A Sermon for the Choir

From the Christian Wire Service, excerpted from a story on the upcoming confirmation hearings of Judge John Roberts:

When liberals say . . .

--civil rights, they mean racial quotas and forced busing.
--reproductive rights, they mean underage girls should get abortions without notifying their parents.
--equal pay for women, they mean government bureaucrats determining your
pay.
--environmental protection and worker rights, they mean the government has unlimited power to regulate private property and business.
--church-state separation, they mean your town can't display a Menorah or Christmas crèche during the holidays.

We realize that this kind of propaganda isn’t designed or disseminated to persuade anyone. This kind of muck is, much like everything Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and President Bush say, is meant to garner support from the religious right and the neo-cons who are simply using the religious right for political gain. Make people angry. Get under their skin. The best way to do that is to exaggerate, offer incomplete information, and, of course, flat-out lie.

I could dispute each and every one of these claims. I could cite facts. But, in the interest of parity, I give you When Republicans Say:

--anything, they mean: We believe that rich, white men are the people most qualified to govern. We believe that the masses need a cadre of father figures to keep them away from that which we think is dangerous, wrong, or unnatural. We believe that science should be outlawed, mainly because an educated constituency is one that, for the most part, will not vote for us. We pretend to thump the bible when it suits our purposes, but none of us actually live by its many rules and tenants. For example, we lean heavily on the bible for our language opposing abortion; in truth, we don’t want women having “rights” because it might give them the impression that they are “real people.” We believe that all businesses should be deregulated because it would allow a smaller percentage of individuals to amass greater wealth, keeping the masses away from the means of production via measly wages and no benefits. Speaking of, we take a tough stance on immigration in the public forum, but high-five each other later because we all hire illegal immigrants in the businesses we own. It’s cheaper, which we like, but it also allows us to partake in one of our other favorite activities, exploiting and demeaning minorities. Further, the Republican Party, while it stands for a small, unobtrusive federal government that defers to the rights of the individual states, wants to restrict even your most basic freedoms. For instance, we want draw up a list of rules that iterate what is acceptable bedroom behavior. We want everyone to pair off in boy-girl formation because indoctrination is so much simpler and more effective through the traditional family unit and nationwide homogeny. We want to ignore institutionalized racism by turning back the clock on affirmative action, allowing businesses and institutions (run, largely, by us) to make their own decisions regarding who to hire or accept based on race, gender, religion, or any other criteria they see fit. We want to lower taxes, but not because it helps Mr. and Mrs. John Doe. We want to lower taxes because it helps us, because those businesses that are terrorizing their employees and the environment will appreciate the break. And we don’t want to stop at America. After we take over America, we want to bottle our special brand of “democracy” and export it. Test markets in South America and the Middle East have been marginally successful . . . In short, we want to destroy your freedom of speech, subjugate the press, and fill you with religion and “family values.” In short, you are broken and we must fix you.

Because Dear Abby Sucks: How Scared In Hawaii Got Her Groove Back

From Dear Abby, Tuesday, August 23, 2005:

I am 62 and my husband is 93. Our next-door neighbor, "Sam," likes to expose himself. Other than that, he's a good neighbor and always ready to help out.

One day, a couple of my women friends were over visiting, and Sam stood in his doorway naked as a jaybird, waving at them. Maybe he thinks it pays to advertise. Mostly, he does this when my husband has gone inside the house.

His behavior worries me. If anything should happen to my husband, do you think Sam would try to force himself on me? Could he attack me and try to rape or murder me, or is he just a nice guy who likes to expose himself, and not the least bit dangerous?

I don't want to be a bad neighbor, and I don't want my name revealed, but this neighbor is really making me uneasy. Should I report what he's been doing to the police? -- SCARED IN HAWAII

Dear Scared,

The hell is wrong with you?

Other than his penchant for exposing himself, you say, Sam is a good neighbor. Trims the hedges, keeps the lawn clean, doesn’t play his music too loud, right? I tend to think that any older, single man who walks around whipping out the goods when your husband’s not looking deserves, at least, to be called a bad neighbor.

And listen: If Sam wants to rape you, I have serious doubts that he checks his behavior because of your husband. He’s 93 for Christ’s sake. Unless he’s from Krypton, he won’t be able to stand between Sam and your decrepit vag.

Unless you like looking at Sam’s junk, call the police. You’re 67, so perhaps there’s some dementia at play in this situation, but I get the feeling you like the attention that Sam pays you. Your husband, at 93, can’t be much fun in the sack, if the two of you even get down anymore. I suspect your husband (like me) can’t stand you, and spends his days wishing for a swift and painless death (as I now am).

Probably when Sam stands in the doorway in his birthday suit, his hip and elbow against the jamb, you get that warm feeling in your abdomen. The same feeling you used to get when you were 16 instead of 67 and it was the starting quarterback and not your disgusting neighbor. The feeling that is indescribably warm and comforting, no matter how taboo the subject that triggers it.

What’s going on between you and Sam is good, old fashioned sexual tension. Fuck him and get it over with (you won’t be 67 forever, you know). That way, when your husband finally gets his wish, you’ll have someone else to drive crazy.

Hello, Again, Internet

Forgive my lack of posts as of late, but I’ve been pretending to be Editor for the prestigious, prestigious publication for which I work instead of tending to my nominal duties as Assistant Editor. The last three days have seen poor Winter buried under mounds of 24 lb. bond paper as well as fairly copious amounts of stress between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. (the hours during which I do the majority of my blogging).

At any rate, I see that we’re slowly gaining a very, very modest readership, and I wanted to thank everyone for coming and, I hope, returning. The last few days have been unusually sparse. Things, hopefully, will pick up tomorrow when my boss returns from vacation.

Respek to Himillsy for kicking serious ass in her posts this week. Probably she is the reason you people have come, and returned.

In the coming days, dear Internet, you will see more Because Dear Abby Sucks, more Unseen Movie Reviews, more biting political commentary, more Washington minutiae, and, of course, more of us pretending we have an audience.

Yours,
-WS

P.S. I said "duties." And "mounds."

More on the Aftermath of Katrina

I had a lot of posts planned for today. Some still theoretical, some started. Post-feminism (deny it). Death Cab ticket (have it). Why I should be more famous than Chuck Klosterman (doubt it).

I can't write a thing. I'm not sure why we're all acting normal today. I don't want to go all bleeding-heart liberal (you know, because that wouldn't be like me at all), but several towns in America are currently underwater. There are so few rescue workers that they are encouraged to "look for life" -to save the healthiest-looking people first and leave the rest for the salvage crews. Refugees hole up in stadiums with no showers and broken toilets. Wives float their husbands' bodies down the street so that they can have some semblance of a funeral.

How does a person in DC handle this? How do you act? Winter and I are writing a check tonight to an organization involved in rebuilding efforts. Beyond that, it's business as usual. And that's what I can't get past. There is something foul about reading the news online from an unproductive cubicle and going home to a hot bath and a warm bed. There is something sickening about seeing more coverage about looting and gas prices than ways an individual can help other individuals. Equally sickening is the hyperbole categorizing this as a "U.S. tsunami" or "Mother Nature's 9/11". The drama isn't necessary; it's already in the details.

If anyone out there knows how I can help, please let me know.

Here Comes The Story of The Hurricane

At the time of this post, New Orleans is 80% submerged. Looting has broken out, and gas leaks are sparking fires and poisoning the water. Hundreds, if not thousands of people are feared dead in the region (there are 100 confirmed deaths in Harrison County, Miss. alone). Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are swarming with helicopters, rescue workers, and volunteers. The Pentagon is coordinating relief efforts and may send amphibious vehicles and swiftboats to help. Military personnel are already scrambling to patch the punctured levies that stand to keep the city of New Orleans high and dry.

Give, people. Give whatever you can spare.

At Network for Good you'll be able to donate to the charitable organization of your choice, from The American Red Cross to Second Harvest to the New Orleans Area Habitat for Humanity.

That First Day Back Is Always Tough

Apparently, Shrub is cutting his five-week vacation short by two days so he can survey the damage done by Katrina.

And by survey the damage, I mean exploit the commoners.

Oh, and all you terrorists who've had run of things over in Iraq better watch out. Your worst nightmare is back from his vacation. And he's well rested, which means no more afternoon naps, no more breaks in front of Tickle U. It's back to the grind, which means he's still cranky, still prone to mood swings and tantrums. So. Watch your back, um, bitches.

Starting, you know, tomorrow. Because, ostensibly, everything will still be here. The dead will still be dead.

I feel more secure already.

As promised...Seminal Moments Through (poor) Entertainment

There is an ongoing debate in the Dodd/Sorbeck house. The scenario takes many forms, but the essence remains the same. The debate boils down to: do people actually like the crap that pervades the mainstream, or are people just too lazy/depressed/something else to reject what they are offered? This week, the arguments centers on the song, “Pimpin’ All Over the World.” Winter says people love this song. The song has been on Billboard’s Top 100 for 13 weeks now and has been a Top 10 single. Ludacris performed the song at last night’s VMAs. We can’t even get into a ZipCar without hearing Bobby Valentine list the ways in which we are not pimpin’.

In short, Winter says, people clearly like the song or it wouldn’t be so popular. Radio play is easy to manipulate, if you have the right label behind you, but album sales are trickier. People don’t buy what they don’t like.

But I can’t help thinking there’s something more sinister at play here. Do you, personally, know anyone that admits to liking this awful song? I don’t, but I do know plenty of people who nevertheless own a copy. Winter Sorbeck is one. If nebulous “other people” make songs like “Pimpin’” popular, but we’re the ones listening to it, then what’s really happening here?

I’ll tell you what: it’s the same motivation that led me to download the Ian Van Dahl club hit, “Castles in the Sky” back in 2001. I hated that song. But I also hated college, the people at college, most subjects in college, the world at large, and, occasionally, myself. But occasionally, the girls on my hall would pile into my friend Amanda’s car and drive around. Sometimes we went to a diner, sometimes to a club. And for the entirety of that winter, the song that played in all three places was “Castles in the Sky”.

You see where I’m going with this. I didn’t like the song, but I liked what it represented. I could play the song and feel a connection (tenuous, but existent) with these people who otherwise didn’t seem to share much else with me. My seminal moments are marked not by young, angst-ridden poets or groundbreaking artists; they’re marked by some flash in the pan designed to earn a couple of dollars for a record label. As it was with Ian Van Dahl, so it was with the Backstreet Boys (driving to Chapel Hill on my 16^th birthday), Tevin Campbell (leaving my childhood neighborhood at age 10), and even J-Kwon (salvaging a shaky relationship with my now-husband while laying in a Puerto Rican hotel with 3^rd-degree sunburn). The soundtrack of my life will never sound like they do on The O.C. It will sound like the Bargain Bin at Sam Goody’s.

And that’s where this gets sinister: we don’t get to choose the music that surrounds us, and thus we unconsciously choose to surround ourselves with music that we dislike. Unless I remember to tote my Kathleen Edwards CD every time I get into someone else’s car, cue up a Death Cab video right before my husband gets all mushy, or magically replace the music piped into every bar, restaurant, or sidewalk I frequent, I’m going to continue to experience my major life moments to the tune of whatever is on the radio. No matter how shitty. And I’m going to continue buying these songs, because I’d rather lie about the “other people” that make them popular than try to live without them myself.

Himillsy on the VMAs

Check back soon for my post on inorganic seminal moments through the entertainment industry and why we need them.

Did you watch the Video Music Awards last night? If not, count yourself among the majority of non-pre-adolescents nationwide who would like to confiscate my irony card. I love the VMAs and I watch them every year. I love the glitzy overproduction, the self-congratulatory cluelessness of MTV (which seems to honestly believe that it is still relevant), and the potential for Something Awesome Happening, even though it rarely ever does. For me, MTV is that friend I loved in high school but can no longer remember why, and the VMAs are the coffee we have once a year, to make sure we keep in touch anyway.

Last night’s VMAs, though, were something different. Its music sounded like my house. The top awards went to hip-hop artists all, save a politically charged pop-punk band and a geeky white girl whose anthem somehow became the indie darling du jour to cover. Winter and I don’t claim to be huge fans of any of the winners –he’s a Springsteen and indie hip-hop fan; I veer towards the indie pop mainstays—but when we want to feel a little less lonely and weird, we put on the music that we heard last night: Kanye. The Game. Green Day. Kelly Clarkson.

Of course we do, you could argue. That’s what we’re sold. Well, almost. How many of the crappy, overexposed songs we were supposed to adore actually won anything? After all the money spent promoting Gwen Stefani’s atrocious and *adorably* racist album, the one with the song you couldn’t escape if you locked yourself in an iron box, Gwen walked away with a fashion award and nothing else. Same goes for Lindsay Lohan’s vanity project, My Chemical Romance’s gimmicky preening, and Ashlee Simpson’s triumph over acid reflux. In the end, the credit went to the hard workers and true talents, the Missy Elliotts and Green Days (who’ve been together for 16 years), not the usual suspects that earn MTV their bucks.

More than anything, last night’s awards were a commentary on the evolution of music. When the late Biggie Smalls sang “whoever thought that hip-hop would take it this far?” over a lilting orchestra, he had by far the best –and most relevant- performance of the night (even with the words “World Trade” bleeped from the 1994 single). The entire evening revolved around hip-hop culture –from Lil Kim’s drop-in before prison to freestyle by Common to a post-conviction soliloquy from R. Kelly. The “surprise” guests, ranging from MC Hammer to 2 Live Crew’s Luke to Grandmaster Flash, were throwbacks to an earlier age in music, when hip-hop was considered by a white mainstream to be a novelty act, and not the centerpiece of the music industry.

Maybe that’s why everyone was having so much fun. The Black Eyed Peas, who weren’t nominated for anything (shame. Will.I.Am’s social commentary lends gravity to The Future Soundtrack for America), rocked out to their favorites from their seats, as did Kanye West, who mouthed the lyrics to Ludacris’ ode to male whoredom. Even Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx (himself once a novelty act) took the stage to perform an overdramatic “Golddigger” with West. By the time that Green Day’s Billie Joe Armstrong noted, “It’s great to know that rock still has a place at MTV,” I was having fun, too. Pop was dead! Rock lived on! Hip-hop was king, and women like Missy Elliott were equally honored without having to show nipple! MTV didn’t suck!

And then I went to work this morning with my iRiver playing the familiar mix: Supposed Greatest Rock Band in America Sleater-Kinney’s new album, The Woods; Talib Kweli’s The Beautiful Struggle; and the demos and scratchy live recordings of indies across the country. I’d been suckered again. When I get home tonight, MTV will have already resumed its 55,897^th airing of the Pussycat Dolls video sandwiched between two episodes of Date My Mom. The ratio of accessible good music to profitable music will remain at 1:815071507. And I’ll keep making excuses for a network that gave up on real credibility when I was listening to mixtapes.

But we go way back, you know?

More Movie Reviews

Ok, I'll take a crack at this:

Chicken Little, 1 hr, 17 min. Rated G for Gah! When will studios lay off the CGI?

Garfield. The Grinch. The Cat in the Hat. King Kong. What do all these movies have in common? They all tanked. Ok, King Kong hasn't been released yet, but I'll bet each of my loyal readers a Whopper (that means you, Liz) that the movie will barely make what it cost to produce. When will studios realize that when audiences don't care for something, the time-honored method of expensively insisting, "Yes, you do" is not going to change any minds?

The technology to make something look incredibly cool and lifelike is fine and all, but it doesn't drive someone --especially a kid with a Playstation, who sees superior quality graphics all the time-- to go to the movies. Not unless the incredibly cool and lifelike figure is Yoda, and he fills seats anyway. So why keep pushing something that no one cares about?

That said, I'm going to see Chicken Little. I can't help myself. The protagonist is voiced by my fake boyfriend, Zach Braff, the portrait of twentysomething neurosis. And I dig neurosis. If I had any doubts about spending my $10 on a night with the kiddies (or, probably, Liz), they would be assuaged by my fake girlfriend, Amy Sedaris, who voices a slutty fox. Can't you just imagine it? She was born to be a slutty fox!

The rest of the cast includes Patrick Stewart, Harry Shearer, Fred Willard, and Don Knotts. Proving once again that technology is Ok, but it's the actors that brings 'em in.

Junebug, 1hr, 42 min. Rated PBR for hipster pandering.

Take one look at the Junebug promotional poster and you'd swear it said "Himillsy Dodd, This is Your Movie." It's got the artsy stick figures, the slew of awards. Oh, and the kid from "The O.C." is listed in the credits. Next they'll announce that Yo La Tengo plays the soundtrack. Wait, they do.

The Man, 1hr, 24 min. Rated U for "This movie exists just to piss you off."

I'm not going to rant about the inherent sexism, racism, and homophobia in the modern-day buddy comedy. I'm not going to mention the formulaic nature of the goofy white guy/badass black cop movie (Maddox did that just fine).

I will say that if I have to walk past that ridiculous poster that hangs beside my office building one more day, I will not be held responsible for the damage done to Eugene Levy.

And confidential to Sam Jackson: dude, seriously. Chappelle tried to make you cooler. Don't blow it for yourself.

If by "fair" you mean "made it up" and by "balanced" you mean...

Fox News contributor John Loftus, host of “Inside Report with John Loftus” and a former federal prosecutor, broadcasted early this month that he had information on a supposed terrorist living inside the United States. In a story that ran August 7, Loftus reported that a Muslim cleric had identified an “Iyad Hilal” as a terrorist ringleader living in the US. There was, Loftus announced, an Iyad K. Hilal that lived in La Habra, California. Loftus then made the ethically dubious choice to broadcast Hilal’s home address during his program.

That alone might be grounds for a censure, but Loftus didn’t even get the right house. He broadcast the address of Randy and Ronnell Vorick, who work as a restaurant manager and staffing agency manager, and are most assuredly not terrorists.

Now the Voricks have been targeted by the community as terrorists. Their home was spray-painted with graffiti, satellite photos and directions to their house were posted online, and they can’t even barbecue in their yard without someone driving by and yelling obscenities. A squad car remains parked across the street and police drive past regularly to ensure that the Voricks and their children are safe.

Loftus gave a statement to the LA Times that “mistakes happen”. Sure they do, John, but usually they’re followed by restitution. Fox News issued a one-line apology to that same newspaper, but at this moment neither the news organization nor Loftus has issued a formal retraction.

And Hilal? The Times reported today that he has never been charged with any criminal activity and has never been characterized by “any law enforcement agency or official” as a terrorist.

Loftus should know better. This is sloppy journalism at best. At worst, it’s a setup. Whether or not you watch Fox News, do your part to ensure it is held accountable.

Email John Loftus
Email Fox News

More New Features Than You Can Shake a Stick at! Just try and Shake Them! I Dare You!

Another new and (cross your fingers) regular feature here at Capitol Ideas: Movie Reviews! The catch is that we haven't seen the movies yet! Reviews are based on posters, trailers, clips, and hollywood hype. Today's budget-conscious consumer doesn't have the cash to go to the movies every weekend. We at Capitol Ideas are here to help. We take every piece of available information (with the exception of the film itself and, of course, other reviews), including other films (because, let's face it, every movie you've seen in the last fifteen years is like every other movie you've EVER seen) and assist you in forming your own opinion by articulating it in ways you can't imagine! Think the newest flick arriving at box offices nationwide looks stupid? It probably is! The people involved should be mocked.

So here we go. Wish us luck!

The Brothers Grimm , 1 hr. 58 min. Rated S, for intense sucking.

Don’t you love it when an ambitious Hollywood screenwriter takes a classic concept, story, or idea, and completely perverts it to sell movie tickets? Think of the big-screen adaptations of many of your favorite video games (the Super Mario Brothers movie comes readily to mind); there is a cult following. Kids love the characters. It already sells t-shirts, toys, and other merchandise. Why not movie tickets?

Such it is with The Brothers Grimm, the new Matt Damon/Heath Ledger vehicle that fails to gain any traction because, guess what?, while Hollywood has perverted a classic story (or, in this case, many of them), the characters are not already established heroes with their mugs on t-shirts. Also the plot is scattered and the acting is horrid (typical for Ledger, atypical for Damon), two more reasons why this film is still spinning its wheels by the time you make your first (of many, god willing) trip to the restroom.

Along with perverting the story of the Brothers, who collected Germanic fables and folktales into one large tome, the movie perverts diverse European cultures by doing what every Hollywood film set in Europe does: Anglicanize everything. Everyone, regardless of ethnicity or nationality, speaks with a crisp, sophisticated British accent. The French characters occasionally roll their R’s or exclaim “Sacre Bleu!” But that’s as far as Hollywood goes in differentiating (you know, besides making the French look/act as sinister as possible) between what can only be described as the French-British and the German-British characters. Maybe the British Empire extended further than our history books have relayed . . .

Perhaps the saddest part about this film is the way in which Terry Gilliam insists on making Ledger look like Ben Affleck. Considering his life partner is in the movie I think Ben would have taken the part had Gilliam asked. That is, if he weren't too busy proposing to/impregnating women.


Undiscovered, 1 hr. 37 min (though it will feel like an eternity of damnation). Rated WTF?! for graphic piles of excrement.

Remember Crossroads? Seen The Dukes of Hazzard? Then you know the power of the crossover. Taking the popstar du jour and planting him or her (most likely her) into a feature film is not a new concept. It has been so since the dawn of popstardom. The Beatles made movies. Madonna. Whitney Houston. Mariah Carey. Eminem. The trend is always to saturate the public consciousness with one “artist” at a time, ensuring huge market shares. Call it the McDonald's Principle: What record are people going to buy if the only person they hear/see is Ashlee Simpson? They are going to buy Ashlee Simpson’s record!

Which brings us to Undiscovered, a hopelessly heartless movie about life-altering dilemmas that are the “price of fame.” These include: “anorexia or bulimia?,” “should I snort my coke through a McDonald’s straw or a rolled up ATM receipt?,” “Sleep my way to the top, or rely on my talents as a pretty person?,” “Scientology or materialistic, consumer-driven atheism?”

What happens when you cast a popstar in a movie? Especially a popstar with a megalomaniacal father? Said movie becomes a feature length music video! Imagine watching an Ashlee Simpson video for a hundred minutes straight. Yeah. That’s this movie. Except there’s awful acting thrown in between songs by the just now unundiscovered Pell James and Steven Straight, who are so wooden they may as well be Russian nesting dolls. The film’s only redeeming quality is the appearance of Carrie Fisher, though I have to believe that things were pretty bad for her to get on board this project. And that makes me sad.

If Silver Ring Scared You...

Just take a look at some of the other beauties you're funding.

No Winter Sorbecks Allowed

I am so buying these for Xmas presents this year.

The Land of the Living

In today's Slate Magazine, Dahlia Lithwick poses the question: is there a decent argument for the constituion as a "living" document? The right, specifically the "originalists" and the "strict constructionists," have been hammering away in recent years, claiming that we should read the document as the framers intended. In the face of their war cries (including "judicial activism!"), do those who believe the constitution is a living document have a solid argument? Ms. Lithwick asked for reader responses, and the following is what I sent her (with a few additions for the sake of coherence and blogishness):

The greatest argument for the living constitution lies in the amendments to which she briefly alludes in her article, along with a few others.

13th Amendment: The abolition of slavery. If we are to read the constitution as the framers intended, this despicable institution would still be around.

14th Amendment: The endowment of basic civil rights to all citizens. Again, reading the constitution as the framers intended means that only white property-owning men have such basic rights (which I'm sure is exactly what some on the right would like to see).

15th Amendment: The right to vote for all (men). Take this away, and minorities are without democratic representation.

19th Amendment: Women's right to vote. The framers never intended for women to have the right to vote. If the constitution were not a living document, they still wouldn't.

24th Amendment: Abolition of the Poll Tax. While only five states still instituted the poll tax when it was ratified, the 24th Amendment made it clear that the poor (read: blacks) had just as much right to representative government as the rich (again, a dead document would favor republicans here . . . )

26th Amendment: The Right to Vote at 18. Telling college students across the country that the strict constructionists want to steal away their constitutional right to vote might be a good way to cool voter apathay among the demographic.

18th and 21st Amendments: Criminalization and Decriminalization of alcohol. These amendments might be the most suitable example while being the least political. The government, at one time, thought alcohol was a large enough problem to outlaw it. Years later, they realized that it wasn't as big a problem as the underground crime syndicate that exploded as a result. Mistakes were made and corrected.

All of the above are relatable to the democratic base, at the very least. The academics and politicians on the left should lose the dense academic mumbo jumbo and convey a simple message to women and minorities: these so-called "originalists" want to take away your basic civil rights, as well as your right to vote. The strict constructionists can't have it both ways; one cannot apply contemporary definitions of "citizen" to a dead constitution because that very definition was molded and refined over a period of 200 years during which the constitution was considered alive.

The fallacy of the argument for a dead document is in not so much in the reading of the document, but in the perceptions of the men who wrote it. While great, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, and the rest didn't create a perfect union, nor did they claim to have done so. Otherwise, why include the ability to make changes? Many legal documents throughout history have been set in stone—think the Code of Hammurabi, both figuratively and literally—but not the U.S. Constitution.

It seems that calling oneself an originalist would indicate that one was opposed the Bill of Rights. To read the constitution as the framers originally intended would be to ignore the Bill of Rights entirely, as the document was included only after ratification by the states proved difficult without it. Nearly four years of debate was required before the issue was laid to rest. The body of the constitution is a system of checks and balances, a blueprint for bureaucracy detailing government operations. The Federalists opposed this addition, citing it as unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, those who feared the power of a strong centralized government, supported it. In the end, the Anti-Federalists got their way. In contemporary America, it is the Anti-Federalists that are also originalists, which doesn't really add up. I suppose the best argument for a living constitution is, "Pay attention in history class."

Redefining the Midlife Crisis

I wish I were a "professor" so I could conduct "research" on "people".

There is so much wrong with this project that I must make a list:

1. A 50-year-old professor will never experience a typical freshman year, no matter how little contact she allows herself with her previous life and home. I'm betting that she didn't get dragged out to a skeevy dance club, experience her first high/sexual experience/same-sex experience in someone's dorm room, or have to balance her commitment to her high school boyfriend with her crush on a senior.
2. She didn't have a roommate.
3. She didn't have to worry that bad grades or social problems would ruin the next three years of her life.

She did, however, get one thing right. CNN reported: "She told students what she was doing if they asked, but found that most of them didn't, perhaps assuming she was just one of those who return to school at an older age." Or, she just experienced what we all did as freshmen -the discovery that no one else actually cares who you are except you.

"I'm...Gaelic!!"

Please, please, please someone buy me this beer. This is my new favorite website. I can't vouch for the taste of it (potato beer?), but I want to believe it is very, very good.

Race and the White House

This week, the Bush administration replaced Lawrence A. Greenfeld, the director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a small branch of the Justice Department. Greenfeld was named to the position in 2001. His new position, which has not been released, is a demotion to another department.

Why was he canned? The White House, as usual, has no comment, and Greenfeld is currently not authorized to speak with reporters. But the story speaks for itself.

In April of 2004, the Bureau of Justice Statistics completed a report on traffic stops and police aggression that revealed that although black, Latino and white drivers are equally likely to be pulled over, black and Latino drivers were more likely to be handcuffed, searched, arrested, and threatened with violence. Greenfeld wanted to go public with the report; his superiors didn’t.

The report was posted to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website later that spring. Like 37 of the 55 reports published that year, it was not accompanied by a press release or media event, but buried on the website of an office that the majority of the American people probably don’t know exists. The report drew no conclusions as to why certain drivers were more likely to face aggression than others. It simply laid out the scientific results of a study. And the Bush administration chose to shoot the messenger.

How can we ever hope to have an honest dialogue about race in this country when the preferred method of discussion is wishing it away? How can we discuss facts about race when the factfinders are demonized for reporting the truth? Lawrence Greenfeld wasn’t your run-of-the-mill Washington showboating attorney, in search of 15 minutes in front of a camera and a book deal. He was a 23-year veteran statistician who managed an office of 50. He was just a man committed to his work. To fire him for doing his job properly is villainy. It is the height of the vileness of white supremacy.

But it will come back around. If not for Greenfeld’s demotion, the major media probably would not have picked up on the report at all; yesterday, its findings ran in 141 newspapers. Rep. Conyers has called for a probe on the whole affair. Perhaps the real demotions are on their way…

Reality-Based Citizens Speechless, Demand Refund

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has rightly frozen federal funding for the abstinence-only program Silver Ring Thing. Until yesterday, taxpayer dollars had gone to fund the “sex education” program that advocates abstinence, offers children and adolescents a silver ring inscribed with a bible verse, invites participants to accept Jesus Christ as their savior and become born again, and maintains that the SRT is the main avenue for John Guest Evangelistic Team, the missionary organization that runs SRT, to “bring the world to Christ.” Further, the program teaches that condoms are ineffective while promoting outdated gender stereotypes, ignoring entirely the existence of LGBT populations, and disseminating anti-choice rhetoric.

In light of this, the ACLU of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit and the funding was rescinded. Which is all well and good, but my question would have to be: why in the name of FSM were my tax dollars funneled into this program in the first place? The Bush administration has been using federal tax dollars to fund “faith-based” programs for over a year now, which is fine. I admire the work that faith-based initiatives have done with ex-offenders, securing them temporary housing, offering them job training and skill-building, and helping them to find employment. And while there is a certain religious flavor to these programs in that they are doing “God’s work,” most of them do not expressly advocate the eventual unity of the world under Christ through said work.

Besides, working with ex-offenders, grown men and women trying to get their lives back in order after a stint in prison, is a whole lot different than manipulating and misleading impressionable adolescents.

From SRT’s “Statistics” page:

HPV is directly linked to 99.7% of all cervical cancers. Nearly as many women die of cervical cancer each year as die of AIDS.

From www.cancer.org (emphasis NOT added):

What is HPV? How does it lead to cervix cancer?
HPV is short for human papilloma virus. This virus causes an infection that doesn’t last very long. Most people will never know they have it because it most often goes away on its own. There are many types of this common virus, and only a few types can lead to cervix cancer. These are spread through sex. Other types of HPV can cause genital warts. If certain HPV types don’t go away on their own, they may cause cervix cells to become precancer cells. If these cells are not found and treated, they may turn into cancer. Most cell changes return to normal by themselves. Very few HPV infections lead to cervix cancer.

From SRT’s “Statistics” page:

Condoms not only do not eliminate the risk of contracting an STD, they do little to prevent many viral infections spread by skin-to-skin contact, especially HPV and herpes.

From the FDA’s brochure “Condoms and STDs . . . especially AIDS:”

Will a condom guarantee I won't get a sexually transmitted disease?

No. There's no absolute guarantee even when you use a condom. But most experts believe that the risk of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases can be greatly reduced if a condom is used properly. In other words, sex with condoms isn't totally "safe sex," but it is "less risky" sex.*

I take issue with some of their other statistics as well because they fail to mention important facts (for instance, they say, “40% of America girls become pregnant before the age of 20.” While I haven’t been able to verify or discredit this number, I have found that 22% of all pregnancies before the age of 20 are, for better or worse, planned . . .). I don’t have the proper tools to research each and every claim they make, but one bogus claim is enough to throw the whole page into question as far as I’m concerned.

I’m not paying for that nonsense. The program is discriminatory, disseminates false information, and proclaims one faith (specifically, their faith) to be superior to others. I want a refund.

Bottom line: The federal government has been funding an organization that charges itself with bringing the world to Christ through this Silver Ring Thing program. That is an egregious violation of the Establishment Clause because the federal government is choosing to further a protestant Christian ideological agenda.

*Note the distinct lack of a radical secular leftist conspiracy to cover up the ineffectiveness of condoms over at the FDA.

The First Ever CI Reader Opinion Poll!

Dear Liz,

We wanted to take a poll of our readership to get some feedback on the page’s new look. Since you constitute approximately 100% of our audience: What do you think? Do you like the new design? Please let us know.

Thank you,
CI Management

Nobody likes the genuine article

What does it take to get your blog listed publicly around here? Besides, you know, the obvious, having a blog that is interesting to read. I'm not interested in going to all that trouble. I'm looking for shortcuts.

I've done some checking around, and it turns out that if you write a DC-themed blog and you're looking for exposure, the following criteria are required:

1. Do not actually come from DC or the DC metro area. Live here temporarily, as an intern or a bitter graduate student.
2. Learn all you know about DC culture and history from watching The West Wing.
3. Drink. A lot. Post pictures of yourself drinking. Post after drinking. Drinking is totally awesome.
4. Make out with other DC bloggers. In Hollywood, this is called starfucking. In rock circles, it's called being a groupie. In DC, it is networking and it is a surefire way to drive blog traffic.
5. Fight with other bloggers.
6. Post on other blogs about how much you don't care what people think of you. Link to your own blog.

I care. I care deeply. And while it's too late for me to follow the first two criteria, I am willing to sacrifice myself for the other 4. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go grab a beer and fire up the ol' digital camera. Sassy M, you're a ho and so's your mom. I call dibs on The Blonde.

My Version Involved Ringing Some Punk Rock Doorbells

I made this up. Me. And now someone else is making a buck off it.

Chumps.

I Have Nothing to Say

I'm writing this at 5pm at the near-end of a long workday. I rolled out of bed around 7am and commuted to my job. All day I earned a paycheck. In half an hour, I'll commute home. If I'm lucky enough to catch a Blue line train right away (which rarely happens), I'll be home around 6:30. By the time I have eaten dinner and fed my animals, I will have exactly enough time to pay my bills before going to bed.

No one, save my exceptional partner, can live this way and still feel creative, passionate, and driven. Most of the time, I feel like taking a nap.

The majority of people I know in this city devote large chunks of their respective days -if not the entire day- to jobs they care nothing about. Then they wake up the next morning to do it over again.

But we've arrived, all of us. We're the pride of our middle-class families. We went to college. We graduated with good grades. We have nicer things than our parents did when they were our age. We have nicer things than they do now, in some cases. So what right do I have to complain?

Can't Stop. Won't Stop. Eh-Eh, Eh-Eh.

The Christian Coalition is urging the Senate to delay vote on the Castle-DeGette bill (H.R.810) in light of promising new advances with umbilical cord blood. These advances, they say, could eliminate the unethical killing of human embryos for scientific gains.

Here we go . . .

I’m not going to get into a discussion of right and wrong. I’m not going to claim that I know when human life begins, whether or not an embryo constitutes a life form, if there is a point at which the loss of human life is acceptable and if so where that point might exist.

However!

The Bush administration and its base have, in the past five years, completely railroaded the scientific community, questioned evidence regardless of its incontrovertibility, and have proposed educating American children with an unscientific “science” known as Intelligent Design. They have ignored the warnings of climate change scientists, going as far as to try and discredit their evidence (for more on this, check out House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton’s witch hunt of Dr. Michael Mann’s work). They have waged war on science from the beginning, blocking roads leading to scientific advancement via restrictive legislation and a lack of funding. As a result, the American biotechnology industry is beginning to lag behind China and Korea (among others). It won’t be long before the gap becomes too wide to close.

The Coalition’s argument is that if we explore this particular path, favoring cord blood rather than stem cell research, other paths need not be tread. This argument goes against the spirit of scientific research and exploration. Regardless of cord blood’s abilities to allay human ailments, stem cells have their own properties, their own potential. To ignore this potential is to ignore the pursuit of knowledge. On future missions to space, will we explore some far off worlds while ignoring others? When searching the Amazon for exotic plants that may hold the cure to our most unthinkable diseases, do we favor some flora over others? Was Galileo satisfied after discovering four small bodies in orbit around Jupiter? No. He went on to prove Copernicanism against the religious doctrine of the time. Was Newton satisfied when he discovered that white light was not an entity of itself, as every scientist since Aristotle had believed, but a mixture of different rays refracted at slightly different angles? No. He went on to discover and develop the laws of gravity.

Stopping at cord blood won’t happen. Bioengineers in other countries are already discovering the potential of embryonic stem cells. It’s only a matter of time before a geneticist from China begins to unlock the secrets of Multiple Sclerosis, Cystic Fibrosis, Type I Diabetes; only a matter of time before Korean scientists cure cancer; only a matter of years before India wipes out HIV and AIDS. How embarrassing will that be? We are the richest, most powerful, and most influential nation in the world; as such we should be at the forefront of scientific discovery. American scientific innovation has already suffered a decline. Allowing it to slip further into the depths would be a ghastly mistake.

Scientists are never satisfied with the knowledge they have. And make no mistake; scientists don’t go into their chosen field looking for fame and fortune; the search for scientific knowledge is a quest to elevate the status quo, to improve the common good. The formal title of the Castle-DeGette bill is, “To amend the Public Health Service Act to Provide for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Scientists using federal funds to research the potential of embryonic stem cells would do just that, service public health, public well-being. We would be downright lucky if our president would deign to do the same.

Because Dear Abby Sucks

Welcome to what we hope will become a regular, weekly segment here at Capitol Ideas: Because Dear Abby Sucks. As you may or may not have noticed, the quality of Jeanne Philips’ advice has declined steadily in recent years, to the detriment of the reading public, who inevitably walk around heeding the word of someone who is stuck in the 1950s. Instead of firing Ms. Philips, we will let stand her bland, outdated suggestions while offering advice that we hope will add balance to the world of the syndicated advice column.

Yours,
-WS

From "Dear Abby," August 18, 2005:

I live in a family-oriented neighborhood. My problem is my next-door neighbor flies his gay pride flag in his front yard. Because we have a lot of families with young children who do not need to be subjected to that kind of thing, I have asked him numerous times to remove it.

His response is it's a free country and he does not subject anybody to his lifestyle.

I strongly feel that in a neighborhood devoted to children's morals and the way life should be, he should not be allowed to have that flag in his front yard for everyone to see. I threatened if he didn't take it down, I'd call the police. I feel it's harming the children to see that flag flying, especially on a busy street that everyone travels on. What should I do? -- RIGHTEOUS IN NEW CASTLE, PA.

Dear RIGHTEOUS,

Unless your community has regulations regarding exterior decorations and the like, your neighbor is right to cite the Constitution in the face of your prejudice. Would you deny a Puerto Rican neighbor the right to display his nation's flag? While homosexuality isn't a nation, there is a "gay community" that exists (largely because of people like you, who take it upon themselves to drive away people who are different), one that is represented by a flag. A flag that its members and supporters have every right to display.

My advice to you would be to wake up. Homosexuality is not a disease to be stomped out. Homosexuality exists, and the earlier children are exposed to alternative lifestyles—not the details, mind you, but enough information for them to understand rather than fear the differences—the better our chances of someday living in a world without narrow-minded bigots like yourself. No one is trying to brainwash the children. Oh, except you. You're clearly trying to push your euro-centric, hetero-centric worldview onto your neighborhood.

Discrimination begins in the home, where parents pass on their prejudices to their children. If you have yet to procreate, please schedule a vasectomy ASAP. If some equally sickening bag of flesh has allowed you to mount and impregnate her, I suggest you gather the wife and the kids, go into the garage, start the car, and take a nap. You'll feel better when you "wake up."

Giggity-Giggity-Giggity: Hagel Looks to Escape the Quagmire

On ABC’s “This Week,” Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) compared the situation in Iraq to the situation in Vietnam, saying that we have contributed to the destabilization of the Middle East, and that our continued presence in Iraq will hinder the region further.

Sounds like someone is positioning himself for a presidential run.

Hagel’s been a suspect for the 2008 republican nomination for years, and it seems as though he’s banking on a certain strategy: pull away from the Bush administration, which, come 2008, should be just about as murky a quagmire as Iraq. Bush’s poll numbers are way down and still falling. His lowest numbers concern his handling of Iraq, both during the run-up to the war and during the war itself. It seems the country is beginning to realize that cocksure bravado does not a foreign policy make. Either that or they’re finally waking up to the fact that—surprise—our soldiers are still dying over there, the insurgency is still fighting us rabidly to control (at least) the fate of the country. Perhaps they didn’t get the message: mission accomplished. Did they not tune in to see Bush in his flight suit and codpiece?

At any rate, this is nothing new. In September 2004, Hagel said that the U.S. is in “deep trouble” in Iraq. In August 2004, he said that Iraq took away attention and resources from the War on Terror in Afghanistan. In July 2004, he railed the CIA over what he deemed to be an abuse of its intelligence position with regard to Iraq and WMDs. In that same month, he spoke out against the Iraq-Nigeria connection mentioned in the president’s State of the Union address, and confirmed that he believed that Iraq was not furthering it’s biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons programs.

I like Hagel. He’s a moderate, reality-based republican (don’t be offended by the term “reality-based” as opposed to “faith-based.” It’s the term the White House uses). On specific partisan issues, he’s a little too conservative for my taste; Hagel voted to loosen license and background checks at gun shows in 1999, offered a resounding nay! on including prescription drugs under Medicare in 2000, and has raised his hand in favor of each of Bush’s tax cuts. On the other hand, he’s sensible when it comes to nuclear weapons, defense, homeland security, and is more favorable to labor than some moderate liberals.

But I’m afraid of Hagel. Assuming the climate is right, he could whomp Hillary in 2008. If the American public isn’t completely disgusted with the Republican Party in three years, Hagel could very well take the Oval Office. He was an infantry squad leader in Vietnam, where he earned himself two Purple Hearts (take that John Kerry!). Assuming he has slightly more charisma than a scarecrow in a Mr. T mask, he could prove formidable.

In the big picture, though, this is not so bad. It will be nice to have a reality-based president, political affiliation notwithstanding, after eight years on George W. Bush’s Magical Mystery Tour Through The Land Of Oz (special appearances by Saddam Hussein! Tony Blair! Kim Jong Il! Osama bin Laden! Jesus Christ! Arnold Schwartzenegger! The 2004 Boston Red Sox! Pope John Paul II! And featuring performances by Toby Keith! 3 Doors Down! Karl Rove and the Leaks with additional singing by Scooter (short for Scooter Pie) Libby!). Besides. By then, democrats will have control of both houses of Congress. We won’t need the presidency. At least not as desperately as we do now.

It's Not Right to Discriminate, says Woman-Hating Rapper

Kanye West apparently has called for an end to gay-bashing in mainstream hip-hop. I'm taking the liberty of adding the word "mainstream", as the AP and Yahoo tend to forget that there is plenty of hip hop out there that has always been positive. Kanye hasn't discovered anything. Anyway, yay for calling people out, and such.

Now let's discuss your attitude about women.

Snoop Hog

I'd sign up my kid right away, if s/he were already conceived. And not the kind of kid that would get beat up by the kids who actually do play for the league.

Open Letters - David Gregory

Dear David Gregory,

Before this morning, I had tepid feelings towards you. You were not badass like Dan Rather, or gentle and fatherly like Tom Brokaw, or quietly intelligent like Peter Jennings. You lacked gravitas. You were just another unoffensive face for the camera, a John Siegenthaler, or a Kelly O'Donnell.

Today you proved that you are more -so much more. You are a teen pop star. At least, you are when you close your eyes and feel the music touch your soul. When the familiarly shrill melodies ring out, you will be there, singing into your hairbrush and weeping.

And what timing! In an age where news anchors are simply readers with fake tans, and not beacons of truth worthy of our trust and precious time, you have emerged as the symbol of our generation, the one true image we can all relate to: the defiantly awkward.

Keep the dream alive,
Himillsy D

If you don't read anything else today

...then why the hell are you reading my blog?

Seriously. Please read this.

Don't Go Eff Yourself. In Fact, Keep Talking.

From Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-Vt.) statement on the recent documents relating to the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts:

Those papers that we have received paint a picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party then, and now. In influential White House and Department of Justice positions, John Roberts expressed views that were among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, privacy, and access to justice.

My initial reaction to this statement was, “Christ, would you shut it?! You’re making us look bad. This is partisan rhetoric at its worst. If you start a tooth-and-nail fight over Roberts, who seems tame in light of who Shrub could have nominated, you’re going to have no ammunition if he decides to nominate a Scalia or Thomas clone to replace Rehnquist!”

An hour or so later, my lovely partner (in both criminal and legitimate activities) Himillsy asked me what I thought about Leahy’s statement.

This took me backwards, to an assertion that I had made a few months ago about Senate democrats who seemed to be asleep at the wheel with regard to criticisms of the Bush administration.

There exists a tightly knit cabal of Senators that I will call The Untouchables. These are hardcore liberals in stoutly democratic bastions who will probably never lose their seat to a republican no matter the baselessness of their accusations, no matter the boldness of their criticisms. The Untouchables include: Edward Kennedy (D-Mass), John Kerry (D-Mass), Joe Biden (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and, of course, Patrick Leahy. Give or take one or two.

The Untouchables have the increasingly rare ability to challenge the administration at every step; they can probe, question, request special investigations, call for impeachment, and so forth, with little or no consequence. Conservative voters and propagandists already abhor most of The Untouchables, call them liberal and radical, label them as ideologues. Yet these so-called radicals are elected each cycle because their rabidly liberal base values their representation, their contribution to the legislative process.

So what if Leahy attacks Roberts? He’s not hurting his chances for reelection in 2010, those on the right already see him as a cranky old liberal, and his words should provide for a healthy, spirited discourse on the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Isn't that what politics is all about (To say nothing of the fact that I think Leahy's absolutely right. Because that's a post for another time)?

Needless to say, more of The Untouchables need to step up and and start going to bat for their constituents, many of whom see Roberts as a threat to their civil liberties, not to mention their basic human rights.

Letting Others Do the Work For Me!

Sam Rosenfeld, daily contributor to Tapped Online, has posted a brilliant entry on House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Dan Young's (R-Alaska) bribery of prominent members of the House Steering Committee, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), with juicy, juicy pork. Speaking of DeLay, Rosenfeld also makes note of a republican-sponsored golf tournament to drum up some cash for the legal defense of Jim Ellis and John Colyandro, two DeLay fundraisers recently indicted on charges of money laundering.

You should talk to R. Kelly

Apparently, the P was getting between him and his fans.

If You're Judging by the Democrats' Past Defense, It's Really More Like a Farce . . .

The AP is reporting that John Roberts, writing for the Reagan White House, proclaimed that holding memorial services for aborted fetuses was “an entirely appropriate means of calling attention to the abortion tragedy.”

This is news, apparently, because of the word “tragedy,” the position of which obviously indicates Roberts’ position as a woman-hating religious fanatic.

Have progressives really allowed the abortion debate to spin so far out of control that even the mainstream media is under the impression that we’re cold, cynical, infant-slaughtering maniacs?

Do we not view the act of abortion as a tragedy? We do. The mantra of the ultra-liberal Clinton administration was never “Abortions to all and to all a good night,” but “Safe, legal, and rare.”

The problem with democrats is that they seem to have no defense against the religious right when it comes to abortion. Clearly, they have morals and we do not.

In that funny liberal way, we want to educate people and to give them choices. We believe that people, equipped with the proper information, will, more often than not, make the right decisions. Such is the case with our view on abortion; we don’t like abortion any more than religious zealots, but we understand the need for it. The goal is to educate young people, give them access to birth control, and cross our fingers. As Slate Magazine’s Science Writer and Resident Genius William Saletan noted in January 2005:

. . . the abortion rate fell drastically during her husband's presidency but has risen in more states than it has fallen under George W. Bush. I'm sure these trends have more to do with economics than morals, but that's the point. Once we agree that the goal is zero, we can stop asking which party yaps more about fighting abortion and start asking which party gets results.

The article, lauding a speech by Hillary Clinton in which she turned the typical democratic argument for abortion on its head, goes on to detail how the 2008 presidential hopeful (cross your fingers) used the right’s own language against them. Family. Faith. Values. And this is nothing new. Again, the Clintons were never as “liberal” on the issue of abortion as they were made out to be.

And neither are we. I think every last supporter of the right to choose will agree with me when I say that in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. No need for them.

But we don’t live there. Probably we never will. The best we can do is arm our children with the facts. We can’t outlaw abortion because it’s unconstitutional. And, to turn more of their language against them, if we outlaw abortions, only the outlaws will have abortions, and they will become neither safe, nor legal, nor rare.

Further, Saletan says:

Admit the goal is zero, and people will rethink birth control. "Seven percent of American women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies," Clinton said. That number drew gasps from her pro-choice audience. I bet if she translated it to abortions, it would knock folks in Ohio out of their chairs. How many abortions are you willing to endure for the sake of avoiding the word "condom"? Clinton says we can cut the bortion rate through sex education, money for family planning, and requiring health insurers to cover contraceptives.

Roberts was right: abortion is a tragedy. So let’s quit screwing around and map out a realistic plan to hit that target number.

Get behind Hillary, people. She’s going to completely change the face of American politics. And not just because she’s going to be the first female president.

The Harper Valley PTA Is Jealous of the Publicity

A Delaware judge this week threw out a lawsuit brought by the ACLU against the Indian River School District Board of Education. The board, the suit claimed, was in violation of the Constitution’s “Establishment Clause” when it chose to open meetings with prayer. Finn Laursen, Executive Director of the Christian Educators Association International was quoted as saying, "School board members have First Amendment rights. The outrageous part is that it was even in doubt."

Somehow, in this story from the Christian Wire Service, the term “Activist Judge” never came up . . .

It is interesting to me the dichotomy that exists among some Christians in the political realm. They do not want judges legislating from the bench. They do, however, apparently want them to violate the Establishment Clause. They claim to want to read the Constitution as the framers intended. Except they want to inject a serum of highly concentrated evangelism (a Christian sect that didn’t even exist in the late 18th century) into the veins of the discussion. They want to claim that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the rest were devout Christians (when, in fact, the majority of the framers were devout deists).

At minimum, the Establishment Clause exists to establish a “wall of separation” between church and state. The personal writings of Jefferson and Madison say as much (in fact, the quote belongs to Jefferson, from an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association). It was not, as some Christians believe, a one-dimensional wall designed to allow religion to roam freely, but to restrict the state from dictating church affairs. Why would Jefferson, who disbelieved most of the Christian tradition as myth (read the Jefferson Bible), support uninhibited propagation of the myths to the masses? Jefferson had respect for Jesus Christ as a great philosopher, but did not believe him to be the messiah. Ask your pastor and he will tell you: This equals NOT A CHRISTIAN.

One of the things that throws me into a great rage is the revisions of history that have taken place by the religious right in recent years. Those that would like to see America reborn (or, I suppose, “born again”) as a theocracy have taken it upon themselves to carefully and quietly rewrite American history using bogus information. Propagandist David Barton, perhaps the worst of the lot, has used false quotes from the founding fathers. There exists a collection of quotes, none of which can be confirmed, all of which contradict nearly everything the speaker has ever said or written. Take a popular “quote” by James Madison:

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, nor upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.

Guess what? It’s false. Completely and utterly false. Now go here.

Disturbing.

Madison worked his tail off to disestablish the Anglican Church in Virginia (it was, as an English colony, subject to the state sponsored religion). Not so he could install a different, more palatable brand of Christianity (let’s face it: it doesn’t get an easier than Anglicanism), that’s for certain. Because, really, what sense does that make?

Oh, and the republicans are pulling the same shit to keep their guns.

Were the founders spiritual men? Without a doubt! And when you get right down to it, who isn’t? I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe in something. But that’s the issue, isn’t it? Religion and spirituality are so personal and so pluralistic that allowing religious expression in a public forum will become cumbersome if everyone is allowed to express themselves as they see fit. Certainly the prayer recited at the beginning of the Indian River Board of Education meetings isn’t far-reaching enough to cover everyone. That would take hours. A prayer to the Judeo-Christian God. Then to Jesus. Then to Allah. A mantra or moment of silence and meditation for the Buddhists. Prayers to each of the thousands of Gods in the Hindu pantheon. A shout out to Gaia, the Earth Mother. Props to the Oversoul. Don’t forget Zeus, and Kelly Clarkson (for all you idol worshippers out there) followed by a short period of intellectual discussion of “truth” for the atheists and agnostics.

And those Ten Commandments displays? They must be accompanied by excerpts from the Koran, the Toa Te Ching, the Upanishads, the writings of Charles Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould, Bob Dylan lyrics, Star Wars quotes, chunks of the Pali Cannon and the Lotus Sutra, bits from the English Book of Common Prayer, depictions of African tribal rites, etc. If everyone is not spiritually satisfied, then the display is inherently discriminatory.

And the same goes for public prayer. Regardless of what I believe, we cannot institute state sponsored prayer (and that’s what it is; when the Board of Education meets, who do you think pays for the facilities? Taxpayers!), or any other form of religious expression unless everyone is given a piece of the action. Unless the prayer is actually a moment of silence, during which the religious can pray to their God(s) and the irreligious can balance their checkbooks, then it should be disallowed.

I'm Taking Friday Off, Pt. I

Word.

DeLay Speaks! Country Does Spit Take, Pinches Self

The following is from a statement released by the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) on the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) new report, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update":

-- The unanticipated increase in revenues this year is largely the result of temporary factors such as an increase in corporate tax receipts, and revenues in future years are expected to trend back quickly close to the levels projected last March;
-- Real economic growth has been slightly slower than CBO
forecast earlier this year, and CBO's outlook for the economy over the next 10 years has become slightly less optimistic -- CBO now projects that real gross domestic product will be lower this year and every year for the next 10 years than it had earlier projected (nominal GDP is slightly higher because of higher-than-anticipated inflation this year and next); and,
-- There has been essentially no improvement in the bleak deficit outlook
or the next 10 years, even excluding the cost of legislation enacted since arch. When you take into account the President's proposed extension of expiring tax cuts, continuation of current Alternative Minimum Tax relief, and conservative estimate of future funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, projected deficits never dip below $330 billion over the next 10 years and total $4.0 trillion over the 2006 - 2015 period.

The following is a statement from Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) on the same report:

"The falling deficit projections should come as no surprise to
anyone aware of Republican fiscal policies. Lower taxes and
spending discipline spur economic growth, which in turn cuts the deficit.

"The American people are now reaping the benefits of
conservative economic stewardship, and we in Congress hope to build on this positive momentum in the coming months."

Quite a leap, isn't it? The "Republican fiscal policies" that DeLay speaks of have been absent from the administration's and congress' agenda for years. The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have cost taxpayers over $187 BILLION.

And how about the energy bill ($12.3 billion)? You know, the one that does little to curb our dependence on foreign oil and gives huge tax breaks to the energy industry (DeLay gave his own district and friends $1.5 billion in kickbacks that he slipped in after the conference committee had adjourned)?

Or Check out the ill-advised and bloated highway bill (at 286.4 billion), chock full of $24 billion in pork. Not to mention that Montana will receive $440 per person (the third-highest per-capita sum) for various projects. Aren't there like two roads in Montana? Like a million people?

The highest per-capita? Alaska! WTF, you say? WTF indeed! Apparently, though, Rep. Dan Young (R-Alaska) wants to build a ridiculous bridge and name it after himself, so it's OK.

This is lower spending?

Probably it's is no surprise to you, oh wise and powerful Internet, that Tom DeLay is full of shit. If the economy recovers at all from the beating it has taken during the Bush administration, it will be a miracle.

Uptown Clint Plays the Hits

It has come to our attention that Bill Clinton is releasing a favorite-songs compilation. We're not even going to touch the songs that should have been included, but it did get us wondering about some other compilations that could be just behind...

Robert Novak:
I Know You've Come to Take My Toys Away - The Mountain Goats
What Do You Want Me to Say? - The Dismemberment Plan
Debate Exposes Doubt - Death Cab for Cutie

Cindy Sheehan:
Alright, Alright (Here's My Fist Now Where's the Fight?) - Sahara Hotnights
Captain Badass - Songs: Ohia
He War - Cat Power

Post yours here!

Another Justice Sunday and We Weren't Invited

Tom DeLay was, and he clearly knows justice. Oh well, that's why he's the House Majority Leader and I'm having chickpeas in my cubicle.

The highlights of the day:

• About 15 people lent the event more credibility than it deserved by counter-protesting in a heat index of 105. Why do people do this? You risked your health to stand outside and look like a small crowd next to a much larger crowd. How does that help your cause?
• Speakers, ranging from DeLay to Zell Miller to several ministers (all male; women only spoke at the pre-event) gave essentially the same speech outlining what issues the judiciary should not be allowed to decide, including parental notification, euthanasia, abortion, equal marriage, and whether people should put the Ten Commandments on government property.
• The phrase "activist judge" was uttered at least 100 times, and gloriously misused by this guy.
  

Here's another perspective on activist judges and the slippery slope of activist doctors, and activist-anyone-who-disagrees-with-you.

You Can Bet Kevin Bacon Is In There Somewhere

Sigh. This again.

Tod Lindberg is spouting drivel over at the Washington Times, showing support for the theory that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The crux of his initial assumption is essentially: They’re both brown people who hate America so they must have been in cahoots! While I’m being crass, that’s the claim when you boil it down: “The Saddam-al Qaeda connection (which is not the same as a Saddam-September 11 connection) was there, at least as a matter of affinity . . .” You know. For each other’s brownness and America-hating.

Without such a connection, he asks, why would the influx of Sunni extremists be welcomed by the Baathist remnants? Why would they spontaneously unite to fight American soldiers if there had not been a longstanding relationship between the two parties?

Because the Baathist remnants were facing a quick defeat at the hands of the U.S. military. Saddam had an army, one that engaged U.S. forces and promptly had their asses handed to them. The Baathists didn’t use terrorist tactics, targeting children, detonating car bombs, posing as civilians.

The Sunni extremists that flocked across the Iraq borders were not so much welcomed, as Mr. Lindberg claims; they let themselves in because we hadn’t bothered to shut the door behind us (affirming most of Europe’s speculation that, yes, we were all raised in a barn). They then helped themselves to weapons caches that we had not secured, and joined forces with the Baathist remnants out of immediate necessity. Theirs was a mutually beneficial relationship; the Baathists knew the lay of the land, and the Sunnis had the training to execute an effective campaign.

Make no mistake: this was not a planned excursion. The insurgents came from all over the Middle East to target American soldiers, not to help their old pals. It is a direct response to Western presence in the Middle East, which is the reason for most every suicide bombing perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.

There's Much Need to Fear

According to the new study, “Emergence of the Progressive Blogosphere: A New Force in American Politics,” conservatives outnumber liberals in the blogosphere, especially at the local level. Experts from the New Politics Institute say that while 24 of the top 40 most popular blogs are liberal, the conservatives have a decided advantage with the next 210, opening a margin of 133 to 77.

Rather than commenting on how this is just another way in which the people’s party is losing, I’m going to wonder how the GOP is going to spin this to maintain their perennial underdog status. They will, at some point, attempt to reignite this fantasy in which they’re the party/candidates/24-hour news channel no one picked to win it all. The general public, somehow, is still warm to this strategy, even thought the current incarnation of the Republican party controls all three executive branches of the government (and many state governorships and legislatures), runs a multi-billion dollar a year propaganda machine, and has firm control over the blogoshphere.

The aforementioned machine, after all, still decries what it calls the “Liberal Media.”

Huh? It’s like that ghost story where a guy goes out on a date with a girl, only to find out at the end of the evening that the girl’s been dead for a decade.

Internet, listen to me: the Liberal Media died on September 11, 2001. As soon as Bush proved that there was no photo op he couldn’t conquer, no widow he couldn’t console, no group of firemen who’s collective ass he couldn’t kiss, the curious, inquiring, challenging media gasped its final breath and the so-called Fourth Estate closed its gates faster than the Wonka factory.
Since 9/11, the administration has been adamant about not answering to the press or the American public. To a large extent, the press has become complacent, standing by while Bush and friends run roughshod over our civil liberties, used false and faulty intelligence to wage war in Iraq, employed smear tactics to discredit a former ambassador, exposing his wife, a covert CIA agent, in the process, neglected the hunt for the terrorist responsible for 9/11, largely ignored actual nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea . . . the list goes on.

Instead, the administration has been running screens, distracting the public from the issues that should have raised at least a few dozen more pairs of eyebrows:

Problem: We can’t find Osama bin Laden!
Distraction: Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction

Problem: The Democratic National Convention is this week!
Distraction: Raise the meaningless Terror Alert Level

Problem: Things in Iraq are not going well at all!
Distraction: Go on tour to talk about your terrible plan for Social Security

Problem: People hate my Social Security plan!
Distraction: Talk tough on terrorism. Spreading democracy, blah, liberty, blah, blah, freedom, blah

Problem: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby may well have had a role in exposing Valerie Plame.
Distraction: Nominate John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court

The only real, visible member of the mainstream media who dared challenge the administration on anything was Dan Rather. During the 2004 campaign, Rather ran with an ill-advised story about President Bush’s National Guard service that, as it turned out, was based on false documents. And Rather was crucified. Bush’s whereabouts during those undocumented months are heretofore unexplained, and, to my knowledge, the question has not been raised since. Meanwhile, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a bogus 527 funded by some big-money Texans, was, with the help of the Republican Propaganda Machine, able to question the documented exemplary service record of Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.). Stories of the Senator’s heroics are backed up official government documents detailing how he saved the lives of his fellow soldiers in Vietnam. And they smeared him, planting seeds of doubt amongst the American people, with Bush and his cronies adding the bullshit, er, fertilizer.

Where’s did Osama bin Laden? Where did the Rove story go? Why aren’t these people being held accountable for the blood that drips from their fingertips? Why isn’t someone holding Bush’s feet to the goddamned flames of retribution for the crimes he’s committed? It’s OK for the Propaganda Machine to question to motives of a grieving mother keeping a vigil outside the president’s ranch, to beat that poor woman further into the ground with their insufferable hatred, but it’s not OK for the press to probe for answers as to why we’re in Iraq?

Wake up, people! Think critically!

These are not the underdogs. These people are firmly in control. They’ve got your civil liberties in their pocket, along with congress, the Supreme Court, most of Middle America, and, worst of all, the press.

Be vigilant, folks. That’s all I ask.

Open Letter

Dear Would-Be Pundits Everywhere,

Yes, the new White House chef is a woman. No, it is not ironic that the administration named a woman to the kitchen, but not to the bench. Female chefs work extraordinarily hard to overcome the boys' club mentality in culinary schools and kitchens across the world. Good female chefs are rarely recognized to the extent that they deserve.

Want irony? Try the fact that the White House chef's speciality is not American cuisine, but French.

Chew on that,
Himillsy D

Place Bets NOW!

The big question in my mind as we hurdle into the weekend is whether or not Jack Abramoff is going to squeal on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), and Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio).

Now, I'm not claiming to know Abramoff personally, nor am I claiming to be clairvoyant. Abramoff and his associate Adam Kidan could very well have clean hands, but, based on the indictments, and Abramoff's dealings in other areas, I'm convinced this is simply a bead on condensation on the tip of the iceberg.

The DNC noted yesterday that six big time republican donors are under investigation for some misdeed or other.

I'm as partisan as the next guy, but here's the deal: democrat or republican, these people are corrupt. They're abusing their power, making backdoor deals with sleazy folks like Abramoff to increase their own personal wealth. Anyone who's made a nickel off of Abramoff has to go.

I am ashamed of the representatives in particulars, because a seat in the House of Representatives was never supposed to be a position of any real power, was never supposed to net one wealth or fame. The House is the chamber ofthe everyman, one who is representative of his or her constituency. Drop the idea of a House seat as a stepping stone to bigger and better things. If you want to play that way, play in your own state. Leave the rest of us alone.

At any rate, Abramoff is scum. I tend to think, based on what I know, that he is not a man of integrity. Which makes me think he's going to sing until his lungs give out. He'll bring down half the Republican Party before he serves a full prison term for wire fraud.

I wonder if Shrub is going to regret that federal crackdown on white-collar criminals? 25 Years for the WorldCom CEO doesn't look so much like a victory now . . .

So what do you think? Does he sing? Does he keep his mouth shut? I'll keep a pool going if anyone is interested . . .

Thurs, Aug. 18 - Capitol Party @ Zola

It's our buddy Liz's birthday and we're celebrating this Thursday, August 18 at Zola, located at 800 F St NW, at 7pm. Come out and raise a White Knight cocktail to a cool girl. If you want to bring a present, she likes good wine and cheap men.

Why no pot luck?

Oral synthetic Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinal (THC), marketed in the US as Marinol, is nowhere near as effective as the natural THC found in marijuana in easing the suffering of those with terminal illnesses, according to a report by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) Foundation. The report, titled, “Marinol Versus Natural Cannabis: Pros, Cons and Options for Patients,” delivers the following bad news to individuals dying of cancer and other debilitating diseases:

Marinol is without many of the soothing, naturally occurring compounds—called cannabinoids—found in cannabis.

Marinol is more psychoactive than cannabis.

Marinol costs more to produce, distribute, and market than cannabis.

You mean the highly processed, lab-created alternative isn’t as good as the organic kind? That never happens!

Check it: The criminalization and demonization of pot is a symbolic victory in the War on Drugs and the feds aren’t budging on it. They’re going to continue to use every tentacle of the government (I'm looking at you, SCOTUS) to propagate the myth that marijuana, in and of itself, is a danger, especially to kids and teens.

The “bad effects” of marijuana, according to The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA):

Some users can undergo bad effects from marijuana. They may suffer sudden feelings of anxiety and have paranoid thoughts. This is more likely to happen when a more potent variety of marijuana is used.

Anxiety and paranoia! Nothing a little Zoloft won’t fix, right Pfizer?

But wait! Here is what NIDA says could happen if you use marijuana regularly:

Does marijuana affect school, sports, or other activities?

It can. Marijuana affects memory, judgment and perception. The drug can make you mess up in school, in sports or clubs, or with your friends. If you’re high on marijuana, you are more likely to make mistakes that could embarrass or even hurt you. If you use marijuana a lot, you could start to lose interest in how you look and how you’re getting along at school or work.Athletes could find their performance is off; timing, movements, and coordination are all affected by THC. Also, since marijuana can affect judgment and decisionmaking, its use can lead to risky sexual behavior, resulting in exposure to sexually transmitted diseases like HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

What does all this mean (if you’re an adult, feel free to replace, “school and sports” with, say, “work and dating”)? Well, it means that if you use marijuana (or, say, view pornography, play video games, watch too much television, or overeat) you could ruin your health and your life. They never say explicitly that marijuana causes any foul ups. Just that, depending on who’s using it, it could. If I’m not mistaken, the same holds true for handguns and alcohol as well . . .

I digress. The message I’m getting from the government is: if you’re prone to poor judgment anyway,pot probably isn’t for you. Like if you’re this guy.

Further, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug; it is purported to have no medicinal properties (even though it has been proven to relieve nausea) and possesses highly addictive properties. Schedule 1 drugs are the most restricted. Meanwhile, heroin and cocaine are Schedule 2 drugs, narcotics with highly addictive properties, but some medical relevance. Meaning a doctor would have an easier time prescribing heroin or cocaine than marijuana. WTF?

The ultimate question: Why can’t the sick-and-dying use pot to ease their suffering? Surely they have bigger things to worry about than “messing up in school.”

The answer, oh lovely Internet, is folded neatly into that last piece of bad news: Marinol costs more. Which means someone—cough-Solvay Pharmaceuticals-cough—gets paid more. Marijuana is, for lack of a better term, a home remedy. Patients can grow it in their homes, pull a plug off the side of the plant, and dull their pain without the help of a pharmacist or a drug company. That’s the underlying issue here: No one’s making any money off the terribly, terribly ill.

Pharmaceutical companies are mobilizing to battle several emerging prescription drug savings plans (which include bulk purchases, group buys, etc) across the country. Lobbying has increased dramatically. And republicans are getting generous contributions to ensure they fight for the drug companies’ right to extort money from each and every huddled mass in America.

"That's shocking"...said no one

Apparently, DC is too difficult for tourists to navigate. And because DC is a low-cost Disneyworld for the taxpayers of middle America and not an actual city where people live and work, the tourists weighed in this week with suggestions for making their experience more enjoyable:

• Structure the train system so that illiterate preschoolers could follow the map. Use colors instead of words where possible, to simplify the process for non-native speakers. Maybe something like this?
• Offer free maps, free city guides, and an interactive website so that tourists can plan ahead before taking themselves and their families into an unfamiliar city
• Offer a station map in every Metro station so that tourists can determine which side of the platform will take them in their desired direction
• Offer farecard machines that accept multiple forms of legal tender and offer appropriate options for day travelers, one-way travelers, and weekly travelers
  
• Offer escalators and exits so that tourists are not trapped in Metro stations

Regardless of whether or not these offerings are made, tourists will still continue to follow their time-honored survival methods:

• Asking me for directions
• Asking me why we don't do things like they do in New York. Or Nebraska.
• Standing to the left.
  

More Than Meets The Eye!

While it is a relatively new entry in the dictum of pop culture punditry, the term “Neo-Con” has already begun to get under my skin. I value the term in a pejorative sense; I like having a snappy comeback when and if someone on the right decides to throw the (unfortunately) dreaded L-word at me. What bothers me is that the term is already being misused. Neo-Con is emerging as the blanket term for anyone who’s right of center.

This is incorrect. Neo-Cons have made it clear that they do not value the social side of conservatism as much as their counterparts on the religious right; their top priority is an aggressive foreign policy that places America at the top of the heap, spreads democracy and capitalism. Lowering taxes and dismantling or opposing social programs. And if they have time, they’ll go to church.

Let’s get this clear: Bush is not a Neo-Con. Call him anything you like: Rapture Rightist, Jesus Freak, whatever. But please don’t call him a neo-con because, while he does believe and practice neo-con principles, he has shown time and time again that his faith comes first.

So we need a replacement blanket term for everyone to the right of the focal point. I say, let’s call a spade a spade:

Decepticons

I think it fits rather nicely. Covers almost everyone, just like a blanket should.

Camelot it's not . . .

I'm going to strangle Peggy Noonan (from yesterday's WSJ):

"Saddam had had weapons of mass destruction and used them on the Kurds. It wasn't a huge leap to think he still had them, and would use them again."

What? He had weapons of mass destruction in the late 80's. We've been to war with him since, decimated his military, imposed economicsanctions, and sent wave after wave of U.N. weapons inspectors into the country for years. And it's not a big leap to think he had WMDs? WTF?

And let's be clear: the WMDs Noonan's talking about are chemical bombs--mustard gas. Hardly a militaristic achievement. These aren't nukes. Further, there exists a dispute as to whether or not Saddam intentionally gassed his own people, because the bombings took place in the thick of the Iran-Iraq war, and there were Iranian victims as well (regardless, I don't think the dictator shed any tears for the decimated kurds).

And finally, because the United States (read: Reagan and HWBush) backed the lesser of two evils (read: Saddam) in that conflict, I don't think it would be a big leap to say that the WMDs wereprovided by, either materially or financially, by the US military.

And then there's this:

"It started with terror and has ended with no-terror-since."

Um, not exactly. Noonan herself notes that "we've been through a lot since then . . . attacks on Spain and London . . . " Those two quotes are contradictory. While she means that there has been no attack on American soil, the idea that Bush has ended terrorism with his policies is particularly mind-numbing. People all over the world are in danger. This isn't a global war on terror because America owns the globe; it's a global war on terror because everyone that lives in a semi- or pro-western society has a stake in it, has something to fear from terrorism and something to gain from snuffing it out. There has been terrorism since 9/11. The bombings in Madrid altered an election, delivering a powerful defeat to the pro-western candidate, perhaps forever taking away a valuable European ally. The London bombings were an attempt, I think, to do the same. Just because the attacks are not directly on the US doesn't mean they don't have an impact on the US, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean they are not a direct result of Bush's policies.

I'm just going to mention that terrorism is perpetrated against American citizens everyday. In Iraq. On or off American soil, Americans are still dying from terrorism. And that is BUSH'S FAULT.

Last, there was an eight year gap between the 1993 WTC bombing and 9/11. So I don't want to hear it, Peggy Noonan. These guys know what they're doing. They will strike again. If they haven't, it's because they continue to exercise the restraint and patience that has made them so successful in their past endeavors.