Thursday, February 03, 2005

Endorsing Torture

Remember the following despicable placemats in 2006:

Jomentum Lieberman (CT - let's recruit Letterman)

Bill Nelson (FL)

Ben Nelson (NE - that's Nebraska, not New England get your mind off of the SuperBowl)

And in 2008 don't forget these two (plenty of time to recruit replacemenats):

Mary Landrieu (LA)

Mark Pryor (AR)

I know it's a long time from now but this guy blew it on his maiden session so in 2010, remember Ken:

Ken Salazar (CO)

But more than merely despicable these 'not so new kids on the block' couldn't be bothered to vote at all - maybe they've just been around the Senate a little too long.

in 2008:

Max Baucus (MT)

in 2010:

Daniel Inouye (HI) and

Kent Conrad (ND; North Dakota not Notre Dame)

Wednesday, February 02, 2005


I didn't used to have this riff raff coming around here - maybe I need to fumigate.

Why is it that those who feel the need to constantly espouse their faith in God don't seem to have sufficient faith in their God's ability to do the judging?

I also find it interesting that in their arguments they always mention the founding of our country and the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance contains the words 'under God' and we put 'In God We Trust' on our money. Yet they fail to mention that those words were added to the pledge nor do they cite this little anecdote regarding the handy little slogan on our money ...

Truth be told, there was a contest in which Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin were the finalists. Of course we all know that Jefferson's slogan 'In God We Trust' won out but very few realize that Franklin's In Man We Have Little Faith came in a close second. Our forefathers decided that while both these truths were self-evident, the former would be more politically correct ... even then.
Degrees of Enlightenment

Michael, who has just returned from France, informs us that Illinois passed a gay rights bill while he was away. This was much needed good news as some of us living in a 'state of moral values, spent last Friday morning testifying in opposition to this because it isn't enough for some of these bigots that this is already on the books.

While the testimony did sway some votes (it ended up 5 to 4 to pass from committee to full senate - it started out strictly partisan 8 to 2 so 2 Repugnicans came on board) it was insufficient to derail the bill at the committee level. Since it's a constitutional amendment and requires 2/3 to pass in the senate, we need 5 Repugnicans to join the 7 Dems in order to quash it. It looks as though we have them ... just. So, cross your fingers because it's a no brainer (and I mean that literally) that it will pass on the house side.

Pro testimony was (of course) all emotion no fact fearmongering. One lovely little Mormon housewife testified that she's sorry about the intolerance (of gays) but you know lesbians are intolerant too. The ones that she used to live next to in Oregon were always asking her if she didn't know what birth control was or if she just hadn't figured out yet what caused pregnancy. She didn't mention how she determined these individuals were lesbian or why she thought their comments were related to their sexual preferences but yep it's certainly on par with anti-gay discrimination.

Still others talked about 'studies' (though of course cited none) regarding deviant behavior, unstable relationships or high suicide rates. Gee, do you think that suicide rates might have something to do with the level of societal acceptance as it does with heterosexuals - it was depressing.

I, of course, called the bill for what it was - representing nothing more than fear, loathing and baseless bigotry. For if the authors goals were genuinely meant to strengthen the state of marriage/family where was the bill to create a liveable wage (ID ranks 43rd in personal income level), or the bill to provide healthcare for the working poor (~18.3% are without healthcare) yada yada -that as their bill didn't address any root causes of the problems, it would achieve nothing.

One bright spot came when two young girls, one a junior in high school and the other in junior high, testified. They talked about how intolerant their peers were, about different ways in which they experienced intolerance from their choice of music to the clothes they wore, etc. All simply framed and seemingly innocuous and then they hit the punchline -can we expect our citizens to display tolerance when our legislators dictate intolerance? I'd like to think the narrowminded bigotry is being watered down and that there's hope for the future generations here but I suspect we'd have heard the same from the parents of these girls.

I'll let you know what happens with the senate but if this thing makes it on the ballot ... oy.

UPDATE: Down in flames, with 2 votes to spare!
Because Sometimes Being an Obstructionist is ...

all you have. It's also sometimes the right thing to do as it is now. Rice should not have been confirmed, Gonzales better not be confirmed and the sociopath's plans for Social Security should go up in flames. Markos informs us that ~30 Dems will vote against Gonzales; that's 14 shy if you ask me. While we should continue to acknowledge when the Dems do right by us, we should also be taking names and work locally to identify and support replacements for those just taking up a seat in congress.
Something's Amiss

It looks as though they didn't get the memo this time.