Government Has No Right To Interfere, Unless You Are A Woman

The most restrictive abortion language in years is now a part of the debate on what the final bill will look like.

 

Sigh.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k

We Don't Know Enough Yet About Nidal Malik Hasan

Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist, opens fire at Ft. Hood in an enclosed area on unarmed men and women, killing 12 and wounding over 30 people before being brought down by a police officer. Throughout the day, we were given numerous news reports, most in error, but the name of the shooter was released early along with the reports of his death. I find it interesting that although they were not sure until hours later that he was solely responsible, and that we were not told until hours later that he was alive, we were given his name almost immediately.

Why?

Could it be because it is a Muslim name? If so, what were we supposed to make of it?

I know what the conservative media is making of it. On the furthest fringes of the right, World Net Daily claims that Nidal Malik Hasan advised President Obama. That lasted less than an hour as the headlines didn't even match the story they wrote. Evidently, he attended - as did hundreds of others - a conference. His name was listed in the program because he had sent in his RSVP. See how easy and what little it takes to set off the right wing fringies?

The news shows - even my favorites - were full of experts commenting on the state of Nidal Malik Hasan's mental health, while others suggested that this was a terrorist attack, a jihad because he is a secret Muslim extremist. Still others discussed PTSD, either pro or con - one 'expert' claimed that a psychiatrist could not possible suffer from PTSD because 1) he had never been in combat, and 2) he was a psychiatrist who treated PTSD so therefore could not get it. sigh. This one, offers the theory that even though Nidal Malik Hasan must be mentally ill to behave in this manner (although not PTSD), it must be an act of terrorism because he has a Muslim name.

Unfortunately, what I am seeing most often all over the net today is the latter. This is scary and very dangerous. Today, we had a mass shooting in Orlando, Florida. That gunman was also caught. I don't recall, during the approximately three hours it took before he was in custody, any media source discussing the suspected shooters religion or organizational affiliations. No one wondered - since he is white - if he might not be a Tea Bagger, or a right-wing extremist, even though they're the ones exhibiting the most violent behavior in this country lately.

Regarding Nidal Malik Hasan, all or none of the theories set forward may be true. We just don't know yet. At last report, he is in a coma. It is reported that he is a Muslim, that he was born in this country and raised as a Muslim. I don't know if that is true, but it has been consistently reported from several sources, so it sounds credible. It is possible that he had a kind of secondary PTSD. I know that people, especially young people and people who are first responders elsewhere, who spent a lot of time watching the towers fall over and over again on television, experienced, if already vulnerable, a form of secondary PTSD. As a counselor, I know that I am vulnerable from the stories that I hear if I do not ensure that I guard against it. Every responsible counselor knows that they need counseling when they are in the kind of job that Nidal Malik Hasan was in.

As far as his Muslim name? I have family who have Muslim names and are Christian (there are Christians in the middle-east). And even if they weren't, we do still have freedom of religion in this country. I find it incredible that Muslims can be attacked and harassed in America, but in Iraq and Afghanistan, we send our children to give their lives to build their countries. When our soldiers are there, they understand that not everyone with a Muslim name is their enemy. Does no one see the disconnect?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sarah Palin Says "Jump," Republican Leadership Says "How High"

Today, Sarah Palin, the blogger from Alaska, will speak at a Right to Life event in Wisconsin. Running true to form, no press will be allowed, and to add to the bizarreness of the event, according to Mike Tate, Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman, no one entering the venue will be allowed to bring in a cell phone, camera, laptop, or any kind of recording device. Think she might be worried some of her insightful comments might make it out onto the intertubes?

Earlier in the week it was reported that she was asking $100,000 for an appearance in Iowa, a claim that her aides denied and it was later reported that she was asking only $75,000 and three first-class airline tickets. There is no doubt that she is seriously considering a run for the presidential nomination in 2012, especially after inserting herself into the NY-23 campaign and attempting to insert herself into the Virginia and New Jersey Republican campaigns (they declined, although they allow her to record robo-calls, minus any identifiers which unfortunately, run afoul of campaign law).

It is apparent that the GOP rather than move to the center in an effort to win back seats, has decided that ideological purity is the answer and so is investing its energy into tea parties and other extremist activities. Yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was in her glory as the GOP leadership joined her on the Capital steps, for the first time giving institutional approval to her - and by extension - Fox News's more radical and extreme astroturfing ideas.

What is fascinating about this endeavor by the GOP is that less than 20% of Americans now identify themselves as Republican. Fox News and the fringe of the Republican Party in the form of Michele Bachmann inflame the extremists and most radical libertarians - the ones that boo the Republican leadership at town hall meetings as often as the Democratic - and when faced with endorsing a moderate Republican (Scozzafava) or a wacko Conservative Party candidate (Hoffman) in New York, they choose Hoffman. Even losing a seat in Congress for the first time since before the Civil War is still a win in their eyes as they have removed someone from the party who is not pure enough to represent them. To them, it isn't about winning elections (and thus gaining seats), it's about shaping the ideology of the party and thus shaping the ideology of the country as a whole, forgetting that is just ain't gonna happen.

They know they cannot win elections without independents, but party purity is more important than winning elections. Isn't that what political parties are all about? Weird.

It doesn't matter who is in power. It doesn't matter what laws they write. It doesn't matter who has the money. There will always be liberals and progressives and libertarians. There will also always be wackos and extremists and people balancing on the edge who when riled up, will take up their guns and their bombs and use them and won't care if the government who riled them is Republican or Democratic.

I digress. In the past year since losing her bid to become vice president, Sarah Palin has snubbed the Republican Party more often than not. She has engaged where she should have ignored, and ignored when she should have engaged. When she should have taken the high road and acted like a politician and demonstrated that thick skin she claimed to have, she threatened lawsuits. At this point, I was going to say that when she was mistreated, but couldn't think of any examples. So, moving on.

Sarah Palin has never felt it necessary to fulfill her obligations, keep her promises, or apply laws and ethical rules to herself. For some reason, she retains a great following. She remains very popular in some circles and is able to attract large crowds. What she seems unable to do is recognize that those large crowds aren't big enough to elect her dogcatcher. She doesn't seem to understand that were she to run again for City Council in Wasilla, she would most likely lose. Her book hasn't even been released yet, but is available for purchase for less than ten dollars and in some places, less than five if you order a magazine. Most people would take this as a clue and begin to wonder if they should re-examine their career path. Sarah Palin's dictionary seems to be missing self-reflection or self-awareness.

It is apparent that Sarah Palin believes that she can chart her own course and that she does not think she needs the Republican Party. It is true that she has a niche that she appeals to and will likely retain their votes no matter what truths Levi reveals. It is apparent that the Republican Party, at least this week, is following Sarah Palin (and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck) rather than the reverse, but at some point, they will have to start reading the polls.

In a recent CNN poll, Sarah Palin's favorability rating was at 42% and her unfavorability rating was 15 points higher than Mike Huckabee's which is saying something. Seventy percent of Americans and 50% of Republicans do not think she is qualified to be president, and from where I sit, nothing she is doing is going to change that in the next two years.

We progressives and Democrats shouldn't sit back and stop worrying though. Obama and the Democratic Party won because of grassroots support and the turnout of young people, none of which showed up this week. Off year elections typically don't get much notice, but neither do the mid-terms even though they are as important to the President as the general election. Right now, astroturfed or not, the Tea Baggers are energized and truly hate Obama and the Democratic Party. Lies or not, they believe what they hear on Fox News. They won't listen to reason and don't want to be confused with the facts. To most of them, it is a holy war which makes it scarier than ever.

If grassroots is what won in 2008, it is also what will win in 2010 and 2012, and regardless of how unpopular the Republican Party is at this time, groundswells - even if generated by hate - have a habit of growing.

Sarah Palin isn't going away unless some one of the remaining ethics charges filed against her or -gates is actually found to have merit, and accompanied by enough evidence to force her to face criminal charges. In the meantime, for all who tell me to get over it, she's no threat, I think she is. The numbers may be small, but in NY-23, when she said "jump," the entire Republican leadership said "how high." That deserves our attention.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

I Love Alan Grayson Too, But ...

AKMuckraker (Mudflats) just tweeted that she loves Alan Grayson, linking to this. I am one of Rep. Grayson's biggest fans, but I wish he had waited a few days before doing his money bomb.

On Monday, almost evey progressive website had a link to Alan Grayson's Money Bomb hosted by Down With Tyranny. In addition to Grayson's appeal, the DNCC has been blasting everyone's inbox since the Finance Committee passed their healthcare bill, asking for money for 2010.

The problem? The Money Bomb was on Monday, Nov. 2. Tuesday was election day. Granted, there were only two national congressional races (both won by Democrats incidentally), but Question 1 in Maine lost by a hair. It is an issue that, supposedly, had Democratic support. But by blasting everyone's inboxes with requests for money races that were decided in 2009 that needed last minute help didn't have a chance of getting noticed.

Plus, shouldn't the DNCC get through one election before they start raising funds for the next? Couldn't the Money Bomb have been done on Wednesday or Thursday? I know the vote is likely to be this Saturday, but that's what a bomb is for - to get something done literally overnight.

Just a thought.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Michelle Bachman - Ms. Toons - Exploits the Holocaust

Thanks to Think Progress, we have these images of the signs used by Michelle Bachmann and her "House Call" protest on the steps of the Capital today. In case you think this is just Ms. Toons (as in Looney) acting on her own, she is joined at her news conference by House Members John Boehner, Minority Leader (OH), Eric Cantor, Minority Whip (VA), Roy Blunt (MO), Jeb Hensarling (TX), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Virginia Foxx (NC), Ginny Brown-Waite (FL), Jean Schmidt (OH), and Sue Myrick (NC)) as well as other members.

Look very closely at the next image, read the heading.

 

 

I don't know about you, but I am deeply offended by members of my government saying that the government (of which they are members) of my country (meaning me and you), is the same as Hitler's Germany.

I lived in Germany when it was divided. I worked in West Berlin, in fact, my office was in the building where the Generals' Coup was planned (and where they were executed). The year I lived there was the first year that the Holocaust was taught in German public schools. I had friends who had been in the Hitler Youth (if you lived in Germany you were either in the military or in Hitler Youth depending on your age). I learned a lot about the war, about what it was like to be German during WWII, and after. I studied Hitler and the holocaust. In this country, I have known people personally touched by the Holocaust and to have someone who obviously knows nothing about history try to equate the two is outrageous.

It is bad enough to have the right-wing wacko's talk of fascism and socialism and equate President Obama to Hitler. It is bad enough when Ms. Toons rallies her followers to arrive at the Capital and seek out their representatives until "they can see the whites of their eyes" a clear reference to shooting.* But this? But to have our leadership use these images and the kind of messages that they send and to have our MSM silently stand by in (seeming) approval is beyond comprehension and deeply, deeply offensive. 

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k

* In the Revolutionary War, there was a shortage of bullets, so soldiers were instructed to wait until they could "see the whites of their eyes" before firing

MSM, False Equivalencies, and Liz Cheney

From Media Matters Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher, in an online Q and A:

non-election question: Given Liz Cheney's sudden prominence (man, nepotism in DC never ceases to amaze me), I'm curious as to why none of you reporters are asking her questions re: her recent comments about Obama's trip to Dover. She said that Bush routinely made the same trip and didn't "stage photo ops." A) she flat out lied - Bush never went to Dover, B) he couldn't have had photos taken because of the Pentagon policy at the time and C) Mission Accomplished, anybody? Ultimate photo op. What gives? Or is being related to Dick sufficient to protect her from questioned?


Michael A. Fletcher:If we begin questioning Liz Cheney that way, then we would have to do the same with conservative (and liberal) commentators who make all kinds of charges every day. It is their way of making a (great) living. Some comments, I like to think, sink under their own weight.

This illustrates one of my ongoing pet peeves which I have discussed before. The supposed "liberal" mainstream media uses false equivalencies, softball questions, and careful timing to ensure that the "news" we are fed is slanted to make the current administration look foolish and inept and the Republican Party (despite its massive almost 20% of the population identifying itself as such) as the arbiters of reason.

David Gregory in particular is guilty of perpetuating the MSM move to stenography rather than actual reporting with his statement regarding the role of the press corps in the run up to the Iraq war:

I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn't do our job. "I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."

This is an example of something that happened years ago, but any sampling of the Sunday morning talks or the evening national news will show the same kind of "journalism." Panels sit around and discuss the issues of the day, carefully selected by the hosts. If the guest currently in the hot seat responds with something more controversial than the host is able or willing to handle, then it's time to move on. This past Sunday's Meet the Press with David Gregory kept the most controversial guest, Jon Krakauer, till the very end. He was then asked only a couple of questions about General McChrystal's role in the Pat Tillman case and the initial cover-up - discussed now because of McChrystal's current position in the news - and when Krakauer provided fairly damning answers, Gregory immediately wrapped it up. Great journalism. Tough interviewing. Oh wait. It's not his role.

Back to Liz and the Washington Post. The biggest question? Why are we seeing Liz Cheney on our tv machines at all? Her claim to fame? She is the daughter of the ex vice-president. Period. She did have a job at the State Department, but so does my cousin. And so do thousands and thousands of other people. Liz's job wasn't even particularly high up or particularly important. She oversaw a unit within a bureau that was one of eight managed by one of the Under Secretaries. I used to work at one of the PAC-10 universities (meaning it's huge). I managed the administrative functions of a unit within a division under one of the Vice Presidents, so I had one less layer between me and the top. Was I important? Absolutely not. Could I speak for the University? Absolutely not.

The next question? Why this false equivalency? A reporter hears an answer that is demonstrably false and shrugs because it will "sink under its own weight?" If they have to question every commentator, then why not? If their way of making a living is to lie, shouldn't they be called on it? Asked to back up their claims? Do slander and libel laws mean nothing anymore? Is journalism now simply reporting he said she said? It used to be gathering facts and examining what people said for truth and shining a light on what was going on behind the scenes so that the viewers and readers that did not have the kind of access that reporters have could know what was going on. That is the whole point behind the 1st Amendment and why the Founders put it first in the Constitution. 

What Liz talks about when she speaks about terrorism and the Bush Administration and foreign policy (and the return of fallen soldiers at Dover Airforce Base) is hearsay or conjecture at best. More likely, her comments are disinjenuous statements made to enhance her father's image, promote her own agenda, and belittle the Obama Administration.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Wishin' and Hopin'

Just for fun. Dusty Springfield with Martha Reeves and the Vandellas. Enjoy.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Kos Writes About Tuesday Night's Big Lesson

Markos Moulitsos (Kos) wrote last night on his blog, Daily Kos

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.
The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.

I rarely post anything in its entirety, but this was short and concise and makes a good point.

I've spent several hours this morning reading aggregate sites, blogs, newspapers, the MSM pundits from both the right and the left and the analysis is all over the board. I've written some of my own. What I find fascinating, is how many left-wing bloggers are (and have been) saying that we must stop criticising Obama. My own family tells me I must stop and give the man a chance - that it has only been a (month, few months, year). My son, the politics and government major whose thesis was on Clinton and the MSM, reminds me that Obama is the President of the whole country, not just the progressives (to which I remind him that it was the progressives who gave him a majority Congress).

I agree that Obama has accomplished a great deal in one year, relatively speaking, and that he was handed a bigger mess than any president ever has with more restrictions coming in (the stimulus was Bush's, the status of forces agreement was Bush's, TARP was Bush's ...). But, does that mean that we are not to hold him accountable for the promises made in his campaign?

• Don't ask, don't tell
• Guantanamo
• Torture investigations
• Transparency
• Regulations on Wall Street
• Iraq & Afghanistan
• Health care

In every case, Obama has either changed his mind, begun discussions so close to the bottom that any legislation would be close to worthless (health care), or put people in charge that were part of the problem and allowed them to craft the solutions. Instead of taking a strong stand, he holds back. Yes, we did vote for a President who would take a measured, informed approach to problem solving. But we did not vote for a President who is going to straddle the center line at the expense of the ideals of his party.

Obama has said over and over and over again that he is committed to bipartisanship, that we want bipartisanship. No we don't. Sure, we would like Congress to get things done, but I don't think at the end of the day that anyone cares who votes for what. The American people gave him an overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate because we want change and we told him that we wanted the change that he said he would bring. I understand that it will take time. He said it would. But change doesn't happen if he doesn't at least begin. I don't understand why he allowed Congress to begin negotiating healthcare at the bottom, why it had to be a 50/50 committee that crafted the Senate plan, why he is going back on his word on the wars, on torture, on transparency, and so many other issues.

This election yesterday was not a referendum on Obama, but if he doesn't get it together quickly, the historic election of 2008 will be wasted and he'll lose Congress. He said that he would be happy to be a one term president if he could accomplish what he set out to do. I'm beginning to wonder if that's true.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

What's With All These Anonymous Sources? WH Slurs Anthony Weiner

According to Ben Smith at Politico (Politico dot com), an anonymous White House staffer, responding to Rep. Anthony Weiner suggested he should have "manned up" and made a run for New York mayor himself. WTF?

In discussing the closeness of the mayor's race despite Bloomberg's $100+ million in personal funds to purchase the seat, Weiner had commented that if Obama had made one of his trips to New York instead of New Jersey, maybe the Democrat would have won, thus generating the slur from the White House.

I for one am grateful that Rep. Weiner decided to remain in Congress where he remains one of the few outspoken voices in favor of universal health care. Weiner is an outspoken progressive voice and would be a great loss to the Progressive Caucus if he left Washington for local politics.

The larger issue, however, is the continuing use by the MSM of anonymous sources and the requirement by the Administration and other leaders to speak off the record, even when what they have to say does not (or should not) require it. Why exactly, does a comment about Rep. Weiner needing to "man up" need to be anonymous? Would it be embarrassing if attributed to the speaker? Perhaps. Would the speaker get in trouble with the President or someone high up in the Administration? Perhaps. Or maybe the speaker is the President or someone high up in the Administration (although I can't see Ben Smith having that kind of access to the President). So what?

What exactly does "a White House Official" mean? Is it the gatekeeper? Or the Chief of Staff? How do we know? We are so used to reporters citing anonymous sources that we no longer question it. Sources demand anonymity for everything, and are granted it, even when the conditions don't warrant it. And we get slurs coming out of the White House with no attribution that make the Administration look bad (and yes, it is a gender slur - would someone suggest that a woman or a gay man up?).

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
h/t America Blog

So Now NY-23 Doesn't Matter? Sarah Palin's Balancing Act Ahead

We certainly live in interesting times. Off-year elections typically generate as much interest as a limp teabag, and that is apparently what we've got in upstate New York. However, the day after excitement is almost as high as that leading up to the election. At least for us political junkie types.

Interesting side note (h/t Media Matters) that updates a comment in my last post. It seems that Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reported on Monday that a loss in NY-23 would be disastrous for the Republican Party (despite the fact that Doug Hoffman, the challenger ran on the Conservative Party ticket) and will highlight the deep divisions in the party. Today, NY-23 is not even on the radar as he exclaims that the Republican wins will energize the party and set the stage for fund-raising, attracting candidates, and whipping up the base.The significance of a loss in 23, now? Not so much.

The greater implications, in my opinion, are to Sarah Palin. Her behavior is clearly that of someone who is planning to make a run for president in 2012, although someone who either has very poor advisors, or more likely, someone who knows it all and refuses to listen to those advisors (you just cannot ask people to pay to hear you speak in Iowa, a state you must win if you want to win the primaries).

Palin's decision to support Hoffman in NY-23 and her victory in running Scozzafava out of the race energized the Tea Bagger fringe of an already weakened party. Not quite 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans at this time, and Sarah Palin has clearly decided to chart her own course. By refusing to attend Republican events over the past year, and now supporting Hoffman, it is clear that Palin believes that she can either re-form the Republican Party or form her own.

Interestingly, in demanding purity - as defined by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - Republican leaders who had been supporting Scozzafava immediately threw their support behind Hoffman as soon as Palin and Fox News did rather than suffer the media backlash that would most certainly have occurred. Republicans planning to run in 2012, particularly Pawlenty, who was the most surprising because of his previous moderation, almost shoved each other out of the way to jump on that bandwagon.

Rather than widen the umbrella and try to appeal to a wider base, the Republican Party is following the wacky GOPhers on Fox News and the blogger from Alaska. This may win them local elections, but no one can win the presidency without independents, and regardless of how Obama does or does not do on the major issues, it is unlikely that independents are going to vote for the Tea Bag candidate.

It will be interesting to watch Sarah Palin balance on that fine line as she tries to hang on to her Republican supporters as she moves further and further into the wacko extremist right.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Upset in NY-23 is a Referendum on Sarah Palin

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin should be so proud. A small upstate New York district, the 23rd, which has gone Republican for the past 120 years tonight voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who had dropped out over the weekend, had thrown her support behind Mr. Owens, but still received 5% of the vote. Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin, et al, was the odds on favorite until late in the evening and ultimately conceded defeat. All the big time names Hoffman had behind him couldn't get him elected.

It seems that the residents of NY-23 don't appreciate out of towners coming in and telling them who to vote for, especially as the person they are being told to vote for 1) does not live in their district, and 2) knows little about the local issues of concern to them (and has said that he is more concerned with the larger, values issues in any case, to paraphrase).When he appeared for an interview at the local paper, Hoffman whined that he should have been given the questions in advance. Huh? Since when? Regardless, they had been in the editorial in that morning's paper if he had bothered to read it. How many politicians running for office do you know who don't read the opinion page of the papers in the districts they're running in? Well, one, now.

Republicans may have won big in Virginia and New Jersey, but a sweep? A referendum on Obama? I don't think so. Do I think the Democrats and in particular Obama need to do some serious thinking about the implications for 2010? Absolutely.

But if this is a referendum, it is a referendum on Sarah Palin and the Republican Party, not the Obama Administration.

All we've heard was how NY-23 was a microcosm of the Tea Party movement, the change that the country wanted. Sarah Palin said jump, and the Republican Party said "How high?" I watched the Twitter streams this afternoon and evening, and when it became clear that Hoffman was trailing, I started to see that "Oh, 23 is incidental." Or, "It's just a small, unimportant district." Right.

As I liked to say about W, you can say it as often as you'd like, it still doesn't make it true.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon,.
k

Police Called in NY-23 Race for Teabaggers

Evidently Teabaggers object to government intrusion, but they are allowed to intrude to their hearts content. Police were called to at least two polling sites in NY-23 district today for reports of voter intimidation. According to former State Democratic Chairwoman June O'Neill,

"We've gotten reports that people are standing there, covered with Hoffman stickers and yelling anti-choice stuff at voters," said O'Neill, a St. Lawrence native who has been running the party's GOTV effort for Bill Owens in NY-23.


"Apparently, there's some woman claiming to be a commissioner," O'Neill continued. "Commissioner of what, I don't know. She's from Texas, I think, and she won't leave."


"This is not the way we roll in the North Country."

Elizabeth Benjamin of the New York Daily News reports talking to the GOP Election Commissioner who tried to minimize the incident saying

"We had electioneering within the 100-foot polling marker," Phaler said. "It's my understanding that they were asked to leave and wouldn't leave."


"If people are electioneering within the marker and don't stop when we ask them to, our inspectors are instructed to call law enforcement to assist them. I don't think anybody was arrested."

I'm sure by the end of the day we will have more clarity on the issue, however, after the Tea Parties of last summer and the exhortations of Glenn Beck and his ilk, shouting appears to be the favored method of debate by the extreme fringe of the right wing. Hoffman, running on the Conservative ticket and "mentored" by Glenn Beck, is supported by this fringe so I am inclined to believe that their tactics are likely to follow the rules of engagement laid out by the Tea Bag organizers: that being, shout, get in someone's face, shout some more, refuse to allow anyone else their opinion or right to free speech, shout some more, and deny everyone else the rights you demand for yourself.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Continuing Serial Stupidity of the GOP and Jon-Benet as Halloween Costume. Sick.

Another example of not only the Serial Stupidity of the GOP, but I think, some sort of inability to comprehend appropriate social behavior. This tweet from Nebraska Republican Party Chairman Mark Fahleson on Halloween. @fahleson.

# Done trick or treating with Cleopatra and Jon Benet-now at Dino's for family dinner and to watch 5 different games at once.5:49 PM Oct 31st from TwitterBerry

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

George Will Tells Cheney He Should Have Dithered

I don't normally have much use for what George Will has to say, although his breaking ranks and saying that it was time to leave Afghanistan was much appreciated, but this morning on ABC's "This Week" he said: [emphasis added]

A bit of dithering might have been in order before we went into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction," Will said on ABC's "This Week. "For a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action."

Unfortunately, regardless of the esteem in which he is normally held by the right-wing, George Will I am sure will now come under attack by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the others in the right-wing hate machine.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

How to Prevent Rape

One of the hats that I sometimes wear, is that of certified victim's advocate. I have occasionally gotten into debates with others about domestic violence and rape and the role of the victim. Our society has a long history of blaming the victim, particularly in cases of domestic violence. Why does she stay? How can any woman allow a man to treat her like that? When rape is called date rape, it is typically written with quote marks and although not often spoken out loud for fear the speaker might be accused of political incorrectness, many believe that date and rape are mutually exclusive. After all, she must have led him on. Right? I've seen articles suggesting that Rhianna was partially responsible for Chris Brown's attack - after all, they were together, they were both arguing, so she was partially at fault. Right? Wrong.

Have you noticed that the word rape has been appearing in the national headlines recently? In the political headlines?

Recently, 30 Republican lawmakers voted against a bill that would have denied government contracts to companies that refused their employees the ability to sue them for sexual assaults committed by other employees. Senator Sessions said the bill was a "political attack against Halliburton." He (Sessions) claimed that arbitration was a fair substitute for a court case and that the government should not be in the business of re-writing contracts. Excuse me? A significant portion of what government does is write (and re-write) contracts. Law is a contract. A social contract that in exchange for certain behavior, we will be safe, and those who engage in other behaviors will be separated from the rest of us by government. Goverment also engages in contracts with companies to provide services all over the world, so Session's remarks are as usual, self-serving.

A google search using the key words rape and politcs time limited to the past week returned a result of 956 hits. Results included, but are not limited to, the above mentioned amendment, Fox News attempt to smear Kevin Jennings, and the problems rape victims are having finding health insurance, especially if they received prophylactic AIDS treatment after being raped.

So, we have not only our elected leaders, but health insurance companies seeing profit and corporate convenience as more important than the health and welfare of women who have experienced a sexual assault. Even Rhianna, well known as a strong, independent woman, is seen as being at least partially deserving of being beaten by her boyfriend.

In light of this prevailing attitude of women as victim, women as deserving of rape, women as somehow at least partially at fault for what happens to them, here is a guide on how to prevent rape.

How to Prevent Rape

A lot has been said about how to prevent rape. Women should learn self-defense. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn’t wear short skirts. Women shouldn’t leave drinks unattended. Perhaps they shouldn’t dare to get drunk at all.

Instead of further curtailing women’s freedom, how about:

• If a woman is drunk, don’t rape her.
• If a woman is walking alone at night, don’t rape her.
• If a women is drugged and unconscious, don’t rape her.
• If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don’t rape her.
• If a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don’t rape her.
• If a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you’re still hung up on, don’t rape her.
• If a woman is asleep in her bed, don’t rape her.
• If a woman is asleep in your bed, don’t rape her.
• If a woman is doing her laundry, don’t rape her.
• If a woman is in a coma, don’t rape her.
• If a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don’t rape her.
• If a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don’t rape her.
• If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don’t rape her.
• If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don’t rape her.
• If your step-daughter is watching tv, don’t rape her.
• If you break into a house and find a woman there, don’t rape her.
• If your friend thinks it’s okay to rape someone, tell him it’s not, and that he’s not your friend.
• If your “friend” tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.
• If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there’s an unconscious woman upstairs and It’s your turn, don’t rape her, call the police and tell the guy he’s a rapist.
• Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it’s not okay to rape someone.
• Don’t tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape.
• Don’t imply that she could have avoided it if she’d only done/not done x.
• Don’t imply that it’s in any way her fault.
• Don’t let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he “got some” with the drunk girl.
• Don’t perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.

If you agree, repost it. It’s that important.   -Author unknown

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Ps. If you're interested in a post on why women (and men) stay in abusive relationships, leave a comment.