How many times will Congress enact a law that specificially protects unborns at the expense of the woman who bears them? The answer is "over and over". Why do the Religious Right think that a child bearing woman is nothing more than a vessel that, like a soda can, is disposable yet the contents are not? It's not a perfect analogy, but their reasoning, if there is any, is even worse.
Today a federal judge aborted the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The irony is not lost on me.
A federal judge in New York ruled today that a federal law that banned a form of abortion is unconstitutional because it does not include an exception for cases where the procedure might be necessary to protect a woman's health. The law, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, enacted in November, makes it a crime for doctors to perform any "overt act" to "kill the partially delivered living fetus."Today's ruling, by Judge Richard Conway Casey of the Federal District Court for the Southern District, came in a case brought by the National Abortion Federation and seven physicians. Judge Casey determined that a decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court required that any law limiting abortion must have a clause allowing doctors to go ahead with the procedure if they determine that the risk to a women's health is greater without it.
"While Congress and the lower courts may disagree with the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions, that does not free them from their constitutional duty to obey the Supreme Court's rulings," Judge Casey wrote. In its 2000 ruling, he said, the Supreme Court "informed us that this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women would potentially benefit from it."
The decision is another victory for proponents of abortion rights, and a setback for the Bush administration, which supports the law along with opponents of abortion.
If they really wanted abortions to not happen, then why do they deny human, nay all sexual beings' nature and endorse birth control?
NOTE: This entry should be in "Slouching Towards Washington" but the SJR has an "official policy" of categorizing any story that mentions Alan Keyes in the "Wingnuts" category. You have been warned.
The GOP has chosen Alan Keyes to run against Barack Obama for the Illinois Senate seat that opened this year.
(Take a few minutes to stop laughing, and when you are down to a gentle giggle, return to this piece.)
(On second thought, just keep laughing. This kind of political theater is what gives Molly Ivins a reason to get up in the morning and write a wry commentary.)
Illinois Republican leaders asked two-time presidential hopeful Alan Keyes on Wednesday to be their Senate candidate, but like a string of previous possibilities, Keyes said he needed a few days to think about it.Keyes told a news conference Wednesday night that he would make an announcement by Sunday.
"If I do step forward to accept this challenge, I will be laying it all on the line," he said.
It's been a laborious six-week search as Republicans have sought a candidate willing to tackle the daunting task of taking on Democratic rising star Barack Obama in the Senate race.
Republican primary winner Jack Ryan dropped his bid amid embarrassing sex club allegations that surfaced when records from his divorce were unsealed in June.
The GOP, party of God, family values, etc. had to ditch the handsome and very white Jack Ryan because despite being married to the sexiest woman in SciFi, he couldn't get it on with her without an audience. Then they asked Mike Ditka, noted diplomat, to run. He (in what has to be a career best) demurred, noting his propensity for pulling a Dick Cheney on the Senate floor. Now the GOP has hit rock fucking bottom (uh, excuse my Cheney there!) and selected a certified Wingnut™ to run against probably the strongest candidate the Dems. have offered in decades.
Let the games ... uh ... continue.
Apparently, even with the blessing of the President and the Religious Right, the insipidly evil Defense of Marriage Amendment is going down the drain. Two different groups of GOP Senators (let's call them Wingnuts A and B) cannot decide on how best to strip the rights of a select group of Americans using the Constitution (for the first time in our nation's history). This loggerhead comes as a relief to me. My wife and I were not married by a religious git in a gown in a tax-free building so we would most likely not be considered married under this Amendment.
Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political organization, said the last-minute effort to get votes on two different versions reflected a lack of care in drafting the amendment."I think it is outrageous and frankly surreal that at the 11th hour in this debate, they are literally rewriting the Constitution on the back of a napkin," she said.
Democrats said opening the proposed amendment to changes could open the Constitution itself to other amendments ranging from campaign finance to flag burning.
"We're treating it like just another little old amendment," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said of the Republican demands for separate votes on each version. "This is an amendment that will be added to a document that is precious, that we treasure, that we ought to have respect for."
There will still be a rollcall vote which is intended to hurt Democrat Senators who will almost certainly vote against this wingnut Amendment. Don't let it. Write your Senator if he/she votes for this piece of shit and let them know you think they're a goddamned idiot for doing so. Do it!
I can hardly wait for The Onion's response to this whopper. A "Catholic" lawyer (the law recognizes sectarianism now?) is "suing John Kerry for heresy".
Everyone stop what you're doing and double check your digital watches to make sure we're still in the twenty-first century. Done? Good. Now back to the 16th c. non-sense:
"Heresy is a public, ecclesiastical crime," said Mr. Balestrieri, 33, whose complaint is posted at www.defide.com. "It affects entire communities. It is one of the greatest sins you can commit." If the Boston Archdiocese, which is refusing comment on the case, decided to press heresy charges, the Massachusetts senator could be excommunicated. "My goal is his repentance, not excommunication," Mr. Balestrieri said. The charges do not seek monetary damages.
Is there some kind of race to the top of mount "Fucking Idiot" between the Protestants and the Catholics in this country? Why in the hell is this kind of bullshit being bandied about during this election cycle? Is this really all that Karl Rove can fling at John Kerry? That religion (organized, I might add) is being used to attack political opponents is nothing new in the U.S., the fact remains that the level of petty, insipid and ass-backward stupidity of it is astonishing. Not since another Catholic ran for President has there been so much partisanship of the election -- and this is a Catholic attacking a Catholic candidate!
Where are the "Baptists to Beat Bush" when you need them?
Trent Lott wants Reagan's face on a gold dollar coin.
I am an advocate of having a gold dollar with Reagan's picture on it, and calling it the Ronnie. The Canadians have the Loonie, and we can have the Ronnie.
Let's see, a gold dollar coin would have to weigh less 1/400th of an oz. (that's 71 microgrammes) to even begin to be affordable for the U.S. Mint (gold is trading at $400US/oz.). That's far, far less than a gram. This coin would require a loupe just to be seen!
Nevermind that! The idea that the words "Ronnie" and "Loonie" would be forever associated is ... how does the phrase go?
Priceless.
I did some modest Googling of the anti-Fahrenheit 9/11 web sites (try this for example) to see what the rhetoric was. Not too surprisingly, there has been a concerted effort to terrorize theaters into not showing the film, and plans to protest (violently in some cases) the opening. It occurred to me that the same kind of violent, hate-filled protesting that goes on at abortion clinics would be the order of the day, and sadly, those opposed to Moore's film are planning just that.
It's sickening to see "Americans" calling for the banning of a film they haven't seen simply because it challenges them to see beyond the simple, stupid rhetoric of their adored Great Leader. If they could only grasp the notion that, even if you don't agree with the film's premise, the fact that it will be seen is proof that the Constitution is still working utter eludes them.
According to Salon, Rev. Moon was coronated by U.S. Senators in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
You probably imagine your congressman hard at work in the Capitol debating legislation, making laws -- you know, governing. But your newspaper probably didn't tell you that one night in March, members of Congress hosted a crowning ritual for an ex-convict and multibillionaire who dressed up in maroon robes and declared himself the Second Coming.On March 23, the Dirksen Senate Office Building was the scene of a coronation ceremony for Rev. Sun Myung Moon, owner of the conservative Washington Times newspaper and UPI wire service, who was given a bejeweled crown by Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill. Afterward, Moon told his bipartisan audience of Washington power players he would save everyone on Earth as he had saved the souls of Hitler and Stalin -- the murderous dictators had been born again through him, he said. In a vision, Moon said the reformed Hitler and Stalin vouched for him, calling him "none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."
To many observers, this bizarre scene would have looked like the apocalypse as depicted in "Left Behind" novels. Moon, 84, the benefactor of conservative foundations like the American Family Coalition -- who served time in the 1980s for tax fraud and conspiracy to obstruct justice -- has views somewhere to the right of the Taliban's Mullah Omar. Moon preaches that gays are "dung-eating dogs," Jews brought on the Holocaust by betraying Jesus, and the U.S. Constitution should be scrapped in favor of a system he calls "Godism" -- with him in charge. The man crowned "King of Peace" by congressmen once said, according to sermons reprinted in his church's Unification News: "Suppose I were to hit you with the baseball bat to stop you, bloodying your ear and breaking a bone or two, yet still you insisted on doing more work for Father."
You just can't make this stuff up.
From a Chris Matthews interview with Ron Reagan ( President Reagan's youngest son -- whom I actually like quite a bit from what I've seen of him ) beginning with a short excerpt from a eulogy given by Ron at his father's funeral:
"Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man, but he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians, wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. "
Matthews: "That was in many ways the most remarked upon moment in a very dramatic week."Reagan: "Well, what I find interesting about it is that everybody assumes that I must be talking about George W. Bush, which I find fascinating and somewhat telling. If the shoe fits—"
Matthews: "Were you?"
Reagan: "Well, I said many politicians. If he's lumped in that group then fine, fine. That's all right. There's a lot of-- I think there's a lot of false piety floating around Washington."
Matthews: "Ron, do you feel deeply that the President has used religion to make his case for the war with Iraq?"
Reagan: "I think he's used religion to make his case for a lot of things, you know."
Matthews: "Including Iraq?"
Reagan: "Including Iraq."
...
Matthews: "Many of the people in this administration who are most hawkish claim a Reagan mantle here in fighting this war. Should they?"
Reagan: "No. With all due respect, I don't think they knew my father as well as I did. And another thing I would observe is that my father never felt the need to wrap himself in anybody else's mantle. He never felt the need to pretend to be anybody else. This is their administration. This is their war. If they can't stand on their own two feet, well they're no Ronald Reagan’s, that's for sure."
Bush's right-wing anti-Castro nutcase Otto J. Reich resigned as Shrub's special envoy to Latin America. His ties to the wingnuts go back to 1959 when he fled Cuba at the age of 15. He served under Reagan, where he actually trying to garner public support for the Contras (until, of course, they were discovered to be the beneficiaries of Oliver North's White House Basement Mullah Mutual Fund).
In 1987, the comptroller general of the United States reported that Mr. Reich's office had "engaged in prohibited, covert activities" of domestic propaganda "designed to influence the media and the public to support the administration's Latin American policies.'' Those acts violated restrictions on the use of public funds for propaganda without Congress's consent, the report said.Mr. Reich was not charged, though many Reagan administration officials were, with breaking Congress's ban on aid to the contras. But the memory rankled, as did the fight over his appointment. In March 2002, days after his swearing-in as assistant secretary of state, he opened a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington with, "Friends, colleagues, un-indicted co-conspirators...."
Apparently he is quite the crackup. Thank Bog he's not working for Bush anymore ... of course, with Tenet's resignation, the Season of the Rats Leaving the Ship has officially begun.
Salon has a review by Laura Miller of several books that examine Shrub's psyche and morals in depth. The main review is of a book that psychoanalyzes the President, finding him suffering from a huge Oedipal complex and deep seated fears from his mother. It's an interesting review because of the myths of Bush it disputes, and the (in my opinion) better model of Bush's Brain.
Of course, there's something slightly absurd about applying the reasoning of a philosopher to what's essentially an instinct-based moral code. "I'm not a textbook player," Bush told Bob Woodward, "I'm a gut player." Still, at every point where Bush's stated values come into conflict with his actions or other stated values, a little flash of light goes off, and what's illuminated is a vision of life rooted in fury and terror and a need to dominate the self and others as a way of containing both. Maybe that's one reason why George W. Bush is always talking about freedom. He'd probably like to know what it feels like.
President Bush fulfilled another Pat Robertson fantasy by appearing on Christian TV in advance of "National Day of Prayer".
For Bush, the broadcast is an opportunity to address a sympathetic evangelical audience without the risk of alienating secular or non-Christian viewers, because it will not be carried in full by the major television networks. Frank Wright, president of the National Association of Religious Broadcasters, said more than a million evangelicals are expected to see the broadcast.Some civil liberties groups and religious minorities charged that the National Day of Prayer has lost its nonpartisan veneer and is being turned into a platform for evangelical groups to endorse Bush -- and vice versa.
"Over the years, the National Day of Prayer has gradually been adopted more and more by the religious right, and this year in particular there is such an undercurrent of partisanship because for the first time they are broadcasting Bush's message in an election year," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The event's organizers denied that it amounts to a tacit political endorsement.
"We're in an election year, and we believe God cares who's in those positions of authority," said Mark Fried, spokesman for the National Day of Prayer Task Force. "But we're not endorsing a candidate -- just praying that God's hand will be on the election."
Well I can tell you who's hands are clearly on this stunt: Karl Rove's. Sucking up to the Evangelican wingnuts is a core function in the Rove Operating System. Trotting Bush out in front of the TV cameras that non-Xtians won't see is pretty much the same thing that Louis Farrakhan does with his Nation of Islam followers. Away from the rather incurious national news spotlight, Bush can regurgitate the usual religious spew that got him the Xtian vote last time around without taking flak from moderates (or for that matter, anyone who isn't expecting to leave behind a fancy sedan and a nice (but empty) suit of clothes real soon now). He can "preach to the choir" and not take hit points because CNN won't run the more incendiary parts of the speech, despite the word "news" in the network's name.
At this rate, we'll need nanotechnological tools in order to be able see the increasingly mythic "separation of Church and State".
There's a lot of shit on TV, and anyone who ever sat through an episode of Suddenly Susan knows exactly what I'm talking about. In a Broadcast and Cable News report, we learn:
Attorney John Thompson, whose complaints about Howard Stern helped prompt Clear Channel to banish the jock and the FCC to fine the company almost half a million dollars, says he has faxed a complaint to the FCC about Sunday night's 60 Minutes broadcast, in which singer Mary J. Blige uttered an under-her-breath "shit."
Oh no! Call out the SWAT team! Good thing there isn't anything more important going wrong in this country, like — let's say — criminals running the country.
This parody of the White House website features stories on:
Thanks to The 18 1/2 Minute Gap for the link!
Having just seen to sparring that goes on between Democrats challenging each other for a nomination — economic policy, what do do about Iraq and the like — we now look at a Republican contest. In Dallas, Sam Walls and Rob Orr are vying to win the Republican nomination for a Texas House of Representative seat. Sam Walls, bouyed by solid endorsements by prominent Texas Republicans, was expected to win the April 13th contest.
Well, that was beforel photos of him in drag were circulated. Read the Reuters story, printed in the Houston Chronicle:
Hate the sin, vote for the sinner? Who knows, and — let's face it &mdash who cares?!
Ashcroft's Justice Department has, for the first time in ten years, ramped up it's anti-obscenity efforts. And it's goals are more widespread than most Americans realize.
Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains.
The Baltimore Sun article points out that venerable pornographer Larry Flint is steeling himself for another huge Federal assault on his business, which he describes as "plain old vanilla sex." The Showtime series Family Business aired an episode about Seymore Butts' business being sued from across the country for shipping adult material across statelines -- an omnious return to Reagan era anti-obscenity tactics.
No doubt Europeans will look at this activity and shake their heads. Why isn't the Justice Department going after terrorists?
This month's edition of the Libertarian magazine Reason will feature a custom printed cover with a satellite image of the subscriber's neighborhood on it, with their home circled in red. The magazine is trying to point out the convergence of technology and government omnipresence, but of course, they're doing it to their own paranoid readers. Expect an uptick in rightwing nutcases.
As Spring comes to Texas, everyone looks forward to wildflowers, oppressive heat, and some crazy religious woman killing her children. But first, we have to sentence last year's Psycho Mom, Deanna Laney.
This morning, the Dallas Morning News released a transcript [free registration required], of Laney's December interview with a psychiatrist — and boy howdy it's a page-turner. Here, Laney waxes nostalgic about her inspiration from previous Texas Psycho Mom, Andrea Yates:
Yeah, well, instead of witnesses, you were "the accused." Tough break.
Someone get Mel Gibson on the phone!
"Why can't we give tax money to churches?" whines the "Rite" Wing in this country. I don't know either, guys, but it has something to do with the same thing that keeps up from replacing the Constitution with the Ten Commandments. Either that, or Liberals just hate Jesus.
Naturally when liberal Democrats, Senator Chuck Schumer and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York, are fundraising for a faith-based organization, well, that's intolerable. The problem isn't their failure to use tax dollars to support the religious organization, it's that it's not associated with the One True God. It's aligned with Scientology.
And while Scientology is evil, we know that isn't the real issue. Conservatives just hate Xenu.
CultNews.com has more here.
[Xenu flyer in PDF]
This from What We Now Know (issue 3/29/2004), a relatively conservative newsletter I receive in the mail (the rest of this post is a direct quotation):
CHALLENGING THE COURT
A new bill just introduced in this congressional session threatens to reopen a debate about the separation of powers that has been closed for two hundred years. Some would say it takes dead aim at the Constitution itself.
The bill, H.R. 3920, was introduced on March 9 by Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY) and co-sponsored by eleven others: James DeMint (R-SC), Terry Everett (R-AL), Richard Pombo (R-CA), Howard Coble (R-NC), Mac Collins (R-GA), Virgil Goode (R-VA), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Joel Hefley (R-CO), John Doolittle (R-CA), and Jack Kingston (R-GA).
What it proposes is that Congress shall have the authority to, in its wisdom, override the Supreme Court's decisions as to a law's constitutionality. It may sound like a phony Internet story, but it isn't. To see for yourself, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/, type hr3920 into the "bill number" box and click, and you will be led to the Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004. Where you'll find that:
The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court--
Lewis, a former Baptist minister and owner of a Christian bookstore, is concerned that the present Court may rule later this year to remove the word "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. That, he maintains, would be judicial activism, and he wants Congress to have the power to curb it. "America's judicial branch has become increasingly overreaching and disconnected from the values of everyday Americans," Lewis says.
For authority, H.R. 3920 cites Article III, section 2 of the Constitution, which most Americans probably think created a court which would have the last word. It didn't. Instead, it granted the Court ultimate jurisdiction, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
That was pretty vague, so it remained for the Court itself to establish its identity as co-equal with the other two branches of government and supreme in all matters judicial. This didn't take long. Chief Justice John Marshall settled the issue in the landmark decision Marbury v. Madison (1803). In it, Marshall wrote: "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void." The Court's right to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional was thus firmly established, and so it has been ever since.
Today, few even question the principle. At the time, though, Marbury was the subject of heated controversy. Thomas Jefferson, for one, vigorously opposed it. In 1804, he wrote: "The Constitution ... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
Were H.R. 3920 to be enacted and signed by the president, the result might well be chaotic. Suppose the Court (as it surely would) declared it unconstitutional. Then suppose that Congress voted to override the Court's decision, and that that vote was later declared equally unconstitutional. And so on, in a loop without end.
(For the record, it might be well to ask how often the Court actually invokes the Constitution in its rulings. And the answer is: rarely. As of the end of 2002, it had struck down only 158 provisions of federal statutes, with eleven of those decisions coming in the years 2000-2002 alone. Rep. Lewis, surely no liberal, might be surprised to learn that the supposedly conservative Rehnquist Court has been far more activist in this regard than earlier courts ever were.)
Our personal opinion is that, should H.R. 3920 become law, and should the Supreme Court uphold it, then a door would open upon much potential mischief at times when one party was in firm control of both the executive and legislative branches. We feel that Congress would act far more appropriately by proposing an amendment to the Constitution, a step Lewis says he is prepared to take if his bill fails.
Ron Lewis may be no Jefferson, but he has taken on an issue that deeply troubled the sage of Monticello. Somewhat unexpectedly, it still resonates today, and may well prove to be as divisive now as it was two centuries ago. We invite our readers' reactions.
Check out this CNN story about Benton County, OR. The county commissioners voted to halt issuing any marriage certificates until the gay marriage issue is resolved in their state's supreme court.
"It may seem odd," Benton County Commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters in a telephone interview, but "we need to treat everyone in our county equally."
This is easily as idiotic as the Supreme Court's decision in 2000 to halt the recount because they couldn't decide on a way to rule fairly in light of the Voting Rights Act, which is another way to say "we had to kill them to save them." Under most wingnut wordings of the Anti-gay Marriage Amendment, my non-church wedding would not be recognized either.
