Winning The War On Terra

upyernoz has an excellent post about the annual government reports on global terrorism. If you recall, the Bush administration decided not to issue one this year for the year 2004. Last year, they issued one for 2003 which first showed a drop in the incidence of terrorism, then later was revised to show the highest terrorism rate of any year in history. Faced with bad press, the Bushies decided to issue the 2004 report after all, and it shows there were three times as many incidents in 2004 as in 2003. And these numbers don't include attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan: whatever the nature of those attacks, they're "off the books" as far as the report is concerned.

upyernoz has a lot of details and several useful links; rather than repeat his work, I'll just encourage you to read his post. But I will quote a snippet of his assessment, with which I agree completely:

if the bush administration invaded iraq to fight global terrorism, the 2003 and 2004 reports document a stunning failure. while correlation does not necessarily mean cause, there is no ignoring such stark numbers. any way you slice it, this indicates a miserable failure in the war against terrorism.

(All lowercase original... noz must have read a lot of e.e. cummings when he was younger.)

This is just more evidence that either protecting America from terrorism is not among the Bush administration's true motives, or they're blithering incompetents at doing so. I don't care which it is; I just want some adults in charge.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Friday Feline Alert Blogging

What was that sound? I don't know, but Samantha surely does.

Steve
   PermaLink     

UAHMMWV!

Yes, that's a fair approximation of the sound I made when I learned about this. But according to the Senate roll call vote record, it stands for "Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles," those vehicles... Humvees with improved armor... which, had they been available from the beginning, would almost certainly have saved the lives of many American troops in Iraq.

The troops, those still living, came one step closer to getting their UAHMMWVs: the Senate amendment to add $213 million for up-armored vehicles to the emergency supplemental appropriation bill did, indeed, pass just over a week ago.

NO THANKS TO SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX)... and 38 other Republican senators who voted against it.

Republicans "support the troops"? Yeah, right. (Nixonian expletive deleted.)

(Via des at greatscat.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Sensenbrenner: Get Me Rewrite!

This tops all. Via edwardpig, who initially found it on The Raw Story, we learn that Republican staffers to the House Judiciary Committee have been rewriting the official summaries of amendments offered by Democrats in ways that make Democrats look as bad as possible. Here's an example from the Raw Story article:

The following amendments were offered and voted down by recorded votes in the Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 748-The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA):

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION IN HOUSE REPORT 109-51

DEMS: a Nadler amendment allows an adult who could be prosecuted under the bill to go to a Federal district court and seek a waiver to the state’s parental notice laws if this remedy is not available in the state court. (no 11-16)

GOP REWRITE: Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have created an additional layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill. By a roll call vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was defeated.

     ...

On and on it goes. In most cases, the GOP staffers rewrote the summaries so as to make it appear that Democrats support legal loopholes for "sexual predators" ... a phrase that appears nowhere in the original descriptions of the amendments provided by the Democrats themselves, and that is clearly far from the intent of the amendments. And the rewrites have the explicit support of the Republican chair of the committee, James Sensenbrenner.

When I read this, I was suspicious of its legitimacy. This could almost compete with The Onion for sheer absurdity. But Rep. Louise Slaughter has a Kos diary entry on the subject, with links to a video of her response to the committee. Oh, it's real enough. (NOTE: Kos seems to have suffered some sort of database "event" at the moment; you may have to wait a while to visit Rep. Slaughter's diary.)

I guess it's easier to debate and defeat an opponent if you get to write both sides of the argument. It's even easier if you get to pretend your opponent gets sexual predators off the hook... and to pretend so, not just in grandstanding for the media, but in the official permanent record of Congress. As edwardpig says, this is a new low, even for Republicans. He's mounting a campaign to publicize this rewrite... which, as Rep. Slaughter reminds us, has Sensenbrenner's direct, angrily voiced support... to Sensenbrenner's constituency. I don't think it will do much good, but it's worth a try.

Steve
   PermaLink     

The Stinker, Revisited

Why is this fellow so often seen outside public buildings?

Maybe they won't let him inside:

NOTICE TO ALL USERS OF
HOUSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

The library is for reading, studying, writing, participating in scheduled programs or meetings, and using library materials. We ask your cooperation in maintaining an environment in which all library customers can use and enjoy library resources, services, and facilities. These rules are posted for the comfort and protection of all who use the library. They will be firmly but courteously enforced by library staff/security. Customers must comply with these rules and regulations.

The following behaviors and activities are prohibited on library property (inside and outside library buildings):

• Acts that are subject to prosecution under criminal or civil codes of law.
• Physical abuse, assault, public lewdness, indecent exposure or disorderly conduct.
• Use of obscene, abusive, insulting, or threatening language.
• Possessing or being under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs.
• Damaging or destroying library property.
• Unlawfully carrying a weapon.
• Staring, stalking, harassment, or other behavior that reasonably can be expected to disturb others.
• Tampering with security or safety devices.
• Smoking within 25 feet of a public entrance.
• Spreading out the contents of bags on library property. Unattended bags represent a safety and security risk and may not be left on library property.

The following behaviors and activities are prohibited in library buildings:

• Abuse or vandalism of library facilities, materials, or equipment.
• Smoking or other tobacco use.
• Eating or drinking (except water in covered containers), except in designated areas.
• Bringing in packaged or unpackaged food, except into designated areas.
• Bringing in any animals, except animals assisting persons with disabilities.
• Not wearing shoes or a shirt.
• Sleeping or putting your head on a table (except for infants), and putting your feet or legs on furniture.
• Producing or allowing any loud, unreasonable, or disturbing noises, including those from electronic and communication devices.
• Taking library materials into rest rooms.
• Using library rest rooms for changing clothes, shaving, bathing or any purpose other than for which rest rooms are intended.
• Offensive bodily hygiene that constitutes a nuisance to others.
• Bringing in bedrolls, blankets, frame backpacks, suitcases, or bags measuring more than two feet in length or height. A maximum of two bags of any type will be allowed.
• Bringing in any items that could potentially be used as weapons, including but not limited to sporting equipment such as baseball bats, skateboards, etc.
• Distributing or posting printed materials/literature not in accordance with library regulations.
• Viewing material deemed to be obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors, as those terms are defined in the Children’s Internet Protection Act and the Texas Penal Code.
• Selling/Soliciting (approaching citizens with items for sale or pleas for donations).

Parents/guardians/caregivers are responsible for monitoring the activities and for regulating the behavior of their children while in the library. Children under the age of seven may not be left unattended at any time. Children between the ages of seven and fourteen should not be left unattended for extended periods of time or at closing time.

All library materials must be properly checked out. If library staff/security has reasonable individualized suspicion that a library patron is attempting to exit the library with library materials that have not been checked out, the patron may be questioned and may be asked to open any item of sufficient size to contain library materials for inspection. Theft of library materials is a serious offense and will result in permanent exclusion from the library and arrest.

Anyone known to have violated any of the above rules may be asked to leave from the library as a matter of administrative policy or arrested, as permitted by law. Severe offenses may result in exclusion from the library.

If confronted with the violation of any of the above rules, please immediately inform library staff/security.

Violation of criminal trespass laws or of these rules and regulations may result in prosecution. These rules and regulations have been promulgated under the authority of Section 24-5 and Article IX, Chapter 21 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Houston, Texas. See also Texas Penal Code § 30.05 (relating to criminal trespass) and § 31.03 (regarding theft).

Bolds and italics original. Source: Houston Public Library, via a .pdf link in the Houston Chronicle article that can be opened but not copied. I guess HPL is concerned someone may steal their rules.

Um, do I really even have to say anything about this?

Well, actually, I will say a few things; when did you ever know me to refrain? I know a lot of librarians. I have worked in libraries at least three times in my life that I can think of. Many of us see library work as something of a mission, an effort to give our society at least an opportunity to become informed on the lessons of history, the great and small events of our day, and the best literature, in a broad sense of the word including all the arts and recordings of the same, that our world has to offer. Yet libraries and librarians are stigmatized by a number of pernicious stereotypes... you know them; I don't need to list them. Most librarians I know bend over backward to counteract those stereotypes.

In one fell swoop, HPL's public representative, Sandra Fernandez, has restored and reinforced the worst stereotypes of the poker-backed librarian, telling everyone what they may not do. Thanks a lot, Sandra. Now go find something nondestructive to do. Maybe you could clean the pigeon poop off the statue of Rodin's Thinker outside some public building (not in Houston, to my regret). But after you've done that, don't go back in the library until you have cleaned yourself up, and not in the library's bathroom.

Amazingly, only two members of City Council voted against the regulations, one of the most liberal councilmembers (Ada Edwards) and one of the most conservative (Addie Wiseman). Both gave pretty much the same reason for their opposition, and it is mine as well:

But council members Ada Edwards and Addie Wiseman voted against the proposal, saying library officials were trying to discourage homeless people from using the libraries.

"It's a direct attack at homeless people, and we can't continue to criminalize homeless people," Edwards said. "I understand what they're trying to do, but when you start targeting a community like the homeless, I think that's poor policy."

Wiseman said library officials were clearly trying to address problems with homeless people without saying so. She said the regulations — which also bar the carrying of large amounts of personal possessions into libraries — could discourage out-of-town visitors and mothers with young children.

"I think if we're trying to address an issue with the homeless, we need to be up front about it," she said.

Yes, we do. As things are, I'm reminded of the quotation from Einstein that appears at the top of andante's site, Collective Sigh: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

Steve
   PermaLink     

Blink Revisited

The emerging consensus of the Democratic blogosphere is that it is Frist who blinked, not Reid or other Democratic leaders. See the comment thread to this post below for reactions from Bryan and others; many people explained this "poker game" to me. After writing that post, I discovered Josh Marshall's take on the situation. And today, Avedon pointed us to this post by Kos, in which the latter makes it clear that Frist is in a jam over this one. From Kos:

So Frist says:

Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure Senate confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees.

But in order to avoid looking like obstructionists, Demcorats had to make efforts to "find a compromise", lest the chattering class get the vapors from such Democratic intransigence.

     ...

It was one heck of a gamble, but the Senator from Nevada played his cards right.

Frist painted himself into a corner, having whipped up the forces of wingnuttery into a froth, he could not back down without damaging his White House aspirations for 2008. He's banking on the crazies to get him the nomination.

So Reid got the Democrats to look conciliatory, forcing Frist and his Republicans to look even more inflexible than before.

     ...

It looks as if I called this one wrong. Thanks to all who set me right about it. I just hope all of you are correct, that it really is a clever political move, not a capitulation. If so, I may just have gained new admiration for Harry Reid and Dick Durbin.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Richard Morrison Withdraws

I know I'm late publishing this. Off the Kuff has the details, as well as Morrison's letter to his supporters.

I confess I'm disappointed, though it's hard to gainsay Morrison's reasons. No one in the past has come anywhere nearly as close to knocking off Tom DeLay as Morrison did. Given DeLay's current problems, and Morrison's established name recognition, I believe he could have done it this time. We'll never know now.

Current talk is of Nick Lampson or maybe Gordon Quan. I admire both of those good Democrats immensely. Whatever it takes... DeLay must be defeated.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Blink

That flickering motion you saw out of the corner of your eye was Joe Biden and Dick Durbin blinking:

Democrats Hint At Filibuster Deal
Some Judges Might Be Confirmed

The Senate's top two Democrats, seeking a break in the impasse over seven stalled judicial nominees, said for the first time yesterday that they would consider a compromise in which some of the seven would be confirmed and the others withdrawn.

The comments by Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) startled some liberal groups because Democratic leaders have said until now that all seven nominees were unacceptable because of their sharply conservative stands on women's issues, civil rights, the environment and other issues.

It is far from clear that such a deal would be acceptable to Republicans, because it would require them to drop their threat to change Senate rules in order to ban filibusters of judicial nominees. Democrats, who hold 44 of the Senate's 100 seats, used the filibuster to block 10 appellate court nominees in President Bush's first term. It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster.

When Bush renominated seven of the 10 judges this year, Democrats vowed to filibuster them again. If the Democrats persist, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has said, he will push for the rule change, which would allow judicial nominees to be confirmed with a simple 51-vote majority. Both sides say the seven nominees would be confirmed under that standard.

     ...

Noooooo!

When your preteen kid threatens to take the car keys and run away from home, do you try to find a compromise, say, that they run away no more than a mile? When an escaped convicted murderer grabs a hostage, do you negotiate to allow the criminal to keep the hostage on Tuesdays and Fridays?

These nominees were filibustered the first time around because they are extremists with track records proving they are unacceptable as federal judges. At that time, Democrats didn't choose lightly to stop the confirmation of this tiny handful; the vast majority of Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed quickly. (That's far better treatment than Clinton's nominees got.) No, these people were stopped because they deserved to be stopped.

What, if anything, has changed since the first go-round? And for what, if anything, would Senate Democrats go to the mat?

Steve
   PermaLink     

This Rule's A Stinker

Oh, good grief:

The Houston Public Library is asking City Council to approve a list of new rules and regulations this week that would prohibit, among other things, "offensive bodily hygiene that constitutes a nuisance to others."

Sandra Fernandez, the library's public relations manager, said the rule refers to all customers, including men and women awash in after-shave or perfume.

"This is a library," Fernandez said. "We have customers that are going to use our facilities (in close proximity) for an extended period of time. We have had people where the person standing next to them makes it hard for them to breathe."

The new set of rules - the first proposed to City Council since 1981 - also prohibits sleeping on tables, using restrooms for bathing, and viewing obscene Internet material. Council is expected to vote on the rules Wednesday.

     ...

I love libraries. As noted in these pages before, I especially love the new public library just a few blocks from my home, which is pleasant, spacious and well-lighted. The individual tables are separated from each other by a considerable distance, and the ventilation seems quite good.

Does this mean I now have to take a bath immediately before I go to the library?

I'm trying to think of other public locations at which scent-free cleanliness is not merely expected but enforced. Fine restaurants? symphony concerts? art museums? I've suffered severe perfume assaults at all of those.

I give the rest of the proposed rules mixed reviews. Sleeping on tables may indeed prove distracting, though I admit I've never seen anyone do it in a public library. Forbidding bathing in restrooms seems to defeat the intent of the first rule, namely, reducing the incidence of smelly patrons. (Where, exactly, are homeless people supposed to clean themselves, if not in public restrooms?) And any practical means of preventing the viewing of "obscene Internet material," specifically, any filtering software, is almost certain to prevent the viewing of all sorts of material no reasonable person would consider obscene. (See your favorite online liberties site for more info... if your censoring software will let you get to it.)

"The law in its majesty prohibits rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges." Or, apparently, sleeping on library tables, or bathing in library restrooms. If society wants its citizens to be law-abiding, it must pass reasonable laws and enforce them with common sense. This proposal scores 0 for 2 by that measure.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Houston International Festival

I promised you snapshots, and you shall have snapshots. I didn't do a lot of quality filtering; you get the good and the bad, but not the truly ugly. Click the picture below to open the photos in a new window:

This year's theme country is India. Stella and I love our Indian American friends (former neighbors who recently bought a house in an uncomfortably distant suburb), and of course we really have a taste for Indian food, so it was pretty much guaranteed that she and I would enjoy an opportunity to learn still more about Indian culture, art, dance, religion etc.

Houstonians, I believe there's one more weekend for you to enjoy the festival.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Is The Pope A Republican? - UPDATED

If not, why did he do this?

Washington - German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry.

In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a "grave sin."

He specifically mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws," a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights.

The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion "must refuse to distribute it."

A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion," the letter read.

     ...

Kerry, of course, found priests willing to offer him communion. But what of Ratzinger? He is German, but that trick sounds like something straight out of Karl Rove's playbook. At the time, I thought little of it, just another radical conservative's gesture toward John Kerry. But apparently I was wrong to dismiss it:

Nevertheless, in the November election, a majority of Catholic voters, who traditionally supported Democratic Party candidates, shifted their votes to Republican and eventual winner George W. Bush.

In reference to Ralph Nader, I've often proposed something like the "duck test": does he talk like a Republican? ally himself with Republican politicians? help Republicans get elected? If so, why should I not regard him as a Republican?

And so it is with the new pope. To my great regret, he passes the "duck test." I have no direct stake in the religious leaders of religions other than my own, but I most certainly am adversarial toward Republicans. And the pope has no business meddling in American presidential politics... none at all.

It doesn't help my opinion of the pope that he may have been involved in a cover-up of pedophile priests' behavior. I am not accusing Republicans of, or even associating them with, pedophilia, but cover-ups of abominable acts (think: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Florida 2000, etc.) are certainly a Republican specialty.

(Truthout article found via Freedom Rider, whose permalinks are bloggered... scroll down.)

---

UPDATE: Michael of Musing's Musings, in a comment on his own blog, emphatically disputes the accuracy of the report published by AFP and Reuters. I have great respect for Michael's opinion and his knowledge of the workings of the Catholic church. You may want to read his comment for a contrasting view.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Frist, Do No Harm

Too late for that, actually. Via Atrios, quoting Frist:

What it basically -- it's called the nuclear option. It's really a constitutional option. And what that means is that the Constitution says you, as a Senate, give advice and consent, and that is a majority vote. And then you vote on that, and that takes 50 votes to pass.

Wow. Not even 51 votes. Now there's "democracy" for you.

First, this belies Frist's assertion that it is Democrats alone who call this the "nuclear option." He calls it that himself. When he tells us otherwise in his remarks tonight, played to a right-wing religious group, he is lying. Indeed, Frist accuses Harry Reid of forcing him to use the nuclear option, and that, too, is a lie:

Now if Senator Reid continues to obstruct the process, we will consider what opponents call the “nuclear option.” Only in the United States Senate could it be considered a devastating option to allow a vote. Most places call that democracy.

Second, it is Bill Frist, not Senate Democrats including minority leader Harry Reid, who advocates abandoning about two hundred years of Senate tradition of requiring a three-fifths majority to end a filibuster. Not only that, but Frist insists that only a simple majority is required to abandon this two-hundred-year Senate tradition that makes it difficult to limit debate.

Democracy is not merely about voting; it is about debating the issue to be voted on. In attempting to change the Senate rules allowing extended debate, Bill Frist wants to limit democracy as no Senator has done in two centuries. Bill Frist is unmistakably the radical in proposing the nuclear option.

Let's be honest: George W. Bush, by renominating the most radical of his judicial candidates who have already been rejected by the Senate, intends to infringe the civil liberties of Americans for generations to come. By his appointments, he intends to enrich his buddies at the expense of the environment we all share, possibly even endangering life on earth. By his appointments, he intends to stymie lawsuits against discrimination, allow the executive to dominate the other branches of government, allow government to proceed in secrecy, allow government to deny the most basic rights to women, gays and lesbians, workers, kids, religious minorities and just about every other group that is not a contributor to Republican campaigns. By his appointments, Bush intends effectively to end the right of petition for a redress of grievances by installing judges certain to crush all such petitions... judges appointed for life. Democrats have confirmed Bush's conservative judges at an astonishing rate, a rate much greater than I myself am comfortable with... but those are conservative judges. These are not conservative, by any reasonable definition of the term. The nominees Bill Frist wishes to push through are radicals, judges with a history of overriding the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution when it benefits powerful people of their own political and/or religious stripe. These nominees are radicals, not conservatives; they are exactly the kind of excessive majority behavior for which the filibuster was conceived. These nominees put our rights at risk, not just now, but for generations to come. We Democrats have a right... more than that, we have a duty... to block them.

Third, Sen. Frist's decision to drag the worst of the worst, the most extreme of religious zealots, into the political process, to decry Democrats as being opposed to people of faith because we seek to stop the appointment of judges who will establish Sen. Frist's faith as the de facto official religion of the United States of America, is not only offensive to all persons of faith who espouse Democratic politics... it is un-American. It declares war on the First Amendment. How soon will we see the Frist Amendment (sic), under which opposition to any Republican policy becomes unconstitutional?

Steve
   PermaLink     

TASERs Again

Amnesty Magazine, in its Spring 2005 issue, offers an article by James Hibberd describing more results from Amnesty International's study, released in November, of TASERs. Hibberd begins by describing an episode in which a policeman, deliberately subjected to a TASER shock as part of his training in the use of the weapon, is disabled for life. I won't quote that part here; you can read it in the article. Even more striking than that horrifying incident were these statistics:

In 80 percent of cases, the Amnesty report said, suspects were unarmed. In 36 percent of cases, the weapons were used due to "verbal noncompliance."

"Verbal noncompliance..." not typically, in and of itself, a reasonable cause for shooting an unarmed person with a deadly weapon. Yet more than one in three TASER incidents resulted from verbal noncompliance. (I am presuming the study is honest in its determination. E.g., noncompliance with a verbal directive to a suspect to "put the gun down" certainly may be legitimate cause for a police officer to use a weapon. But I'm pretty sure that's not what they're talking about here.)

All questions of cause of death aside, how many people have died after being shocked with a TASER?

More than 90 people have died in the United States and Canada after being struck with a TASER, which is manufactured, marketed and sold by the Arizona-based Taser International.

Nobody is entirely sure whether the TASER caused their deaths, or if a confluence of unique medical factors was the culprit. For all their dramatic power, there is a surprising lack of scientific research documenting the physiological impact of the TASER charge. Yet for years the weapon has been promoted to law enforcement and civilians as a safe alternative to lethal force.

Are TASERs the cause of death in these incidents? What about the manufacturer's claims of safety?

The most recent major study was conducted by a division of the Department of Defense last year, but it was not publicly released. TASER declared the report determined TASERs "will generally be effective...without a significant risk of unintended severe effects."

But the Air Force scientist who conducted the study has said otherwise. According to media reports, the study actually found TASERs caused heart damage in pigs, that more research on the weapons was needed and that TASER victims should receive medical monitoring.

It wasn't the first time a medical professional has been caught in the middle of the Taser controversy. Last year a South Carolina coroner said that Taser pressured his office to reverse an autopsy report that stated the TASER's electrical charge contributed to a man's death. Researchers for Underwriters Laboratories discovered Taser was using their research on electrical fences to claim stun guns were safe enough to shock a two year old.

"They used our information, saying what's good for electric fences is good for Taser," said Underwriters Laboratories spokesperson Paul Baker. "We felt it was very misleading; it's apples and oranges."

As always, I regret the use of animals in such studies. Maybe the results will save human lives; maybe not. I'm troubled by animal testing in circumstances where the quantity of data already available regarding TASER use on humans should be adequate.

Why not suspend TASER use on any creature until the incidents of use on humans by police have been more fully evaluated? In my opinion, significant information about whether TASER shocks were a proximate cause of death can very likely be obtained by reviews of the incidents, evaluations of autopsy data and, in the case of survivors, studies based on medical examinations to reveal any patterns of damage.

(An aside: where did the name TASER come from? is it a reference to Star Trek's "phaser"? Perhaps, but according to the article, the inventor of the TASER, physicist Jack Cover, says the term is an acronym for "Tom Swift's Electric Rifle." I believe the work is actually titled "Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle," which at least gets us an "A" from the "and," though not in the proper order. But I'm not interested in stirring up any acronymious [sic] discussion of the matter.)

---

Off-topic: I haven't forgotten about the iFest photos, though it may be rather late tonight, or even tomorrow, before I get them posted.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Asking The Cats...

... who gets the cream:

For better or worse, Stella sometimes allows Tabitha and Samantha to lick an "empty" ice cream bowl. The cats, of course, have designs on much more than just the leavings.

(OK, it isn't Friday yet; so sue me. When I blog kitty pics, I get hits, comments and generally a positive response. When I blog politics, only the diehards among you post comments. Yes, I'll pander to popular taste once in a while for a bit of attention!)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Absolutely Hateful

That's how State Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) characterizes a new amendment to the Child Protective Services (CPS) bill that would prohibit gay or lesbian couples from being foster parents:

     ...

No other state has such a ban, said a representative with the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights project.

"I haven't seen Rep. Talton trying to figure out where children are going to have a home; he's just trying to deny a home to children," said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston.

"Quite frankly, it is just absolutely hateful."

     ...

The amendment was proposed by State Rep. Robert Talton (R-Pasadena). Talton has strong views on the matter:

"They (gays) are teaching something that is not conducive to our traditional families," Talton said Wednesday. "God created man, and he created woman, and he created marriage, and there is a reason for that. It's a tried and true method."

Oh, well, I guess that explains it. Better that a child have no home at all than be placed in a home that is "not conducive to our traditional families."

I think it likely this amendment will be removed in conference. The Senate version of the CPS bill is reportedly almost identical except for this amendment, and at least some senators have trouble with Rep. Talton's bigotry:

The Senate bill's sponsor, Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, said Talton's amendment may present challenges both legally and practically.

"It is not clear what investigative procedures would be used, what questions would be asked, what effect this might have on the willingness of individuals to go through the screening process, and, most importantly, how many children would it displace," she said.

Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, has an answer to Sen. Nelson's sensible question:

Ellis said between 2,000 and 2,500 children are currently in homes with homosexual parents and could be affected if this bill becomes law.

That's our Texas Lege: first with the worst. It would be funny if it weren't so disgusting.

Steve
   PermaLink     

A Discouraging Word

Perhaps it is seldom heard, here at my home on the range (well, on the coastal prairie, in the middle of a fairly large city), but I've just heard... actually, read... a discouraging word.

John McKay of the blog archy, in a post titled On Being "In Control", responds to Echidne's questions (NOTE: all of Echidne's archive links seem to be bloggered at the moment. Please visit Echidne's home page and scroll down to the post titled "Just Talking to Myself") about the notion of "when we get back in control." Echidne notes:

I will never be in control. I have never been in control and expect never to gain control over anything much. This I know for a fact. Why, then, can someone else so trustingly expect to have control over the political situation?

She goes on to question the sources of her feelings, eventually concluding:

     ... I no longer see, hear or read my values expressed positively in the media that stands for our common living-room. Can you think of a single person with liberal or progressive values who has easy access to mainstream media networks and who is actually allowed to speak uninterrupted for a few minutes?      ...

Well, no, I can't. I seldom watch the talking heads these days, because I see no one representing views even remotely like my own. But those were not the discouraging words that captured my attention. From John's reply:

     ...

My personal problem with the phrase "When we get back in control" is two-fold. One is that there no guarantee that we will ever "get back in control." Too many writers treat the ebb and flow of power between the parties as if it were a law of nature. It is not. All things end. That includes the American Republic. Many of the supporters of this administration are honest about their revolutionary goals. They expect to take complete power and stay there. Pay attention to the Christian Reconstructionists. They want to establish a theocratic oligarchy where only male members of the correct church are oligachs. They do not control the government yet, nor do they control the Republican Party. But they have crept further into the mainstream than most of us ever believed possible.

If that sounds completely off in conspiracy-land, look at the filibuster controversy and ask yourself this: why would the Republicans make a rule change that could so easily be used against them when the Democrats are back in control? Are they all completely blind and stupid or do some of them intend to never let the Democrats back into power?

     ...

(Emphasis mine.)

Why, indeed. To me, those are discouraging words. Please read both posts in detail; there is much food for thought. But keep your favorite liquid antidepressant handy.

I will say one thing, mostly to our power-obsessed opponents: "taking control once and for all" may prove to be a bit like "eating once and for all": you may think you've managed it for a while, but sooner or later, something... something more likely internal than external... will disabuse you of the notion.

Steve
   PermaLink     

 
Selected Links To Recent Posts

 
Click any permalink below to go to the original article on a previous page. Click a comment link below to add a comment to the original article. Your comment will be noticed, by the YDD at least: HaloScan has a page allowing me to view recent comments, no matter which post they refer to.

Clocky And Bloggy

Steve
   PermaLink     

A Popeless Post

Steve
   PermaLink     

I Love The Sound...

Steve
   PermaLink     

Good!

Steve
   PermaLink     

Democratic Values

Steve
   PermaLink     

Eye Meme

Steve
   PermaLink     

Lethal Injection: Excruciating Pain?

Steve
   PermaLink     

Unitarian Universalist, Please

Steve
   PermaLink     

Texas Observer Lege Blog

Steve
   PermaLink     

Faith-Based Government

Steve
   PermaLink     

The Unclear Option

Steve
   PermaLink