could go a long way toward saving the U.S. Constitution from the depredations of the Bush administration, both before and after November.

Down with the neocon Evil Empire!
Long live the new Rebel Alliance!

Monday, May 08, 2006

SPENDING LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR (MARINE?) ON LEAVE


If this were April 1, I'd think it was a joke. The US budget is hemorraging red-ink, we're still blowing $10 billion a month in Iraq, New Orleans is inoperable and we're spending 6 BILLION dollars on a helicopter? So it's roomier? Jesus Christ, the only purpose for Marine 1 is to ferry the president to Air Force 1. It's a fricking 5 minute ride to Dulles. How much work does this yo-yo get done in a 24-hour period, let alone five minutes. When I say work, I mean 'things that don't make the world worse'. In that regard, in five years of office, Bush has done no work. Maybe that explains the many vacations.

The President's New Helicopter
POPULAR SCIENCE MAGAZINE
By Jonathon Keatsposted:
07 May 2006

After decades of upgrades to a fleet of notoriously cramped Sikorsky VH-3 Sea Kings, the White House has tasked Lockheed Martin with a dramatic, $6.1-billion makeover of Marine One, the presidential helicopter, starting this summer. The goal: to fit a mobile Oval Office into the tight quarters of a chopper. The new fleet will consist of 23 VH-71 aircraft, each of which will have 200 square feet of cabin space, nearly double the Sea King’s 116.

Aside from the legroom, the copter will incorporate major upgrades to the old defense and communications systems. Equally important is that the aircraft is flight-proven—the $110-million bird is derived from a European-built AgustaWestland EH101, currently doing military service for Canada and the U.K. Here, an inside look at the revamped Marine One, set to gradually go into service between 2009 and 2014.

Fuselage: Made of high-strength reinforced aluminum alloy, it can withstand crash impacts in excess of 15 Gs.

Engine: The VH-71 can shift from three 3,000-horsepower turboshaft engines to two, whereas the twin-engine Sea King must land if one engine fails.

Rotor: Five flared rotor blades increase the craft’s efficiency by up to 30 percent over conventional designs when flying at 150-knot cruising speed.

Defense System: The VH-71s, like the EH101s they are modeled on, will probably feature radar-warning receiv-ers, laser detectors and flare dispensers to deflect anti-aircraft missiles.

Cabin: Measuring eight feet wide and 25 feet long, the cabin will include a lavatory and a galley kitchen. The fold-down stair spares the president from ducking during photogenic entrances and exits.

Communications: More room for communications hardware means the president will have secure and continuous access to all White House and Pentagon computer systems and data streams.