South Dakota's Preganazi's Fear a Referendum Vote...

...and they're happy to have pro-choice tax-payer's as well as special interests fund their fight all the way to the Supreme Court. Isn't that exactly the kind of interference in state's-rights of which wingers have accused liberals?

And doesn't it figure that the Looney Right can make on one hand, an argument that the country is filled with forced pregnancy advocates while on the other BEHAVE as if they doubt their own words? Clearly, if after countless years of "preganazi" emotional brow-beating Americans have come to their point of view and can be trusted to vote with them on the issue, no?

Ah, no...

"The state legislature earlier this week passed a bill flat out banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest. The governor, Michael Rounds, while nominally neutral, is thought to be ready to sign it. Then, the legislation will be challenged in court. And it is here that the real political battle begins.

A campaign to push the legislation through the U.S. court system up to the Supreme Court where South Dakotans can lead the charge to overturn Roe v. Wade, will cost over $1 million. South Dakota doesn't have that kind of money. So Rounds is studying ways of accepting into the state treasury private funds with which to wage the battle in the name of the South Dakota citizenry. In short,the well-heeled opponents of abortion are going to hire the public state government to fight their battle.

But while South Dakotan legislators have portrayed their state's political attitude as singularly pro-life, many argue the citizenry, if given a chance to approve or disapprove the bill, would come out against a ban. Thelma Underburg, the Executive Director NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, argues that defeat of a recent bill in the state legislature calling for a referendum, in fact, shows that "despite the right to life people saying it is a pro-life state, they know . . . if it ever came to a vote of the people, the majority think that a safe and legal abortion is a right."

INCOMING: Animal Cruelty in Chandler, AZ: STOP COVANCE LABS!!!

There a hundred ways to make money that do not require inhumane treatment of us, one to the other. Yet for the sake of making a few more dollars we simply REFUSE to invest in the best of those ways. Eliminating animal tests that are either unnecessary (but cheap) or administering necessary tests in expeditious or cost efficient methods that cause cruelty after the fact, are among them.

Preventing animal cruelty is among the top of my list of Things Humane Beings DO because what sets humans apart from other species is NOT our ability to control our sex drive but our ability to control our fear. Refusal to invest a dollar to reduce suffering in any other being is giving in to the fear of lack, otherwise known as GREED.

According to the information on this website, Covance Labs not only does cruel experiments, they are readying themselves to do them in my neighborhood. Further, they will be doing them with wild-caught monkeys that are not only our closest genetic ancestor (with the equivalent intelligence of a child) but which can carry EBOLA--brought through the airport--into my neighborhood. Were I not a humane being I would at least be opposed to the risk of having a flesh-eating viral (bacterial?) contaminant floating about in my air!

And for what is Covance waiting? The March 14th local elections. Hmmm...corporation$ waiting for politician$ that will bend to their interests sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Stop the building of Covance Laboratories in Chandler, AZ Petition: "Covance Laboratories—one of the world’s largest animal-testing laboratories, the world’s largest breeder of dogs for experiments, and one of the biggest importers of wild-caught monkeys into the United States—is planning to build a new testing facility in Chandler, Arizona. We need your help to stop this project in its tracks!

Earlier this year, PETA went public with an 11-month investigation inside a Covance laboratory in Vienna, Virginia—documenting appalling physical and psychological abuse of monkeys. Video footage shot inside Covance was described by a U.K. judge as being “highly disturbing.” The judge also commented on the “rough manner in which the animals [are] handled and the bleakness of the surroundings in which they are kept,” matters which he said “cry out for explanation.”

Indeed, Covance has a lot of explaining to do—from the hundreds of violations of the Animal Welfare Act documented by PETA’s investigator to the sloppy business practices noted in its violations of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to problems ensuring safety of its workers and its host community (in 1989, when Covance was known as Hazleton Labs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a tactical medical military team outfitted in biohazard suits had to enter the lab, kill all the animals, and seal the facility as Ebola virus had been discovered in sick monkeys brought in by the laboratory from the Philippines)—and it does not deserve a red carpet welcome into Chandler. "

Need I say it? ACT NOW!!! By the way, mine is signature 3732.

Pulitzer Bears Repeating

Although this writer is explaining his motivation for critiquing extremist conservative Christian influence in politics, this quote itself is read-worthy. From Behind the Curtain:

''Always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice and corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news; always be drastically independent; never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.''

Internet Neutrality and What You Can Do

There's only so much you can do in a week. If you're an activist you learn to pick your battles. I've staked my battles on the front lines of environmental sustainability, freedom of expression and protecting our vibrant democracy. As a component of the last two, Internet neutrality is now on my map...

A vibrant (read: living) democracy REQUIRES an informed populace. In the last 15 years media ownership has dwindled from 50 competitors to a handful of giants; "...Disney, Viacom (now known as CBS Corporation), Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann, and General Electric together own more than 90% of the media market". News has become a commodity better described as infotainment (at best) and at worst, propaganda. In either case the information is severely slanted and limited and I presume it to routinely omit information detrimental to its corporate owner's interests.

The Internet has become the last open, free information conduit regulated more by reader interest than editorial slant. I don't trust everything I read to be accurate but I do trust that I will find enough information on any topic to draw my own conclusions. For this (at least) it has become a valuable resource for many and hence drawn the attention of its profit-driven providers. Who will control this seeming last frontier of the public media landscape? What will happen to Internet neutrality or as Mediageek puts it: "...who will control what information, data, images and sound you can receive over your broadband connection, and whether or not the big telcos like AT&T and Verizon can filter out some types of content or charge you significantly more for the privilege."

These quotes are from an excellent 'jumping-off' post on the topic:

MediaCitizen: "As major communications companies plan to control and profit from our broadband future, bloggers, independent media makers and their audiences need to remain vigilant and encourage a real debate about protecting the free flow of information and ideas.

Free Press has started to convene monthly blogger calls at the intersection of media and policy. With this series, we hope we can spark a serious debate about what the future of the Internet -- and all digital media -- will be."

Laurence Lessig (Stanford Law School):

"If business were as usual, [the telecom companies] would win this. But there have been important instances where grassroots resistance has actually stopped major changes in public policy... I think a similar thing could happen here. If there really were a grassroots opposition to this, that raised a lot of anger and passion around it, I think there are a lot of politicians who would pick up on it.

"One thing I saw at the hearing, when I was testifying, is that it just didn't sit right, either with Republicans or Democrats, to imagine the Internet changed into a place where you basically could control what people had access to, or the networks had the right to control what people had access to. There really is an opportunity to do something successful in this context if there really were a movement."

I propose this process for success:

1. Commit to securing Internet neutrality for your own good--could the tools you use go away or cost you (even) more? Could sites you rely on for political news, simply disappear? Tell Congress how you feel.
   
2. Do your own research and while you're at it ask yourself how much you save in time and dollars doing it online. Providers are asking that question too but remember, you already pay for the line use, should you pay for "choice use"? Take that up with Congress.
   
3. Share what you discover and what you do with others through letters to the editor, chats around the water cooler and heck, in online chat rooms. Get others to contact Congress.
   
4. Get folks to sign petitions--just email them the links. The petitions go to Congress.
   
5. Repeat. Did I mention anything about Congress?
   

Keep the Internet Open to Competition

Tired of online petitions? Me too. Too bad. Sign this one:

Consumers Union:: "Giant companies, like AT&T and Verizon, that offer high-speed Internet service want the right to decide what web sites, services, and applications you can get on the Internet. Why? Because they can. A few big telephone and cable companies own the lines that connect you to the Internet. That gives them the ability to control whether and how fast you can get to what you want on the Web and to favor their own services, like forcing you to buy their e-mail applications over those of their competitors. For example, if they want, they could slow your access to e-Bay while speeding up service to their own auction site.

Worse, on top of charging you for Internet service, they also want to charge Internet companies, like Google or Yahoo, for the right to send you information and services at the increasingly faster speeds available on the Net. That means only Internet companies that can afford to pay will survive. So much for the Internet as we’ve known it."

IRAN: Somebody Please, Stop Us Before We Kill Again.

On the eve of the 2004 elections a friend and I made a two-part bet. His position: Bush would win and the result would be conservative gains on the Supreme Court. My position: Kerry would win but if Bush prevailed, he would go to war in Iran (a concern my friend dismissed). I've already paid for the bet I lost (a yummy dinner in a Five-Star restaurant). There will be no good aftertaste for the bet I win...

Will the Whistles Blow Before We Attack Iran?: "Anyone who has been near a TV in recent weeks has heard the drumbeat for war on Iran. The best guess for timing is next month.

Let's see if we cannot do better this time than we did on Iraq. Patriotic truth tellers, we need you! In an interview last year with US News and World Report, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said that on Iraq, 'The White House is completely disconnected from reality … It's like they're just making it up as they go along.'

Ditto for an adventure against Iran. But the juggernaut has begun to roll; the White House/FOX News/Washington Times spin machine is at full tilt. This is where whistle-blowers come in. Some of you will have the equivalent of the Gen. Abrams cable, shedding light on what the Bush administration is up to beneath the spin. Those of you clued into Israeli plans and U.S. intelligence support for them might clue us in too. Don't bother this time with the once-independent congressional oversight committees; you will have no protection, in any case, if you choose that route -- CIA Director Porter Goss' recent claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor should you bother with the once-independent New York Times. Find some other way; just be sure you get the truth out -- information that will provide the oxygen for democracy."

K Street Lobbying is Not Good For Main Street Business (No Matter How Much They Pay to Convince You That They Are)

Americans need to kick Big Bidness out of Congress. After all, we don't vote for lobbyists and their interests are not our interests:

Clients' Rewards Keep K Street Lobbyists Thriving: "A few years ago, a coalition of 60 corporations -- including Pfizer, Hewlett-Packard and Altria -- made an expensive wager. They spent $1.6 million in lobbying fees -- a hefty amount even by recent K Street standards -- to persuade Congress to create a special low tax rate that they could apply to earnings from their foreign operations for one year.

The effort faltered at first, but eventually the bet paid off big. In late 2004, President Bush signed into law a bill that reduced the rate to 5 percent, 30 percentage points below the existing levy. More than $300 billion in foreign earnings has since poured into the United States, saving the companies roughly $100 billion in taxes.

Although not every political battle yields $100 billion, the return on investment in lobbying is often so substantial that experts and insiders agree that Washington's influence industry will continue to thrive no matter how lawmakers decide to rein it in."

Paul Hackett, We Hardly Knew Ye.

Thanks to beltway politics as usual Ohio Senate primary contender Paul Hacket was dealt the Dean Death Blow. That's what happens to Democratic politico outsiders with strong grass-roots support that exhibit authentic personal authority, strong self-confidence, a commitment to genuine liberal principles and the willingness to wage a pitched fight.

Don't believe me? Listen to this 1/2 hour candid interview with Hackett himself (and weep) coz these are the words of a good man--a really good man--the kind that can bring people back to the political process, and now he's gone.

AMERICAN HISTORY XXX: The American Cherry

The most powerful tool for controlling behavior is the fear of guilt and shame. Want to build a society where people would rather die than be shamed? Look at Japan where suicide as an alternative to shame, is a cultural feature.

We are not at that point in America. It's not a cultural component of Protestantism. Instead it is around sexual behavior that in our culture guilt and shame have their most powerful behavior-warping resonance. Just look at the political martyrs Bill and Monica. Republican strategists' publicly crucified a couple that had rather unspectacular extra-marital 'sex'. Those strategists' only (more sordid) motivation was to create public outcry intended to harm the Democrats' 2000 presidential bid.

Since that tactic worked so well it has focused my attention on who, what, when, where, how and why Americans can be socially (and hence politically) victimized by sexual threat. Combatting the perjorative implication of sex has become one of my personal battles and victory will be won for all Americans when sex has become positively reframed. Nobody should be able to threaten another persons social standing and our country's political health through such irrelevant standards as race, gender and yes, sexual behavior.

In my new series American History XXX, I'm going to be bringing you coverage of America's sexual culture pro and con. To begin the series I give you Alternet's interview with the author of a new study and book regarding some young Americans first sexual experiences, Not That Innocent:

"Gynne Watkins: What makes virginity such a powerful political tool?

Laura M. Carpenter: Culturally, we have a 'preserve the innocent' ideology that you see in the 'innocent unborn children' arguments of pro-lifers. You see it in 'women and children first,' as if they're somehow more valuable than everyone else. Protecting women, protecting innocents."

OPEN THREAD: Friday 02-10-06

Busy week. My apologies. Feel free to chat amongst yourselves...

The PoliPointPress "Blue Pages Book" is a Rip-Off!!!

In the early days of BuyBlue I was a volunteer researcher. It didn't last long as the unpaid hours were not something I could maintain. Given that, I have nothing but respect for those working at the project. They were wonderful to work with and extrememly devoted to their cause.

That being said, this news is even more angering:

The Blue Pages Book is not a BuyBlue Project: "We understand that PoliPointPress has released a book entitled The Blue Pages: A Directory of Companies Rated by Their Politics and Practices. This publication has nothing to do with BuyBlue.org. We at BuyBlue did not research this book, nor write it. But we do believe that our proprietary rights have been violated and we intend to pursue our lawful remedies against PoliPointPress."

Support BuyBlue. They are one of the very Good Guys.

Mohammed Cartoons Part III: Who Says I Can't Ridicule Believers in God?

Whether Saudis actually set this little tinder fire ablaze or not is important as it links to Arab-International affairs, no doubt.

"Is that a bomb on your head orange are you happy to see me?" jokes aside, the link to the Dane's attempt (from my post below) to extend for the rest of us an insight into how inoffensive the cartoons appeared to Jyllands-Posten's average readers (including Danish Muslims) is equally important for an entirely different reason. The interpretations she he gives in most cases suggest that the images don't represent Mohammed at all, but twists of concepts regarding freedom-of-speech and religious behavior and sensitivity (IMO over-sensitivity) in the context of a pluralistic, secular society.

Juan Cole posts an article here with a long selection from the BBC of responses to the cartoons from papers throughout Iraq. Those responses vary in degree of anger and blame-placing from publisher to province. The one most startling to me was from Al-Sabah newspaper which is government sponsored:

"...if the law in a country allowed a writer or an artist to express their opinion any way they liked, then there was an unwritten law which made it necessary to respect the feelings and beliefs of others, among many other things which may not be covered by the legal system, but should be understood under the moral system". The writer added that "you may have the right to deny the existence of God, but you do not have the right, under any circumstances, to ridicule those who believe in Him".

I don't? Is that sounding as PC to you as it is to me? Yet right-wing advocates are identical in sentiment on religious matters, while deriding the same PC attitude when liberals apply it to race, gender or sexual identity.

The Mohammed Cartoons give us a perfect mirror from which to view our own partisan cultural war yet we seem to be missing the opportunity for the discussion, we are so bent on rushing to defend one or another of what I think are the fallacious poles of the argument embodied in the current framing: freedom of expression versus restrictions on hate speech.

What "hate speech"? The Dane clearly explains how those cartoons were viewed at least by one Dane--her him--and I have no reason to believe that her his sentiment is not unlike let's say half of her his countrymen and women...so what "hate speech"?

Has our culture been driven so far right and secularists so marginalized by the successful right-wing application of the "Principle of Asymmetry" to all things labeled left (including critical thinking and the completely acceptable practice of atheism) that no-one is willing to say (hell, shout) that the hate vs. free speech argument has no legs?!

The cartoons are an opportunity for dialogue about sacred cows vs. sacred symbols and free thought about both. It is also an opportunity to examine the use of that false dilemma (hate speech vs. free speech) as an attack on science through secularism in our own country.

Can we have that dialog soon please?

Hat tip to RezDog for the Juan Cole link.

Lessons From The Right

As Democrats get serious about the 2006 midterms we are reveiewing choices that haven't worked so far. We certainly can identify some Senators.

The following is an interesting article from my favorite libertarian site Lew Rockwell. Although presented to supporters of the right and its institutions the advice is sage for any partisan activist. Read it and learn:

Why Fund an Institutional Corpse?: "The mark of sclerosis of an ideological organization is its failure to commit to its own past. If today's troops are not reminded of the consistency of the vision and the sacrifices that went before, there is no reason for them to commit today. Why bother? They will not be remembered, any more than the founders are remembered by the heirs. If an organization is not committed to its foundational past, then it is not committed to the future, either.

There are some ideological organizations that have not published their old materials because they have been taken over by people who do not share the vision of the founder. They may not be sclerotic organizations. They may be merely hijacked organizations.

BEFORE YOU WRITE THAT CHECK. . . .

There is always fund-raising for ideological organizations. But donors are well advised to look carefully at the uses for their money. Unlike in profit-seeking organizations, there is no clear-cut success indicator for ideological, non-profit organizations. This much is sure: the ability to spend money is not unique to productive ones. Non-productive ones can spend money with the same degree of commitment.

Here are some legitimate questions to ask:

What have you published in the past? I want to read it.
What have you published lately? I want to read it.
How many people are reading this material today?
How many of these readers have become teachers or writers?
How many people under age 30 are reading it?
How many people have attended your conferences lately?
Are there CDs or DVDs of these conferences?
Are all these numbers growing?
Is your top priority the Web?
Does your budget reflect this?

The more money you plan to donate, the more reason to ask.

Here is the #1 question to ask yourself before writing that check:

Is my money going to fund those things in which I believe deeply, which apart from my donation may not be achieved?

This is what Kennedy's Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara called 'more bang for the buck.' He meant it literally. I mean it figuratively."

ENVIRONMENT: Action Against Bush Gag Order

After Alito, I'm tired of signing online petitions. The following is a link to an online petition. Sign it or not but if you don't consider joining this effort with a commitment equal to the one you mustered for the Alito filibuster. You know your constitutional rights won't matter a mammal's ass if our planet becomes a desert...

On issue after issue, the Bush administration is secretive and deceptive. The most recent example: the Bush administration is trying to gag NASA's top climate scientist - Dr. James Hansen - because he spoke publicly about the threats of global warming.

While the Bush administration wants to leave us in the dark, we say Stop the Gag on Global Warming!

Tell Michael Griffin, the President's hand-picked NASA Administrator, to stop censoring federal scientists. To stop these scare tactics, we are aiming to get 4,000 people to send a letter - so after you take action, please ask your friends and family and urge them to speak out against censoring federal researchers.

The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert

For the wingers among you: Plame Was Still Covert.

Just saying...

The Mohammed Cartoons Redux: Saudi Smoke Screen?

For the reasons mentioned in my previous Mohammed Cartoons post this topic still interests me. What sparked it has not been as interesting as the multiple debates behind it.

Now, according to some on both sides of the partisan divide, Saudis attempting to draw heat from their government for the deaths of pilgrims during Hajj, deaths that happen annually despite Saudi promises to organize the event better--not the cartoon depiction of Mohammed (top) and the 11 (above) published thereafter--may have kicked this off.

From dKos:

Muslim Cartoon Controversy: What the Media Isn't Telling You: "The point I'm trying to make here is that Mohammed (PBUH) has been depicted, painted or made appearances in animated cartoons on many, many occasions and yet there's been no rioting, storming of embassies and CNN coverage. The question becomes, not why were the Danish cartoons offensive or inappropriate, but why is there such a strong reaction now?

Denmark has a long history of multi-cultural tolerance, including their famous solidarity stand with Jewish citizens during World War 2. The newspaper Jyllands-Posten itself was surprised by the strong reaction to their cartoons and even apologized publically for any offense they may have caused. And for 2 months, there was hardly a peep from any Muslim group outside a small protest in Denmark itself and somewhat larger protests in Pakistan.

So what triggered this? Well it takes a blog to explain it. What CNN and the other traditional media failed to tell you is that the thousand gallons of fuel added to the fire of outrage came from none other than our old pals Saudi Arabia."

--snip--

Saudi Arabia's influence on the Sunni Muslim world is incalculable. The sermons from high-ranking Muslim clerics are read and studied by Muslims around the world, who in turn give sermons to their local congregations. While the Saudis do not have direct control of the world's Sunni flocks, their influence is similar somewhat to the Pope's pronouncements and the sermons that Catholic priests give to their flocks the following Sundays. Saudi Arabia also finances a number of Muslim "study centers", where all the literature and material is provided by the Saudi government, filled with hatred for Jews and other extremely racist material. For them to promote an idea based on religion, including "outrage" at some cartoons published months earlier, is standard operating procedure.

Of course there is more than Saudi Arabia's hand at play here. The issue has metamorphed from religious outrage at a dozen cartoons to a clash of those who feel they are oppressed and downtrodded by the Christian world and those they consider their oppressors. That's why there was anti-Christian rioting in Lebanon, where the two religious groups have a long and tumultous co-existance.

As I sat there watching CNN (International) with my friend today, I could not help but note the number of Saudi flags that the various rioters were waving in Lebanon and Syria. Coincidence? I think not. Look for yourself - they are green with a large expanse of Arabic writing in white above a sword.

A snip from the aforementioned blog (The Religious Policeman) on the topic:

Generally, active Muslims around the world have reacted well to our lead. As well as the unemployed "usual suspects" in Palestine and Indonesia, some British Muslims gave a particularly impressive display yesterday.

The official reaction of British officialdom - precisely nothing! - illustrates how successful we have been over the years in getting them to accept the "Principle of Asymmetry". In other words, we use their sense of "fair play", "multiculturalism", "democratic values", and of course their guilt feelings, against them, so that they restrict their own freedom of action, but are very lax when dealing with the Muslim, for fear of offense or violent reaction. This of course confuses and demoralizes the ordinary person-in-the-street, and weakens their resistance to the onward march of the Ummah.

May I just say, Your Majesty, how these events have demonstrated the wisdom of your decision to remind people about those old cartoons. The story has now developed a momentum of its own, it will run and run, and who remembers those pilgrims in Makkah? What pilgrims? Exactly! Not only that, but the Egyptians' poor maritime standards mean that a much larger death toll will now remain in the public eye.

...and a link to an earlier post (same topic, The Religious Policeman).

The blog to which the dKos diary links appears to me to be a satire blog. Wingers (and the dKos diarist) are taking the blogger (Alhamedi) at his word but I find it odd that an average Saudi citizen living in London would bother to imbed a link at the bottom of his blog connecting to the TTLB (The Truth Be Told) Ecosystem. TTLB is a page-ranking system. If you follow the link from his site to the TTLB home page you will find right-leaning sponsorship--an ad for the GOP, Pajamas Media, The Wall Street Journal, etc. I digress, but like I said I have only half belief the blog is a reliable source on the matter.

What I find jumps out beside the intended irony of the post in discussion (the one referenced in the dKos article) is Alhemedi's articulate definition of a tactic refered to as the "Principle of Asymetry":

In other words, we use their sense of "fair play", "multiculturalism", "democratic values", and of course their guilt feelings, against them, so that they restrict their own freedom of action, but are very lax when dealing with the Muslim, for fear of offense or violent reaction. This of course confuses and demoralizes the ordinary person-in-the-street, and weakens their resistance to the onward march of the Ummah.

Imagine him instead to be describing it being used by Republicans relative to Democrats. There I think you have an intended and valuable contribution not only to the discussion of religious extremism (let's call it The Mohammed Effect) in all religious fundamentalism but of Republican fanatics' application of it to all political topics as well.

(UPDATE 11:45 MST) This interesting post is from a blog launched specifically by a Dane to explain--from the Danish POV--the interpretation of each of the 12 cartoons as well as the Danish law that protects the speech (and Muslim dissent) over them. The cartoon explanations are near the end of the post.

Wingers Think the SCOTU is Still Not "Right" Enough

Just so you know, wingers are not cut of a cloth and many are not happy with Bush. We obviously think he's too far right and they think he's not far right enough (jeez, the thought hurts my head).

It may be hard to imagine but among the last lot there are those who think that even with Alito, the SCOTU is still too liberal (warning: the following article may not be suitable for sensitive readers):

That Old Washington Shell Game And the Supreme Court: "The truth remains, even if we count Justice Alito, there are only four true conservatives on the Supreme Court, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, leaving five liberal justices still well capable of continuing the judicial activism they have come to love so well. Future 5-4 decisions may still go the wrong way."

The "wrong" way?

Six Alabama Churches Torched

Arson? Nah--spontaneous combustion. Du-uh!!!

It'll be interesting to discover the link between them. If we're lucky it was atheists. If not, terrorists? Hopefully it's a statement about something. Otherwise, just plain dumb:

Police suspect arson at six Ala. churches: "Fires damaged five rural Alabama churches in a string of suspected arsons late Thursday and early Friday.

The fires were set 'as fast as they could drive from one location to the next,' Bibb County Chief Deputy Sheriff Kenneth Weems said of the cluster of blazes, all near U.S. 82 and Highway 139.

Most of the churches were Baptist and all were in Bibb County, about 25 miles south of Birmingham.

--snip--

In 1996, race was a factor in a series of arsons that damaged rural black churches in Alabama and elsewhere. But Ingram said the fires late Thursday and early Friday destroyed both the churches of predominantly black congregations and predominantly white congregations."

Arpaio Denies Inmate Abortion Access

Although I rarely cover its news, Phoenix is my home turf. Politically more red than the bloody maw of a coyote that just snatched your poodle, Phoenix is an embarassment of riches when it comes to cowboy behaviors. Sheriff "Joe" Arpaio is just one of many of those embarassments.

Since the liberals who live here KNOW that he is constantly campaigning and grand-standing and generally making an example of those who have the least amount of power to defend themselves, the following personal battle of his (and the local religious fanatics) is no surprise:

Points of Life: Sheriff Arpaio Promises A Fight to the Supreme Court: "I just got off the phone with Sheriff Joe Arpaio and I will tell you that despite the loss of this battle, he is ready, willing and able to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court. I have never heard him so adamant and passionate about this issue and willing to take on the ACLU. Sheriff Joe is a fighter and will go to the wall for the unborn and the pro-life movement on this issue and he's doing it not because it's politically expedient but because it's the right thing to do.

In our conversation, Sheriff Arpaio reinterated his position on the issue citing very personal life experiences. It was easy to see that he is very no-nonsense on this issue. Right before he hung up he asked me if we would support him in this battle and I replied that he has our support 100%.

I have not spoken with my friend, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, but we can also count on him to be on board especially if it means fighting the ACLU, the abortion lapdogs and the activist judges."

Andrew Thomas is currently embroiled in a recount scandal.

The Mohammed Cartoons

As an artist and free-thinker the controversy over what I call the Mohammed Cartoons is fascinating.

I can easily understand how a person convinced that the material world is both a manifestation of, and manifested by, a deity's intent, is offended by anything that insults that deity (and by inference, them as well).

It is exceptionally dangerous for people to be so invested in such beliefs. I think it is the inherent danger to freedom of thought, of ALL forms of religious fundamentalism.

When you read the context from which the images arose you get a sense of why the cartoons arose--indignation. We often satirize those things which anger us--it is a safe form of expression in a culture. I for one think all the major religions should be satirized in cartoons. We take religion, especially in America, way too seriously. Maybe we should consider that taking religion too seriously is a manifestation of taking ourselves too seriously as well:

What the cartoons were about: "The cartoon series appearing on this page that sparked a global controversy was commissioned and published by a Danish newspaper as a deliberate challenge to Muslim insistence that their religious feelings must be given special consideration.

The drawings were commissioned by the Jyllands-Posten (Jutland's Post) to accompany an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech after Danish writer Kare Bluitgen was unable failed to find artists willing to illustrate his children's book about Mohammed for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims."

(UPDATE)

He has said the issue has gone beyond Denmark to become a clash between Western free speech and Islamic taboos.

Fresh Muslim protests flared on Friday in a number of countries over the cartoons, one of which shows the Prophet wearing a headdress shaped like a bomb.

Another shows him saying that paradise is running short of virgins for suicide bombers.

WOW: Alito Splits With Conservatives (?)

Wha' the...?

"New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri's last minute request to allow a midnight execution. "

Libby Trial Date Set--After Elections

Hmmmm:

Trial date - Feb 3, 2006: "A federal judge on Friday set former White House aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's trial date in the CIA leak case for January 2007, two months after the midterm congressional elections."

9/11 Story is a Hoax

Just heard an interview with James Fetzer from S9/11T on KXXT Phoenix's Air America local broadcaster Charles Goyette's show. If you get the chance to hear Fetzer in an interview do it. Very interesting:

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax: "A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent 'another Pearl Harbor.'

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking."

It's The Republicans, Stupid

Sometimes, after an especially crushing defeat by the radical right I wonder if it's me. If they are actually correct and I AM disconnected from reality. Otherwise, how could we continue to lose battle after battle? Is it only me who seems to see what appears to be the obvious, i.e. how radical Republicans get Democrats to cave in fight after fight?

Then from time to time I make a new liberal friend or political contact who can repeat to me, without any prompting, the same observations about how it is we lose. Confirmation that I am in touch, awake--just unable to wake the sleeping around me.

Cenk Uyger from The Young Turks has an EXCELLENT post in today's Alternet. He reiterates what some of us already know, point by point, about how dems keep losing these fights.

I'm going to fax the whole damn thing to every Senator who voted against the filibuster. Maybe someone should join me. How about you?

Maybe if we fought as hard everyday as we did over the confirmation, they would finally get it. We ARE the base, those who get and keep them elected. They work for us.

Alternative, Alshmernative, You Didn't Think The Oil Man Was Serious Did You?

Via dKos:

Bush to Lay Off Renewable Energy Researchers: "We are asked to suffer the Secretary of Energy telling us (link added) within 24 hours that Bush lied in his speech about reducing Middle Eastern oil imports. We are asked to suffer oil-state Republicans who once gave away the oil under federal land but who are now tightwads when it comes to subsidizing other fuels. And, now, we are asked to suffer this:

From today's NYT:

The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports."

Explain to me, somebody who supports Bush, how this is not a lie to the American people? Too many researchers on alternatives in the governmet? Enough out in the private sector? Prove it--bring the data.

Maybe it's like the private support for aids. One in every $100 dollars actually gets out of the American organizations that receive the money and into the hands of African aids workers. Is that how alternative energy investement works as well?

How many of the dollars received by contractors Bush annoints get ploughed back into campaign financing to ensure the flow of tax dollars to keep that GOP power-grab going?

That must be what they've meant all along by "trickle-down" theory. How's that working for you?

Why Blue? Why Donkey? Why Democrat?

Still struggling with the flu, I can't stop thinking about how the Democratic Senators let liberals and all women in this country down by refusing to filibuster Alito.

Just let me remind everyone one more time that Alito came out of conference on a straight party-line vote, had three days of debate and then? The ONLY way to investigate his background and record further was through the filibuster. Far from being "obstructionist" (I swear I'm going to slug the next person who says that to my face) the Senators would have been working to get past Alito's slick maneuvers (including his wife's teary-eyed acting display) to get to the real political animal under the mask. Frankly, I believe the radical Republicans were terrified Alito would actually get tripped up and make an honest statement.

We spend nearly half a year learning about, discussing and considering our presidential nominees who in the end once elected, have only eight years at most to wreck havoc on the nation--except--when it comes to the SCOTU appointments; the Holy Grail.

Maybe now that we have these literalists on the court it is time to turn the tide. To keep every bit of legislation away from them and make them irrelevant and meaningless. Or to take them only the battles we know will make our country more liberal while decreasing their influence.

I for one think it's time to take up that battle of corporate "personhood" and be done with the perversion of corporate influence on politics once and for all. Where does it say (or even imply) in the constitution that a corporation is a person? And how about losing that stupid connection to the color blue? That only started in 2000. I personally prefer red--the color of anger, energy and power. Toss that "cool" blue out. Maybe orange? And let's make Republican's green--for greed.

Loose the donkey too. I'm nobody's jack-ass.

Oh, I'm not expecting our present (Republican-lite) Democrats to take on any battles. No, but raw energy, curiosity, creativity, the spirit to fight (and win), intelligence, courage and commitment to liberal ideals should be first among the qualities of the Democrats we will be electing in the near future. We have a lot to do.