Tuesday, October 10, 2006

MSIRT reports on Harrison-Fosella debate

Subway clarifies in the comments: This review was written by MSIRT who posted this at the NY13 Blog.

My wife and I attended this debate. IMHO, Harrison walked all over Fossella. I posted this in an AMERICABlog comment window when I got home:

I am charged up tonight. My wife and I attended a debate between our congressional candidates, Vito Fossella (R) and Steve Harrison (D) - (NY13). Fossella is New York City's only Republican Congressman, representing the very strong Republican base that resides here.

Harrison walked all over him. Sharp as a nail and unrelenting, Harrison had to remind Fossella frequently the he was a Republican (Fossella uses the banner: "An INDEPENDENT fighter for Staten Island").

Fossella tried to keep the issues local but Harrison successfully kept the focus on the administration 's attack on the Constitution, to which Fossella replied: "Well the constitution is not a "suicide pact" (and therefore can be ignored if it's judged by the administration & party in power that national security requires it to be ignored).

And this debate took place deep in "Fossella territory." Harrison's campaign is cash poor because the Dems have written off a victory by him, but I tell you, he is one smart, principled firebrand.

All his campaign literature proudly displays "Democrat", while Fossella, as mentioned above, hides his party affilliation by highlighting INDEPENDENT in his literature and with no mention of REPUBLICAN to be found on his banners or on his web site (Fossella has voted with Republicans 90% of the time and has a long list of Repug PAC contributors, including:

21st Century Freedom PAC
Back America's Conservatives PAC
Cmte for the Preservation of Capitalism
Every Republican is Crucial PAC
Freedom Project
Growth & Prosperity PAC
Keep Our Majority PAC
Leadership PAC 2006
Majority Initiative-Keep Electing Repubs
Promoting Republicans You Can Elect
Prosperity Helps Inspire Liberty PAC
Rely on Your Beliefs
Rich PAC
Texas Freedom Fund
Together for Our Majority

So maybe Fossella's running scared? If you want to help a Dem in a congressional contest that up till now has been off the radar (major Democratic party organizatiions are not contributing to him) go to Steve's web site and donate if you can.

And this morning I added this on another thread: Just to add a few afterthoughts, having slept on it:

Fossella, who brags in his literature about voting against Bush's policies (very occasionally - but still a 'bragging point') was forced by Mr. Harrison to repeatedly extol the administration on Iraq & national security with the tired "they're the only people protecting us" and "9/11 - never again" lines. So, if Fossella had planned to distance himself from Bush, the Democrat made sure he was stuck to him.

My wife and I can't get over how good this guy was. The small church hall was about 50/50 in terms support/non-support based on the "hoot & howl meter readings" registered after each respective set of comments. But the pro -Harrison forces in the audience certainly made a good showing and a lot of noise in this heavily Republican area. I can't wait to see today's local paper. There was heavy press coverage of the event.

http://ny13.blogspot.com
10:23 AM

Apparently, many Republicans are running as independents these days. Perhaps a roll call of Gopers who don't use the word Republican is in order. Is it happening in your district?

http://www.tellercreations.com/pod/goperslament.mp3

Subway Serenade

Alternate link for comments

Kimmy checks in. Worried "moms" breathe sigh of relief.

Kimmy, could you possibly consider leading a less, um, "dramatic" life? You've got surrogate moms, and dads (and concerned siblings) all around the world that would really appreciate that! ;) Kimmy posted her update in the comments here. In a nutshell, she dislocated her hip when her German shepherd got up suddenly as she was stepping over him. But the good news is that her pregnancy is going well, and her baby boy is big estimated to be 16 ounces at this point.


and heres a couple of the pictures from the ultrasound!!

His little smiling face and legs(that LOVE to kick my pelvis!--breech)! Totally insane!






Alternate link for comments

Monday, October 09, 2006

Republican Joe Lieberman takes another poke at Howard Dean

puddle has some new posts up at pyzch, and I've posted some transcripts form recent church/state events in Columbus here (including words from Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State).

Click here to see a the latest Ned Lamont ad (Quicktime format) which uses a black and white Psycho inspired motif to note how Bush and Lieberman both prefer to rely on scare tactics as a campaign strategy. I found out about the ad in a post at Firedoglake entitled Lieberman Throws Howard Dean Under the Bus. (There's a YouTube version of the ad there as well.)



So how does Joe Lieberman respond to Ned Lamont's new ad? By mocking Howard Dean, of course. From his blog:

If you have not had a chance to check out Ned’s new ad, please do (Quicktime). It’s a scream.

Howard Dean would be proud.
Wow, Joe, that was sooo clever. Which right wing pundit do you find to be the best source for the right wing talking points you are so fond of using?

Update: It occurred to me that I should check the link provided in the post at Firedoglake, and I discovered that the lame "scream" comment came not from Senator Droopy Dawg himself, but from Eric Blankenbaker, who is a blogger at "Blog of Joe". Which *is* Lieberman's official campaign blog, so it reflects on him and his campaign regardless.

Alternate link for comments

On those tricky church/state separation issues

Crossposted at Daily Kos

I'm working on writing up some of the forum on church and state in Ohio electoral politics, which I attended yesterday. Some of it, I'm transcribing, and other parts I'll try to sum up a bit of the back-and-forth that took place. So far, I've posted the opening remarks of Revs. Russell Johnson and Eric Williams.

There are also some articles about the forum in the Columbus Dispatch today:

Religious debate as old as the country
Faith’s place in politics debated

The second article mentions something that really caught my attention. Typically when Ken Blackwell is talking about Ted Strickland, he likes to make a point as referring to him as a psychologist or, even better, as a "prison psychologist". Rarely do we hear mention of the fact that Ted Strickland is also an ordained minister. Russell Johnson of the Ohio Restoration Project, *did* refer to *Reverend* Ted Strickland, but he did so to group him with the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Smooth.

The Dispatch article ends with:

When asked about it afterward, Johnson said, "I think Ted Strickland is the far left.

"Will he support the constitution passed by 62 percent of the voters on the definition of marriage? I think that’s a legitimate question."


Okay, Rev. Johnson, I have a question. The right side of the aisle yesterday made repeated references to Abraham Lincoln and his faith-based decision to abolish slavery. Did the *majority* of Americans at that time agree with him? Possibly they did, but I imagine that was not true of the majority in states that had been part of the Confederacy. So, when is it up to "the people" to decide, and when are leaders supposed to make bold decisions based on their (possibly faith-informed) understanding of what is right?

From Russell Johnson's opening remarks:

The hinges of history are moving in a way that I think there's going to be increasing numbers of Baptists and Catholics and Pentocostals and Methodists who are welding together to say yes to marriage in Ohio, and 62% came out, voted yes. In 11 states, 67 out of 71 newspapers came out against marriage amendments. The average vote of the people who voted was 70% in favor of the traditional definition of marriage.
Well, Rev. Johnson, what if 70% of Americans had wanted to keep the right to own slaves? Would that have been the right thing to do?

As I wrote back in June, my husband and I were legally allowed to marry thanks to the actions of some "activist judges" in the late 1960s, who declared that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. There *were* people who used Bible verses and their understanding of "God's will" to argue that the races must remain separate. And how long would it have taken the majority of citizens in all states to vote to allow interracial marriage?

I guess this puts me to the "far left", along with Ted Strickland, but I have a hard time accepting the notion that, if the majority in society thinks your relationship is "icky", then the majority should be able to deny you the basic rights enjoyed by the rest of the population.

Alternate link for comments

Our Foliage Drive, by listener

Hubby and I are freshly home from our day's foliage drive into Canada. It was a very pleasant day most of the way: blue sky, mid-60's, and spectacular views. We stopped for awhile in Newport, Vermont and thought what a nice town it is, with a very well thought out waterfront, at the bottom of Lake Memphramagog (known in our home ed days as "Lake Meantforafrog"). We crossed into Canada at a town so small that the Customs office was housed in what appeared to be an old filling station. The way into Canada was not blocked off; another car from town just drove on by Customs as we came up to it. We stopped outside the office and waited until an agent came out to greet us. We handed over our passports and answered the three simple questions he asked. Then he wished us a nice time and we wished him a wonderful Thanksgiving ~ at which he beamed a smile. All very pleasant. Canada is so nice.

The views along the east side of the 32 mile Lake were panoramic revealing rounded hills and mounts and glimpses of the steeple and turrets of the Abbey of St. Benoit du Lac, nestled as it is in the Y at the top of the Lake. The lay of the land reminded me of the Scottish Highlands. We laughed over happy memories and future hopes as much as we marveled over what was right here before our eyes. We stopped occasionally to get a closer look at some sites, such as a unique boathouse with stained glass windows and a covered bridge. The city of Magog, at the top of the Lake, had the only heavy traffic we saw on the whole trip, despite this being Canada's Thanksgiving weekend. There is a wonderful park at the top of the Lake, with long views down the Lake and mountains all around from Jay Peak to Haystack to the Pinnacle. We stood there long, watching the sailboats tacking, wishing we had taken our children around this Lake in their younger days. We're ready to take any of them and all grandchildren on the trip any time. We got lots of good photos.

We hoped we could get close enough to the Abbey to get a good photo, and chanced taking a drive down the Abbey's road, yet not wanting to disturb their Sabbath. Suddenly, we were there, and there were cars everywhere and people everywhere, as if a festival were underway! Thus we got to park and walk all around, go inside the nave of the Abbey and sit in silence there for a time before Vespers was to begin, hearing the organ offer the prelude. We didn't stay at that point as it was to be all in French and we were concerned about how much daylight we would have left for the trip home. However, we are interested in returning for retreat. Outside we visited the tiny stone chapel on the property and purchased some Abbey applesauce, made from the orchard on the grounds, tended by the monks.

Back on the road again, we drove west to Cowansville, then south through Dunham and Frelighsburg (where we used to visit Susan and Mike Beam and family) as the sun set quickly. It was actually a little easier driving in the dark than with the bright setting sun in our eyes. At last we came to the USA border just north of Enosburg Falls. We imagined we'd have a little stiffer time coming back into the States than we'd had going out, and it appears we were correct. The agent looked at our passports, asked us a number of questions, sometimes twice, including asking what our jobs are, and had us pop the trunk and searched it. He even wanted to look at the applesauce we bought and wanted to know the meaning of our license plate ABIDE. It seemed a bit excessive, but that's the USA. He also noticed one of our tires looked low. Ha! It was a little annoying, but not horrible. We did reflect as we drove off that we don't like not feeling welcomed home to our own state and country; that we had felt more welcomed to Canada.

But that is not all; oh no, that is not all. A few miles into Vermont we noticed the mostly full Harvest Moon just beginning to rise. We had been out walking recently, striving to get a good Harvest Moon photo and here was another chance. So we stopped at the crest of a hill, where fields lay to the east and the view was open, to get a few good photos of the pumpkin-coloured moon rising over the mountains. After two or three photos, a large ATV pulled up beside us, blocking the view. For half a moment we thought it must be a Good Samaritan making sure we weren't stranded. But no. Imagine our surprise when our eyes focused more surely and saw that this person was in fatigues, wearing 'black face,' and carrying both a walkie talkie and a large gun...!! We were asked what we were doing and replied that we were taking photos of the moon. The person spoke into the walkie talkie saying, "It's okay" and drove off. Only afterwards as we recovered ourselves and our wits did we realise that he had never identified himself to us. I wondered if he was one of those "Minute Men" but Hubby thought he was a member of the National Guard. But we were not given the courtesy of being told this information definitely. It kind of freaked us out, and as we considered it, it freaked us all the more. What is going on in this country?! A few more miles along the road we encountered a second military ATV. It felt like we had entered a police state instead of dear old Vermont. We felt like we should have stayed in Canada.

I am ready to redouble my efforts to make change happen one month from now. I want my country back.

Alternate link for comments

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Open Thread

From Subway:

FIRST POST at my blog since my return.

This one's for Teri and the folks who took care of me while I was away. Tomorrow, I'll talk about Renee's Candle and a band of angels who brought me home.

And, as always, there are a number of lovely posts at puddle's blog. She also posted a Tanner update here.

jc and Cat have been busy adding new Cafe Press designs, as have we. (Cat also invites you to subscribe to her shop's newsletter while you're there.)




And I went to an interesting forum this afternoon, but probably won't have anything written about that until late tonight, if not tomorrow.

In the meantime, hope everyone has a lovely evening.

Alternate link for comments

Temptation Island

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

Matthew 4:1-11
One thing that I have always found to be instructive is the way that Jesus dealt with situations. Whether the instigator be false-teachings Pharisees or soul-sapping Sadducees or the devil himself, Jesus always handled the situation in a manner that both shows us how to handle a similar situation and illustrates which values and priorities we should cherish. The temptation of Jesus shows us how to identify demonic temptation and how to resist and refute it, all in eleven short verses.

The first thing that we see here is that the devil will disguise his temptations as well-intended suggestions. Jesus had just finished a forty-day fast and was obviously hungry, so Satan simply suggested that Jesus fix himself something to eat. What's wrong with that? After all, the fast had been completed and it was time to eat - what was wrong with suggesting that Jesus turn some stones into bread so that He could feed Himself? The answer is embedded in Jesus' reply, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" Jesus juxtaposed the Word of God against eating bread, confessing that the former trumps the latter. The problem with the suggestion - the temptation - was that Satan suggested that Jesus use His power - "If you are the Son of God..." - for His own benefit. If you read the Bible you will find that Jesus never once used His power to His own benefit - not once - as Jesus said, "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Satan's temptation was for Jesus to take His focus off of what the Father commissioned Him to do and instead focus on Himself. That's Satan's modus operandi - the devil often disguises his temptations as well-intended suggestions, just like he stepped to Jesus under the guise of good intentions.

Satan's true intention is to sow seeds of doubt. Notice in his temptation of Jesus he constantly says, "If you are the Son of God" - questioning the nature of Jesus. It is much like those who say, "If you are a Christian then you have to sell all of your stuff and give it to the poor" - woefully misrepresenting Scripture in order to justify themselves in their own eyes. Jesus responded to Satan's temptations with the Word of God in every instance, "It is written" "It is written" "It is written." The source of authority is the Word of God - for man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God - and it is the answer for Satan's seeds of doubt. There is a method to Satan's madness and it is necessary for him to introduce doubt in order for him to achieve his will for you.

Satan's very nature is deception and he deals in it naturally. Jesus, speaking to scoffers of His teachings, said, "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." There is a reason why the ninth commandment is against bearing false witness against your neighbor. There are many ways to bear false witness without "lying." When someone speaks a falsehood and you know it to be false and yet say nothing - like many Democrats did when Bush was laying the case for his Misadventure in Mesopotamia - then you have borne false witness and deceived the listeners. When you spin the focus of an event onto a relatively meaningless tangent instead of the actual significance of the event, as the Republicans are doing with this Mark Foley fiasco, then you have borne false witness. When you intentionally play word games to allow the listener to draw their own conclusions that may or may not have anything to do with what you are saying - "I take full responsibility for my actions, although I was molested as a youth, and I have a drinking problem" - then you are bearing false witness. You might not be lying in a technical sense, but you are certainly bearing false witness, acting as an agent of the evil one through acts of deception, and that is a sin against God.

The devil's means are disguise, doubt and deception, but his method is diversion. Satan uses those means in order to divert our attention away from God and onto ourselves. He does this by minimizing God and maximizing man in the eyes of men. He disguises his words as reasonable doubts about God's character and nature, tempting us to put God to the test, tempting us to tell God, "Prove it!" This was the second temptation, suggesting that Jesus hurl himself off of the top of the temple in order to see the angels save Him from falling to the ground. Again, as always, Jesus responded with Scripture: "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" When we are focused on God then we're not busy trying to test God, much the same way that when you are busy loving your spouse you are not busy trying to test the limits of your spouse's love, trying to make them "Prove it!" But it is Satan's desire to divert our attention from God and place it on ourselves, and he often does it using people who don't realize that they are operating under demonic pretenses. When Peter tried to keep Jesus from going to the cross Jesus didn't rebuk Peter, he rebuked Satan: "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Likewise, I've recently read where someone said, "Christianity is selling you something that already belongs to you" and "We will become Son of Man together." Seems like I've heard that before, "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God."

Satan never changes, and folk keep falling for the okie-doke.

Satan consistently attempts to divert our attention away from God and onto ourselves so that he might achieve his ultimate will for us - keeping us divided from the love of God. It is that division that Satan is ultimately after, and he'll use whatever it takes in order to achieve that ultimate end - riches for some, poverty for other, power for some, oppression for others - carrot or stick matters not to Satan so long as people reject God and the only means for connecting with the Father, Jesus Chrsit. Satan boiled it down to brass tax once Jesus had twice refuted him with Scripture: "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." It doesn't take black robes and human sacrifices to worship Satan, it simply takes a rejection of Jesus Christ because ultimately there are only two choices - join Jesus in eternity or join Satan in eternity. One can certainly reject both options, but there is a default option if you fail to choose Jesus, and that destination is the Lake of Fire. Surely there are those who consider Jesus' teachings about eternal life to be "fractally absurd," that Christians think it as some kind of reward for choosing the right religion, but Jesus said, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Jesus said, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Jesus said, "I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that His command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say." The devil says, "You will not surely die, you will be like God."

No place at the table for the delusional, indeed.

The devil wants to divide us from the love of God, so he will try to divert our attention from God through deceptive seeds of doubt disguised as well-intended suggestions. When we face demonic temptation we must submit to God; resist the devil and he will flee. Everyone must choose for themselves whom they will serve, but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

May the LORD bless you and keep you;
May the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you;
And may the LORD,
Who will provide a way out of demonic temptation,
May He turn His face toward you and give you peace.

Alternate link to comments

Saturday, October 07, 2006

A day in the life (Thankful on the road)

A day in the life...

...on the road with Thankful
(puddle said she hoped I'd post about the GRANDE adventure in WV:

Thursday - left NYC with trepidation... first stop this road trip is to drop off the little red fox of a dog in MD where he'll reside til I get settled (will that *ever* come to pass?). The gentleman taking him clearly loves him but I leave with real live tears in my eyes as I walk to the car. Good thing I have had the luck to happen on a day that Rich is available at short notice for dinner and have a pleasant evening ahead.




It started to rain as I left Rich's but we figured the front was moving east and all would be well in WV. I said as long as I didn't encounter fog it was no problem. Bite my tongue! Stopped at the gas station and then the grocery store for a couple basic supplies (apples, cheese, oj) and headed out - encountering fog wisps within 20- minutes.

The fog came and went, got a little heavier as I approached Mt. Shenendoah, and was pea soup at the top of the mountain. Ugh. Drive on. I love the last few miles towards the Magical Fairydiddle House, curves around and around and just one last left turn... into a freaking cable crossing the road down to the house! #$%^&* Oh well, hike on down, turn on the power and go to fire up the computer. Oops, phone cable is down, should have checked for a dialtone first. Withdrawal pains from the internet notwithstanding, I decide it would be best to sleep up the road in the car so when someone comes in the morning they don't have to come find me.

Friday - No one comes in the morning, lol. Feeling right at home and having made acquaintance with a neighbor, I drove over and asked to borrow a handcart with which to move the furniture (not a super long distance from the car to the house, but far enough to not want to have to carry everything.) Mind you, this was a beautiful day in the mountains, and the move was downhill, and I had wheels - enjoyed it all thoroughly. Took my sweet time moving everything, rearranged the car - it wouldn't start. This was the first downer. The fog was a hassle, the car not starting in the middle of god's country w/ no cell reception... bummer.

So... I hiked back to Beth's and her hubby grabbed his coat and took me back to jump the battery - his cables weren't quite long enough to reach but we hooked them to mine and got the Thankfulmobile humming in no time.

Yes, it rained on me all morning and afternoon, but it rained harder when I was done. Loved (almost) every minute of it!

♥'s
Thankful

Alternate link for comments

What is the proper role of government?

More from last night's forum. There were four speakers. I really appreciated hearing Eric Williams, who spoke first, and was one of the main people behind the IRS complaint that was filed against two major churches that were practically endorsing Ken Blackwell. I'm hoping to write up some of what he said next.

There were also two other speakers, both Evangelicals. Everyone was supposed to give a 10 minutes opening statement. Lankford's statement was almost 20 minutes, so it's taking a long time to get through it. But I do think it's important to try to understand the motivation here. I've done a diary at Kos which includes what I posted last night, along with a bit that I haven't posted here yet. In this post, though, I'm just including what he said is the role of civil government. Obviously, my view of "what the civil government's job is" is quite different from his.

Let me give you a little different way to think of politics and government. I support what is called Christian public policy, and a fair question is, "What the heck is that?" Now we have some people who claim that there is no such thing as Christian public policy. Christian public policy, in my understanding, is public policy that glorifies God, and advances the kingdom of God. Now, obviously, there's lots of leeway for interpreting what exactly that means--what kind of public policy *would* glorify God, what sort of public policy *would* advance the kingdom of God, but that's our starting point. And I think a biblical understanding of government begins with the recognition that God ordained four types of government. And part of the problem we have is that we only talk about one of the four.

God ordained individual government--you are individually sovereign. You personally have rights and authority and responsibility, you will personally answer for your life before God. You deserve respect and dignity as an individual sovereign government. God ordained family government. Families have real authority, real responsibility, and should be respected as a government. That's a Genesis ordaination (sp?) government. Third, we have the church. The church is ordained as a *real* government. There's a lot of conversation today about whether the church should be tax exempt. I think biblically and historically, the church shouldn't *need* to be tax exempt, because the church is tax *immune*. That is, the church is a separate, sovereign government, that is immune from other taxes, because it's a *different government*. You shouldn't be able to tax the church--it's distinct from the civil government, and it was recognized that way in American government until 1954 when they changed the IRS code.

And then finally you have the civil government. Now, the key principle to understand is that Christians, or at least Christians who think like I do, Evangelical Christians who believe in Christian public policy--we don't hate big government because we're against government. We don't like big government because it encroaches on the responsibility of individuals and families and churches. You see, we all call for the government to do something about the problems facing us. And I hear all the time, "You know, the government ought to do something about that." And I always answer "You know, you are exactly right, the government should do something about that", but the question we don't often ask is, "which government?" Should the individual be responsible for that, should the family be responsible for that, should the church be responsible for that, or the civil government be responsible for that? Now, I personally believe that individuals, families, and churches are *absolutely* responsible for helping the poor. I *don't* believe that one of the primary responsibilities of the *civil* government is caring for the poor.

I have a quick question for you--here's a quiz. When were poor people invented?...Okay, second question, does God hate the poor? Obviously not--he made so many of them. When was the first federal welfare program in America? Roosevelt, 1933, Social Security. Didn't we have any poor people in the colonies? Poor people in the states? All of a sudden, we had federal welfare programs--why? Because we believed that responsibility for poor people was with individuals, families, and churches, and sometimes local governments would get together and help poor people, and that's where that responsibility rested. So, we seek stronger individuals, stronger families, and stronger churches, and a civil government that's fully empowered to do what it's supposed to do, but not to encroach on the other three legitimate governments. And so that's what I try to promote.
Alternate link for comments

Happy birthday, Desmond Tutu!

Desmond Tutu turns 75 today. That slipped my mind until I saw his picture in the open thread on My Left Wing. So I put the second post about Greg Lankford's talk back into draft for later, because *this* is definitely worth celebrating!

Here's a link to the post I did about Archbishop Desmond Tutu at my religious left blog a little over a week ago. See, I *did* know his birthday was coming--but then it somehow snuck up on me!

You can click here to listen to a sermon he gave recently in Dallas.




(The post that is in draft can also be viewed here, if you wanted to read it now.)

Alternate link for comments

Saturday Comics


And my favorite for today: Neverland Ranch



Alternate link to comments

The view from "the other side of the aisle"

As I mentioned in the comments of the previous thread, Demetrius and I attended First Friday at the local Unitarian Universalist church this evening. On the first Friday of every month, there is a potluck followed by several choices of speakers, discussions, and activities. The main forum this evening was about the appropriateness of churches being involved in matters of public policy. There were four speakers, and what you see below are some of the remarks from Gary Lankford, president of the Ohio Restoration Project.
........
The reason I'm here instead of at a high school football game on a Friday night, is because I think community forums are important, and I think we're in danger in our society of losing our ability to disagree without being disagreeable. I've heard three very different perspectives, and I agree with all three of you on some points, and disagress vigorously with some of you on other points, but I'm happy to say that I consider you brothers in Christ, and hope we can find some point of commonality. Not only within the Body of Christ, but with other Americans who don't count themselves as part of our faith tradition. So, what I'd like to offer tonight is something that I've learned in dialog with what I call "liberals of good will". You know, there's a tendency in America to polarize and to demonize people who think differently than we do. I've heard lots of angry rhetoric on both sides, and yet when I sit down and talk with real people who disagree with me vigorously, I find that once we get through the initial friction, we're able to talk about some things and work on some things, and accomplish a little something, at least relationally, and find some points of commonality. And that's what I want--to help share with you some of the things that I'm learning, and maybe help you understand what it's like on the Evangelical side of the aisle.

I've learned from dialoguing with my liberal friends that they really do have a very different perception of what's going on in America, and the conflict in the religious conversation going on, so I'm going to share some of those things with you if I could.

For over 300 years in America, it was widely assumed that to be in public office, you needed to be a Christian--or at least a Unitarian or a Deist. And that distinction, though important, wasn't critical, because even Deists in ages past were much more biblical in their worldview and their understanding of scripture than many of today's Evangelical office-holders. It was a different culture, and we had a broad, Christian cultural consensus as the backdrop for the public discourse and the public debate. You know, one of the great achievements of American Christianity is religious tolerance. Religious tolerance was a new thing in the world, and not practiced very many places, and not practiced for very long anywhere.

Now when the colonists first came to America, they came for religious freedom from Catholicism. They were not very tolerant of other Protestants. Eventually they progressed to where they were tolerant of other Protestants. Some more time went by, and they finally accepted and tolerated Catholics. Some more time went by, and they finally tolerated Jews, and Hindus and Buddhists and other faith traditions--nonwestern religions. And finally America accepted Atheists and Secularists. And one of the historical ironies, once the Atheists and Secularists were accepted, they decided now would be a good time to kick Christians out of the public square.

And that's how the Evangelical side of the aisle feels now--we feel unwelcome in the public square. We feel like there's a deliberate, organized attempt to quiet us, and reduce our political influence, and reduce our ability to talk and debate in the public square. And this often comes as a great surprise to my liberal friends. Because they tend to think of the "Christian right" for lack of a better term, as being a powerful oppressive influence in society--something that must be fought. When my liberal friends say "Speak truth to power", they mean, "Speak against those angry religious right people that are ruining America." And yet we have a very different experience, and a very different perspective of what's going on in America.

There was this broad Christian consensus in America, and in the 1930s, the Secularists began to organize in a very purposeful way, and they made astounding progress for a country with the kind of religious tradition and cultural tradition that America had. And by 20 or 30 or 40 years later, they were pre-eminent in the universities, in the medias, in the mainline churches, and in government. In fact, it was in the 1950s that William F. Buckley wrote a famous book called God and Man at Yale. Yet Ivy League schools all over America had started as Christian seminaries, and by the 1950s, Christians weren't welcome there any more. Certainly not on faculty--they were ghetto-ized and minimized in universities in the Ivy League, and later, in the mainstream university experience. In fact, at most universities, outspoken Evangelicals are outnumbered by liberal people, 10-1 to 16-1, depending on what university you're in. That's a pretty significant victory for people on the left side of the aisle.

There were also some very significant Supreme Court decisions that came in the 1960s and 70s, and I want you to think about this for a second. These were all landmark decisions that marked major shifts in American culture and American experience. They all happened for the very first time in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1961, we had Torcaso vs. Watkins, where for the first time they outlawed religious tests for public office. 1961. In 1962 they outlawed any kind of school prayer in American schools, led in any way by teachers or faculty or staff. Here was the prayer that they outlawed in 1962: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." That was deemed a violation of the separation of church and state. Did you catch that? "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."

In 1963, the Court found Bible reading over the school intercom unconstitutional. You couldn't read Bible verses in the morning announcements. In 1971, they devised a new test to determine what was "excessive entanglement" in church-state issues, called the Kurtzman test. Here are the three new definitions. The government action must have a secular purpose, or it's not allowed. Its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or advance religion--if it inhibits or advances religion, it's not allowed. And three, there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion. Now if you follow church-state court cases at all in the last 35 years, you'll find that the Lemon v. Kurtzman case settle nothing at all. Every Supreme Court had a totally different idea of what each of those three points meant in practical usage.

To be continued. Hat tip to Plunderbund--you can read more about Mr. Lankford and what he believes here.

Alternate link for comments

Friday, October 06, 2006

Hastert "listens to and remembers everything"

Via Crooks and Liars. Dennis Hastert's opponent, John Leasch just did an interview on Hardball. The following excerpt is from Firedoglake:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that Denny Hastert is a man of character?

LAESCH: I think that this issue has defined the clearest difference between myself and Mr. Hastert, that being I stand for honesty and integrity..

MATTHEWS: And he doesn't?

LAESCH: … and I'll let the voters decide where he stands.

MATTHEWS: But you‘re not challenging his character here or word? Is that right? You don‘t challenge his word here? You think he might be telling the truth?

LAESCH: I will challenge his word. I‘ll get out there and say so. On page 186 of Dennis Hastert's book, he says that he listens to everything, and, you know, he knows everything that is going on. Use his words. Apparently he forgot, but on page 186 of his book, he says he listens to everything and he remembers everything.
Nicely done. I've added John Leasch to our Act Blue page.

Alternate link for comments

The perils of volunteer bias

Hey everybody--guess what? I'm talking shop again. But how can I possibly pass up the opportunity when I see *this* over at DFA-link.


Robert,

Thank you for participating in my survey. I hope you won't be the only one!

If anyone else would like to participate, here's the link:

efm.pulseware.com.au/survey.asp?...

by Noah Porter on Friday, 10/06/06 @ 03:31 AM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -1
You'll note that I left the comment, including the rating, intact. The survey is here if you'd like to participate. Wonder how Noah's participant responded to this question:

What beliefs do you share in common with DFA?

But honestly, this is an important point, and I think it's important enough to address in a front page post. Because trying to find a reference to illustrate this, I looked up two famous examples of what is called "volunteer bias" in survey data. The first thing I thought of was Shere Hite's survery on "women and love"--where she found that the vast majority of women who responded to her survey were unhappy with their relationships, and an astounding percentage of them admitted to having affairs. Yet of the surveys she sent out, only about 4% were returned. Do you see why I bolded that one part of the sentence? We don't know anything about the "average American woman" from her survey--we only have information about the 4 percent who responded. Most of *those* women, apparently, were pretty unhappy in their relationships.

But are they typical? How many of you receive surveys of one sort or another in the mail? How many of you respond to them? What would motivate you to take the time to respond? Often, having strong feelings about the subject matter is what motivates people.

When I searched for a link about this study, I found a lot of reports about volunteer bias in *sex research*. But the problem of survey respondants differing from "average" member of the population under study is by no means limited to research on human sexuality. So I looked up another well-known example--the one where Ann Landers asked mothers if having children had been "worth it", and 70% of those who responded said "no". Unfortunately, most of what I found for *that* survey involved people using it to make the point that people often regret having children. (Though they usually paid lip service to the notion that "of course this survey is unscientific"...but look at these numbers!)

This is from an article in Salon entitled "To breed or not to breed":
"It's very rare for a woman who has children to regret having children," says Hanson. "You will find women who say, on the one hand, 'I love my children, they're profoundly fulfilling and I can't imagine not having had them.' But on the other hand they'll say, 'Boy, this is really stressful. This has really strained my marriage. My health has never been up to par since I had my first or second child. I really regret the impact of having kids on my career. Having children has made me financially dependent and really limited my options for making money.' I hear them say all those things, but you rarely hear moms actually saying, bottom line, I should never have done it."

Yet Cain insists that more women feel that way than might admit it. She points to a famous survey advice columnist Ann Landers took of her readers in 1975. A woman wrote to Landers with qualms much like mine -- she and her husband were torn about childbearing and asked, "Were the rewards enough to make up for the grief?" Landers put the question to her readers, asking, "If you had it to do over again, would you have children?" Astonishingly, 70 percent of her respondents said no.

"Seventy percent of whom?" I might ask my students. Of American mothers in the 1970's? No. Of American mothers in the 70's who read the Ann Landers advice column? No again--although note for a moment that the demographics of regular readers of Ann Landers are already likely to be a pretty big step away from the broad category of "mothers in America" in that time period. No, we are looking at 70% of the mothers who read that survery question and felt *motivated to respond* for one reason or another.

I couldn't find an article addressing the issue of volunteer bias in this particular survery, but I did find this page with answers from old multiple choice psych exams. I've seen similar questions in the test banks I've used. It's an important concept for students to understand.

Anyway, here's that link again for Noah's survey, if you consider yourself to be a member of DFA and would like to help give a more balanced picture.

Alternate link for comments

Olbermann's special comment on Bush's lying

Crooks and Liars has the video...


Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona Congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, "177 of the opposition party said 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists."

The hell they did.

177 Democrats opposed the President's seizure of another part of the Constitution*.

Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists.

President Bush hears… what he wants.


Click here for the video, in Windows Media or Quicktime format and click here for the full transcript on MSNBC. E-mail Keith Olbermann at KOlbermann@msnbc.com

Alternate link for comments

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Update on the election lawsuit in Alachua

Tomorrow is a BIG day. We resume our depositions tomorrow - and we have scheduled to voters.

One of which is the woman whose story I have told - about being solicited to vote by the City Manager (Clovis) and told who to vote for ... given no privacy or secret ballot ... voting for the "wrong Mr. Lewis" and having her original ballot torn up and given a new one, etc.

What we know is that they have "gotten to her" - Clovis has "talked" with her, she has disappeared from circulating around people she used to even work for, and her son was arrested a few weeks after Clovis learned we talked to her. We don't know the details of this - but believe it is highly likely this was meant to intimidate her.

We are hopeful that she will be forthcoming and honest - and believe that she is the kind of person that would be nothing but that - but there is always the suspense until this testimony is official.

They are deposing me next Thursday.

Furthermore there is only one more week (I believe the Monday following next is the date) for the State to officially charge me in the wiretapping case involving Clovis.

I have been having a bit of a problem with my attorneys - at least with one of them - who has been overly insistent that I make a deal with the State - and that I should not even expect an apology from there end (so what is the reason to make a deal?). This has been extremely frustrating ... there is a real "game" to law and very few lawyers who are genuinely willing to stand up for the idea of law as justice. I am not sure what to do on that end - but I can't get into all of the details currently.

Oh well - I figured I give an update. I am very hopeful that getting through the next week will enable the turning of the corner on all of this. Thus far the burden has been on me with all of the restrictions on my liberty, the pressures of the potential charges, the expenses, etc. Hopefully tomorrow will begin the turning of the situation into the next phase.

Charles Grapski

Alternate link for comments

Routes of persuasion in political campaigns

ELM stands for Elaboration Likelihood model. The excerpt below is from a paper about political communication that was published in 1996.

Using the central route, the person will purposefully evaluate, or process, the message based on the quality of the arguments that are presented. During the evaluation, the person will generate thoughts about the message. If the arguments are strong, the person will generate positive thoughts about the message. The greater the number of positive thoughts that are generated, the greater the attitude change in favor of the message.

If the arguments are weak, however, the person's attitude generally will not change. The person might even generate counterarguments against the message, which could result in a more negative attitude, the boomerang effect.

In an era of information overload, ELM assumes that people are "cognitive misers" who hoard their cognitive resources (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). Although motivated to hold correct attitudes, people do not have the time or cognitive energy to process all of the messages via the central route.

If a person does not have the ability or motivation to process the message or has not been exposed to it, the peripheral route will be used. Because the person wants to hold a correct attitude but doesn't want to exert much energy to form it, the person will survey the setting and find one or more cues on which to base the attitude. The cues can be any piece of information, including the candidate's appearance, reputation, political party or what friends say about the candidate. Because a cue is being used, the person will not evaluate the candidate's arguments. Instead,
the person's attitude will be based solely on the quality of the cues.

People will not use central or peripheral processing exclusively. Petty and Cacioppo envision a continuum of elaboration likelihood. On one end of the continuum are people that are highly motivated, have a high ability to process the message and/or are presented with the opportunity to do so.

There is a high likelihood that these people will elaborate on the message using the central route. On the opposite end of the continuum are people who have low motivation to process the message, low ability to understand it and/or have little exposure to the message. There is a low likelihood that these people will elaborate on the message. Instead, they will use peripheral processing. In the middle is a vast gray area where people will use varying amounts of both types of processing. Little research has been conducted in this area.

Because people using the central route have expended more cognitive energy in evaluating the message, Petty and Cacioppo say their attitudes will be more enduring and more predictive of behavior (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). On the other hand, because people using the peripheral route have invested little energy in their decision, their attitude change will be temporary and not very predictive of behavior.
Today is the day that I teach all day--psychology classes for college undergrads, for anyone who was not aware of that. So I don't have time to discuss this further at the moment, but I wanted to put it out there seeing as how Ken Blackwell was using an awful lot of peripheral persuasion techniques in the gubernatorial debate last night. And he seems to count on people having an automatic "yuck" response to the word psychologist, as if it meant (recalling an old George Carlin routine) "commie-fag-junkie". Oh, and the word "taxes" and calling Strickland a "taxer"--that's a favorite of his. Anyway, I hope to discuss this more later, but maybe in the meantime you might think about the types of messsages you have seen used in campaigns this season.

Alternate link for comments

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Open Thread

Taking a break from the political stuff to soak in some adorable "seal puppage". (Via Cute Overload.)



Alternate link for comments

The theocracy movement in Ohio

Earlier I posted about what Adam Leddy of Equality Ohio had to say about his experience of one of Rod Parsley's services at World Harvest Church. Here is more of what he told us about Rod Parsley, as well as some of the other major players in the theocracy movement in Ohio.

We'll start with Phil Burress who actually may be more responsible than anyone for laying the groundwork for the theocratic movement in Ohio. Phil Burress is in southwestern Ohio, and he is the leader of Citizens for Community Values. That's an organization that was founded in the early 80s, and originally was exclusively an anti-pornography advocacy group. Phil Burress has been very forthcoming about his pornography addiction, which he credits with ruining his first two marriages.

CCV's first major victory was in 1992 in Cincinnati with Article 12, which successfully removed sexual orientation from Cincinnati's civil rights ordinance, which prohobits the city from protecting GLBT people from discrimination, and that was a major victory for them. It was in 2004 that Article 12 was repealed by the voters in Cincinnati. Burress spearheaded an effort this year to put it back on the ballot, and that effort has failed. It turns out that many of the signatures he gathered were gathered fraudulantly.

Russell Johnson of Fairfield Christian Church, which is south of here, is a church with some 3500 congregants, and is a mostly White church, while Rod Parsley's World Harvest Church is a very diverse church, Johnson's is not. Johnson's church members have been getting elected to public office for quite some time. Recently at least a half dozen in the past couple years. Russell Johnson has some 400,000 people on his e-mail list, and according to the Columbus Dispatch, when Mike DeWine earlier this year decided to come out in support of a federal marriage amendment, Russell Johnson was the person that he called to discuss it with.

Russell Johnson's goal is to recruit 2000 Patriot Pastors, each committed to registering 300 new voters by the end of 2006. And these pastors are to be in every county in Ohio, and that is their mission. Their publicly stated goal is to raise a one million dollar war chest in order to "build a database of 300,000 postal addresses and 100,000 e-mail addresses, to recruit a number of like-minded Christian voters to be 21st century "minute men".

"From our country's classrooms to our courthouses, from Christmas carols to graduation celebrations, from the Pledge of Allegiance to our state motto, the forces of darkness have opposed every public expression of allegiance to God." That's the mentality, and I think that sums it up better than anything I could say.

But the real celebrity of the group, and certainly for us here because he's a local boy, is Rod Parsley. He is the pastor of the World Harvest Church and also the founder and leader of the Center for Moral Clarity and of Reformation Ohio. World Harvest and the Rod Parsley empire have a 40 million dollar a year budget, 12,000 congregants, a 5200 seat church, which is visually stunning and state of the art--I've been there. His weekly television show Breakthrough airs on 1400 cable stations and affiliates. He's got a prep school a Bible college, a mission program, and a church jet.

He's a recent arrival to the spotlight, but it's not that he's only now becoming politically active. He was active throughouth the 80s, any time a movie theater would show an LGBT themed film, he would protest and get people out. But he credits his recent activism to 2003 when he was invited to the White House, not for the first and not for the last time, to attend the president's signing of the partial birth abortion ban.

Reformation Ohio, Parsley's organization's goal has been 400,000 new voters registered, 100,000 new Ohioans brought to faith in Christ. He reportedly had 100,000 strong supporters that he could mobilize on election day in 2004. They're not going to hit these goals in 2006 that we or anyone else knows of. There have been reportedly less than half a dozen Reformation Ohio events this year. An article in the Columbus Dispatch a few weeks ago mentioned that this effort wasn't necessarily going as strongly as they would have liked. A spokesperson said something to the effect that registration numbers are always off in nonpresidential election years, which is true. So the goal for this year is probably going to be the goal for 2008, and it is not by any stretch of the imagination an unattainable goal. So, right now things are not going particularly well for them by all public accounts, but this is an effort that is so far beyond 2006 and 2008, obviously.

Real quickly, I'll run through some of Parsley's basic beliefs. From my recent reading of his book, Silent No More, Parsley believes that the media is aiding a secular effort to silence and persecute Christians, that separation of church and state is a lie that has been foisted on Americans, that our founding fathers did intend to found a Christian nation. He believe that Mohammed was possessed by demons and has called Islam a false religion. The quote again, "I do not believe that our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed.

He interestingly enough goes on to suggest that our early 19th century conflicts with the Barbary pirates off the northern coast of Africa, was America's opening salvo in this conflict with Islam. And what's informative about that--what we need to remember--is these people have in created their own version of American history in some cases. And once you've done that, it's not that far of a stretch to believe that you can create the future if you have already remodeled the past into your worldview. They have a very effective narrative going.
...
There are a number of national groups with which Parsley and Johnson are affiliated that do pull in your Falwells and your Robertsons. The acronyms of the groups are confusing and I can't remember them, but many of the national groups that Parsley and Johnson are involved with, their prime function is to lobby the White House for a harsher policy on Iran and the Middle East in general, in order to lead to the rapture.




Alternate link for comments

Subway's back!



And he's got his GOP-kicking boots on...

Last Friday I was called back to the emergency room because of abnormalities in my follow up bloodwork. High potassium and low sodium levels had me weak and dizzy.

Finally I'm back at full strength. I'm home and ready to kick some serious Goper butt. If I had died in the hospital, I would have left this planet as the happiest man on Earth. Now I have a whole new life.

Gonna take a few hours to care for some unattended business I'll see y'all in a little while.

Love you all. Thanks for the prayers and support.

Subway Serenade

Alternate link for comments

Dean Sends Greetings on Yom Kippur


The photo above is from Howard Dean's trip to Israel in September of 2005.

From the DNC web site:

Today, Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean, issued the following statement commemorating Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement:

"Sundown on Sunday marks the start of Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for Jews around the world.

"This High Holiday is a time to seek forgiveness and ask for divine guidance for self-improvement through repentance, prayer and fasting.

"On Yom Kippur, Jews will honor and remember loved ones who have passed, work to rekindle and rebuild relationships and seek means to improve the communities in which they live.

"My family and I ask all to join with the Jewish people to use this time as the beginning of a new era of peace and security."

Alternate link for comments

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Tucker Carlson is a schmuck

There are some serious issues with the Haloscan comments tonight. I have crossposted this entry at the Wordpress blog so that we can carry on our conversation there (I hope). It will ask you for an e-mail address, but that will not be displayed. Click here to join in the conversation.


You all probably knew that already, but here's yet more evidence--the way he treats Dr. Asma Mobin Uddin in a discussion about the "jihad" car ad that was recently pulled after area Muslim groups protested. You can see the interview here on YouTube.

I've met Asma on a couple of occasions. She spoke at an adult education forum at my church a couple years ago, and also preached the sermon that day (I attend a rather progressive Episcopal church). Then, last year, I heard her speak at an interfaith forum on prayer. You can see the transcript of her remarks here. I have nothing but respect for Dr. Asma Mobin-Uddin, who I think presented her views calmly and sensibly. As for Tucker Carlson, I agree with Jon Stewart:

CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.
...
STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.


Alternate link for comments

Inside a service at Rod Parsley's World Harvest Church



Last Thursday I attended an event of the ACLU of Ohio, featuring speakers from Equality Ohio. I wrote just a bit about it here, but haven't had a chance to write up much of it until now. I was particulary interested to hear Adam Leddy of Equality Ohio describe the experience of attending a service at Rod Parsley's World Harvest Church. He recomended, as you'll see at the end of his remarks, that we go and experience it for ourselves. But I don't imagine that I'm going to do that. Neither are most of you, I imagine. So I thought you might appreciate whatever insights Adam's description can offer.

Click for more.

Update: From the responses I've gotten elsewhere, people seem to think I am somehow impressed with Parsley's healing abilities. I'm not. I find the whole package rather disturbing. But at the same time, I see the benefit in trying to understand how he can hold such sway over so many people.

This man wields a lot of power, and he's one of the people who, at least initially was a very public booster of Ken Blackwell. He probably still is, but not as overtly. Adam guessed that Parsley and Russell Johnson have backed off from their very public support either because of the IRS complaint against them, or because Blackwell has seen some polling indicating that appearances with these religious leaders do not benefit him politically. (May even hurt his chances.) Those are just guesses, but both seem plausible.

I think Ken Blackwell is a scary dude, and I sure don't want him to be our governor. (It's not like we can afford to move if he is elected.) I am also pretty dismayed at the success these folks had statewide in passing Issue 1, the so called "same sex-marriage ban" that was much more far reaching than just banning already illegal same-sex marriages. Rod Parsley was also a big supporter of that, and he considers the passage of the bill quite a feather in his cap, along with the re-election of George Bush in 2004.

More about Rod Parsley and what he believes can be found in this Kos diary

Alternate link for comments

Monday, October 02, 2006

The list just keeps growing



Reynolds' Chief of Staff tried to get ABC to cover up evidence of Foley predatory sex chat (via AmericaBLOG)

AmericaBLOG also has the video of Hastert's interview on CNN.

"The first I was really aware of this was last Friday, when it happened, and all of a sudden the press came out and said that there were these e-mails that were from 2003, I guess, and Congressman Foley resigned. That's when I learned of it, at that point.

Reporter: ...Tom Reynolds said that he spoke with you about it last spring.

Hastert: You know, I don't recall Reynolds talking to me about that, but if he did, he brought it in with a whole stack of things. And I think if he would have had that discussion, he would have said it was also resolved, because it's my understanding now that it was resolved at that point. The family had gotten what it wanted to get.


Interesting, huh? *If* he knew about it, he figured it was resolved because "the family had gotten what it wanted to get"? So as long as that one family was allegedly satisfied with "what they got", we don't have to worry about any other pages? Until one of their families complains, I suppose.

Alternate link for comments

Bush: Ken Blackwell is a nut

Crossposted at Daily Kos and My Left Wing.

From Buckeye State Blog, which excerpted this from Bob Woodward's new book:

"At 2:43 a.m., someone noted that Bush was ahead in the popular vote nationwide, prompting the President to sneer, "If the popular vote made it, I wouldn't be here."

The campaign was left to anxiously wait for a statement from Kenneth Blackwell, a former black power student leader who had morphed into Ohio's gadfly Republican secretary of state.

"I'm the President of the United States," Bush fumed, "waiting on a secretary of state who is a nut."


As I already noted in the comments at BSB, I'm aware that peanuts are legumes and not technically nuts. I live with the sort of know-it-alls who would quickly point that out. :) But I still had to do this...






Bear in mind that it's Demetrius who is the artist in our family. I'm just learning to do a few things in Photoshop. So I realize the image is a bit crude. But it was fun to do. :)

Update: I found this link to an article about the Bush remarks.

And another update, from Cincinnati Politics Extra:
Blackwell's gubernatorial campaign was shrugging off the quote Monday.

"It must have been a pretty tense time at the White House,'' said Blackwell campaign spokesman Carlo LoParo. "I don't know what the president said or even if he said it.''

During that campaign, LoParo said, the Bush/Cheney campaign was not very pleased with Blackwell, especially after he ruled independent Ralph Nader off the Ohio ballot, which was thought to be a big boon to John Kerry.

LoParo pointed out that Bush, even though he may have called Blackwell a "nut," thought enough of him to come to Ohio in August and raise $1.5 million for Blackwell's gubernatorial campaign.

And yet another update. Progress Ohio has posted the relevant portion of page 347 from Woodward's book.



...and Blair had gone to bed thinking Bush was going to lose. He was frankly stunned that Bush was still in the race, let alone the likely winner.

"Latest I've been up since college," Bush told Blair. "I need one more state."

Rove reported that they would get a proposed statement from Blackwell in Ohio within the next half hour. Blackwell, a former black-power-saluting student leader who had shifted to the Republican party, was a lone ranger who shunned party discipline.

"I'm the president of the United States," Bush said fuming, "waiting on a secretary of state who is a nut."


Alternate link for comments

Frist no friend to horses

Image courtesy of Stablemade Equine Photos Gallery



We knew about the cat vivisection in Bill Frist's past--although I did not have a clear picture of just how heinous this was until I read this post at Talk2Action last night. In the same article, I learned that Frist is trying to roll back protections against the cruel practice of "soring" in the Tennessee Walking Horse competitions. From the article I referenced above:

To make the horses step higher (and get scored higher), the horses are injected with or rubbed with caustic or blistering agents or they are deliberately mis-shoed so that it's physically painful for the horse to put pressure on his hooves.
...
Not only is soring inherently cruel, it's also the equivalent (in the horse fancy) of shooting up with steroids in prep for a Big Game. It's not fair play, and it's harmful to the horses; however, soring still occurs partly because stud fees for champion show horses are comparable to those for Kentucky Derby winners (read: you could retire, VERY comfortably).

As it turns out, Frist has a long relationship with the show industry:

A political action committee (PAC) made up of Tennessee Walking Horse breeders has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the campaigns of Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), among others.

Statistics compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show that in 1998, the PAC contributed $40,500 to congressional candidates, and additional contributions were made by individuals from the Walking Horse industry.


And as a result--in large part to help out his friends in the show-horse industry, including the Tennessee Walker Celebration show that ended up so racked in controversy that it shut down after most of its horses were disqualified--he's now wanting to neuter the federal ban against soring of horses, presumably so that other horse shows don't get shut down.
Read the whole diary here. Bill Frist is not a nice man.

Alternate link for comments

Religious right watch

So, have any of the "usual suspects" from the so-called religious right spoken out about sexual predator Mark Foley? Or against the members of the Republican leadership who enabled him by placing party interests above the safety of the adolescents in the Congressional page program? As is noted in this diary by jjhalpin, the silence has been deafening.

A couple quick links before I turn in. First, an informative piece from Mother Jones about the origins of the Christian Coalition. Also, there is a lot of great information at Theocracy Watch, a site which has been charting the rise of the religious right in the Republican party.

Alternate link for comments

Sunday, October 01, 2006

St. Pete Times gives kudos to Dean for being outspoken.

Thank you, thank you, Bill Maxwell of the St. Pete Times. Sounds like you have been saving up those words for a while. I thank you for saying them this week, they are much needed. Since you are not much for compliments, I consider them high praise.

Democrats Need to Grow a Spine

But first let us get back to Dean. As far as I am concerned, he has told the truth about the GOP and Bush. If he has erred, it has been on the side of harshness, not dishonesty or hypocrisy.
And now more from the beginning of the article.

When Howard Dean took over as the Democratic national chairman, I hoped that other Democrats would study the straightness of his backbone and grow one just like it. Dean came into the job showing his utter contempt for right-wing Republicans.

I was convinced that he was the man for the job, that if Democrats were to regain any semblance of respectability and real authority, they would have to face reality and start playing the GOP's brand of smash-mouth personal politics.


...." Here is sampling of Dean's GOP truths:


Dean: "All we ask is that we not turn into a country like Iran where the president can do anything he wants."


Dean: "Mean. They're not nice people. They want to run nearly every aspect of your life."


Dean: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're good."


Dean: "Lord knows this administration is beginning to erode the core of our democracy."


And a last paragraph from a blunt speaking columnist at the St Pete Times.

Some final words from Howard Dean as he responds to a challenge to one of his attacks on Republicans: "This is one of those flaps that comes up once in awhile when I get tough. We have to be tough on the Republicans. Republicans don't represent ordinary Americans and they don't have any understanding of what it is to go out and try to make ends meet."


Nasty and mean, yes, but acceptably so.



One of those inspiring op eds that catches one'e eye and lets one see someone is noticing.


Alternate link for comments

An open letter to: Rahm Emmanuel, Chuck Schumer and Howard Dean.

Would you quit your bickering! See the Oct 1st NY Times article The Inside Agitator By Matt Bai. To use one of your campaign slogans, I've "had enough!" If Democrats had a strong message you wouldn’t' need to spend so many millions of dollars on commercials trying to say what we stand for.

I spent the past week in Washington D. C. attending an intensive training for aspiring female politicians. During the training, our small group of women met with politicians (Sen. Durbin, Sen. Reid), political think tanks (Economic Policy Institute, Center for Political Alternatives, DSCC) web masters (DNC) and journalists (Helen Thomas). At each meeting, I would ask, “"In one sentence, what is the Democratic Message?" I am sorry to say the best they could come up with was, "Time for a new direction". Sorry ----boring, and personally even though I consider myself a liberal, I certainly don't want to go in just any direction. Where do they want to take me? It was a bit unnerving when liberal journalist such as Helen Thomas asked our group. "What do Democrats stand for?"

One of the sessions by a pollster group, Lake Research Partners, presented research about people"s opinions and messages that work. The highest concerns of interviewees was the feeling that their children may be the first generation to be worse off than their parents. They felt there children had decreased opportunity for education, jobs and buying a first home. These were disappearing dreams. There was one statement that universally struck a chord with both conservatives and liberals. It was, "I think the people of our country are losing the ability to live the American Dream."

That’s it! Democratic values stated in two words, American Dream. People, Republicans and Democrats alike, fear we are losing the opportunity to live the American Dream. The American Dream of providing our children with the opportunity to live a healthy life, to make a living wage, to have a clean world and to live in a world in peace.

Here's your part now Democratic party. On Oct. 19th do a massive media blitz. Put our slogan everywhere. Have politicians say it on the Sunday morning talk shows, rent billboards, pass out bumper stickers, have every candidates running for office use it and put out TV commercials.

Democrat:: bringing back the American Dream.

Simple but everyone knows what it means.

Alternate link for comments

Happy birthday, Jimmy Carter



Former president Jimmy Carter, pictured above receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, was born this day in 1924.

At JayDean's suggestion, in honor of Carter's birthday, I have added his son Jack Carter, who is running for Senate in Nevada, to the Howard-Empowered Act Blue page.

Alternate thread for comments

Shake It Off

Once safely on shore, we found out that the island was called Malta. The islanders showed us unusual kindness. They built a fire and welcomed us all because it was raining and cold. Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand. When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, "This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live." But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

Acts 28:1-6
One thing that I have learned is that before you can apply the Word to others you must first apply it to yourself. This piece particularly spoke to me where I am right now so I thought I'd repost it today.

There are precious few people on the planet who actually like snakes. Snakes are universally reviled and with good reason - they're treacherous and they're often deadly. Snakes are hated in such a way that in our common vernacular one of the worse things that you can call someone is a snake. A snake is someone who has no character, someone who has no scruples, someone who has no problem with smiling in your face and patting you on the back for the sole purpose of finding out where to thrust the knife. Have you ever had to deal with a snake?

The Apostle Paul had been snake-bitten throughout his ministry in Asia Minor. Five times he received 39 lashes. Three times he was beaten with rods, once he was stoned, three times he was shipwrecked, he spent a night and a day in the open sea, and he was constantly on the move. He had been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from his own countrymen and in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and, above all, in danger from false brothers. Paul was well acquainted with snakes.

So Paul must have chuckled the last time that he was shipwrecked - on Malta - when a snake bit him as he was helping to gather firewood. Everyone thought that he was a dead man walking, but what did Paul do? Paul shook it off. Paul didn't sit around and cry about his fate. Paul didn't kvetch about his perpetual misfortune. Paul shook that snake off before the venom could get into his system. That is exactly how we have to face adversity:

Folks hating on you? Shake it off!

Spouse acting a fool? Shake it off!

Kids acting like Chucky? Shake it off!

Boss treating you like Toby? Shake it off!

Politicians lying to your face? Shake it off!

Player haters trying to take your place? Shake it off!

Snakes refusing to pay you? Shake it off!

We cannot sit around and complain about what has happened to us - we have to shake that stuff off and move forward with what God has for us to do. If you look at the text, Paul didn't just shake the snake off of him - he shook it into the fire. You see, not only do we have to get past the problem, we have to solve the problem. Paul eliminated the source of his problem - he didn't just sit around and whine about it, he did something about it. There's an old saying that God helps those who help themselves, and there's some truth to that. We have to get past our helplessness and take care of our own responsibilities. We have to shake off adversity and squash whatever problems hinder us so that we can achieve all of our objectives. That is what Paul did on his way to Nero's chopping block, and that is what we have to do in our every-day living.

May the LORD bless you and keep you;
May the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you;
And may the LORD,
Who implores you to Shake It Off,
May He turn His face toward you and give you peace.

Alternate link to comments

Open Thread


If you check out pyzch, puddle has been posting a lot of memories of Edwin, including pictures from the plays he was in. And just generally a lovely, bittersweet collections of quotes, memories, and poems. I rarely can come up with a comment to add, but want puddle to know that I'm reading, appreciate that she is sharing these things with us. The loss of Edwin, who I never had the opportunity to meet, felt like such a senseless tragedy. Now, along with the sadness, I appreciate the chance to appreciate the gift of Edwin's life, and the gift that Edwin and puddle were able to find in each other.

Thank you, puddle, for sharing these things with us--the tough parts as well as the joy of discovering and sharing your life with your soulmate.
....
But I really did intend to post an *open* thread. So, as a way of giving people "permission" to post things that are *not* especially deep or reflective if they don't feel so inclined at the moment, here's a picture of a wet kitten.

(Via Cute Overload, natch.)

Alternate link for comments