"There is more than one kind of freedom .... Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don't underrate it." The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, Chap. 5
"The House passed a bill on Wednesday making it a federal crime for any adult to transport an under-age girl across state lines to have an abortion without the consent of her parents." New York Times, 28 April 2005
"Blessed be the fruit." The Handmaid's Tale, Chap. 4
"...under this legislation, those who feel they cannot turn to their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy will be forced to fend for themselves without any help from a responsible adult. Some will seek unsafe abortions close to home. Others will travel to unfamiliar places seeking abortions by themselves." Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), 27 April 2005
One guess on how our supposedly pro-choice Madame Virginia Foxx voted on this atrocious law.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
The Republican Retreat on Ethics
So Dennis Hastert stampeded the Republicans in the House yesterday to reinstate the Ethics Committee rules that the same guys had changed back in January to protect Tom DeLay from investigation. The vote was 406-20.
The 20 who voted against reinstating the "regular order" on Ethics complaints were all Republicans -- SuperChristians, we bet, every last one -- including our own Patrick McHenry of the neighboring 10th District. What an issue McHenry handed an opposition candidate ... if only there was any opposition in the 10th District!
The 20 who voted against reinstating the "regular order" on Ethics complaints were all Republicans -- SuperChristians, we bet, every last one -- including our own Patrick McHenry of the neighboring 10th District. What an issue McHenry handed an opposition candidate ... if only there was any opposition in the 10th District!
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Davidson Co. Commissioners Reject Resolution Against Gay Marriage
Standing up to threats of God's vengeance and a standing-room-only hearing room, Davidson County Commissioners last night refused in a 4-3 vote to pass a resolution urging the N.C. legislature to pass a "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment.
Some churches bused people to the meeting.
If the four commissioners were courageous, consider the courage of the handful of gay citizens who spoke out. "I consider myself a Christian, but I am also gay," said Pam Hooker. "We're not trying to hurt anybody. We're just trying to be who we are." Hooker refuted charges that being gay is a choice and said she could not choose to be straight. "I can't -- no more than you could choose to be gay," she said.
To the good "Christians" in the audience consigning them to hell, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners Don Truell said, "I really don't think that a lot of you all understand what the constitution is. The Bible is the greatest book there is, but there is a constitution, too." He said the constitution is designed to ensure that the rights of minorities are not trampled by the majority.
Amen, bro.
Some churches bused people to the meeting.
If the four commissioners were courageous, consider the courage of the handful of gay citizens who spoke out. "I consider myself a Christian, but I am also gay," said Pam Hooker. "We're not trying to hurt anybody. We're just trying to be who we are." Hooker refuted charges that being gay is a choice and said she could not choose to be straight. "I can't -- no more than you could choose to be gay," she said.
To the good "Christians" in the audience consigning them to hell, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners Don Truell said, "I really don't think that a lot of you all understand what the constitution is. The Bible is the greatest book there is, but there is a constitution, too." He said the constitution is designed to ensure that the rights of minorities are not trampled by the majority.
Amen, bro.
SOME POLLS JUST MAKE US WANT TO PUKE. News this a.m.: "Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue holds a large lead over other potential Democratic gubernatorial hopefuls, according a recent survey commissioned by several Democratic donors."
Let a Million E-Mails Bloom
A ruling by an administrative law judge might deserve special note on the ASU campus, where a hysterical fear of expressing political opinions via e-mail ensued after Madame Virginia Foxx pitched a fit last year that ASU professors were expressing disdain for her.
Two government employees, both subject to the Hatch Act, were found not guilty of violating restrictions on partisan politics when they forwarded political e-mails.
Background: Last Oct. 25th, one of the workers used a government computer to send 22 people an e-mail titled "Why I am Supporting John Kerry for President." It contained a letter, purportedly written by the son of former Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, touting Democrat John F. Kerry for president. The other worker, a recipient of the first e-mail, then forwarded to 27 people an e-mail that urged people to vote for "the party that stands firm on morally and ethically correct issues as written in the [B]ible." The e-mail also contained a picture of President Bush in front of an American flag and the statement "I Vote the Bible."
Open and shut case? Certainly, the federal thought police wanted both employees fired. But the judge said no. He ruled that the e-mails "amounted to the electronic equivalent of a discussion of politics around the office water cooler, something that is legal." The judge wrote, "an expression of personal opinion does not constitute political activity merely because it is disseminated to two dozen individuals with one or several computer keystrokes."
The ruling is being appealed.
Not that the Hatch Act and ASU's rule against political expression via computer are the same animal. But ASU's squelching of free speech has never been tested, so far as we know, and it's high time someone did. If the "electronic water cooler" standard holds up for federal employees, it ought to be even easier to defend for professors at a public university.
Two government employees, both subject to the Hatch Act, were found not guilty of violating restrictions on partisan politics when they forwarded political e-mails.
Background: Last Oct. 25th, one of the workers used a government computer to send 22 people an e-mail titled "Why I am Supporting John Kerry for President." It contained a letter, purportedly written by the son of former Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, touting Democrat John F. Kerry for president. The other worker, a recipient of the first e-mail, then forwarded to 27 people an e-mail that urged people to vote for "the party that stands firm on morally and ethically correct issues as written in the [B]ible." The e-mail also contained a picture of President Bush in front of an American flag and the statement "I Vote the Bible."
Open and shut case? Certainly, the federal thought police wanted both employees fired. But the judge said no. He ruled that the e-mails "amounted to the electronic equivalent of a discussion of politics around the office water cooler, something that is legal." The judge wrote, "an expression of personal opinion does not constitute political activity merely because it is disseminated to two dozen individuals with one or several computer keystrokes."
The ruling is being appealed.
Not that the Hatch Act and ASU's rule against political expression via computer are the same animal. But ASU's squelching of free speech has never been tested, so far as we know, and it's high time someone did. If the "electronic water cooler" standard holds up for federal employees, it ought to be even easier to defend for professors at a public university.
DeLay Plants His Dainty Butt on Air Force One
We loved the photos from yesterday ... El Presidente deplaning in D.C., and like the cool frat guy with a fat date, trying not to seem too much with Tom DeLay, though undeniably in his general vicinity.
(Incidentally, 50 percent of Americans in a new Gallup poll now believe they were deliberately lied to about weapons of mass destruction. Two liars got on Air Force One in Texas, and two got off together in Washington, D.C.)
Meanwhile, Mike Allen writes in this morning's WashPost that the Republican leadership in the House is trying to stop the blood loss from its own self-inflicted wound ... changing the House ethics rules in January to shield Mr. DeLay. Dennis Hastert can't schedule a vote fast enough to reverse that disastrous decision. Said Hastert, "I wish God, who guides the Republican Party in all matters, would make up His mind about what He wants us to do. First, he wants us to protect His Holy Servant Tom DeLay from evil Democratic nit-picking, and the next thing we know, He's into testing His Holy Servant, like Daniel in the lion's den. We of course know His Holy Servant will stand up to the test. But ... sheesh! Make up Your Mind already!"
But we've come around to Jonathan Alter's position: we need Tom DeLay fully invested in his robes of office for the 2006 elections. Writes Alter: "...all three branches of the federal government belong to Republicans, and the autocratic House majority leader is the purest representation of the breed. On every issue -- ethics, the environment, guns, tax cuts, judges -- he is a clarifying figure for anyone who might be confused about the true nature of today's GOP."
"The midterms should be a referendum on DeLay's America," says Alter. "Stay on the right fringe or move toward the center? Let the people decide."
So this morning I'm flipping: I'm now a DeLay supporter, and I call on all Democrats to stop persecuting this Great Christian gentleman and Servant of the Lord. He has important work to do, and we very much want him doing it as we roll into November 2006.
(Incidentally, 50 percent of Americans in a new Gallup poll now believe they were deliberately lied to about weapons of mass destruction. Two liars got on Air Force One in Texas, and two got off together in Washington, D.C.)
Meanwhile, Mike Allen writes in this morning's WashPost that the Republican leadership in the House is trying to stop the blood loss from its own self-inflicted wound ... changing the House ethics rules in January to shield Mr. DeLay. Dennis Hastert can't schedule a vote fast enough to reverse that disastrous decision. Said Hastert, "I wish God, who guides the Republican Party in all matters, would make up His mind about what He wants us to do. First, he wants us to protect His Holy Servant Tom DeLay from evil Democratic nit-picking, and the next thing we know, He's into testing His Holy Servant, like Daniel in the lion's den. We of course know His Holy Servant will stand up to the test. But ... sheesh! Make up Your Mind already!"
But we've come around to Jonathan Alter's position: we need Tom DeLay fully invested in his robes of office for the 2006 elections. Writes Alter: "...all three branches of the federal government belong to Republicans, and the autocratic House majority leader is the purest representation of the breed. On every issue -- ethics, the environment, guns, tax cuts, judges -- he is a clarifying figure for anyone who might be confused about the true nature of today's GOP."
"The midterms should be a referendum on DeLay's America," says Alter. "Stay on the right fringe or move toward the center? Let the people decide."
So this morning I'm flipping: I'm now a DeLay supporter, and I call on all Democrats to stop persecuting this Great Christian gentleman and Servant of the Lord. He has important work to do, and we very much want him doing it as we roll into November 2006.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Revolt of the Moderates
E.J. Dionne writes today about a demographic fact that ought to guide Democratic strategists in red states like North Carolina: "America's moderates may not be screaming, but they're in revolt. Many who reluctantly supported the president and the Republicans in 2004 are turning away. The party's agenda on Social Security, judges and the Terri Schiavo case is out of touch with where moderate voters stand. Worse for Bush and his party, most moderates have a practical, problem-solving view of government and think these issues are far less important than shoring up a shaky economy and improving living standards."
I flash on Madame Virginia Foxx grandstanding on C-SPAN during the Schiavo abomination, nodding her head up and down like a dashboard doll on a washboard road, every time a fellow Republican said anything extreme about "the right to life."
Foxx can gloat all she wants to that she's in a "safe" Republican district. She's in a moderate district where people can tell the difference between posturing for the cameras and actually doing something constructive.
I flash on Madame Virginia Foxx grandstanding on C-SPAN during the Schiavo abomination, nodding her head up and down like a dashboard doll on a washboard road, every time a fellow Republican said anything extreme about "the right to life."
Foxx can gloat all she wants to that she's in a "safe" Republican district. She's in a moderate district where people can tell the difference between posturing for the cameras and actually doing something constructive.
Here's a good argument that the current superior morality of some "Christian" pharmacists (in refusing to dispense the "morning-after pill" or other birth control) is exactly what it looks like ... unAmerican elitism.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Foxx, McHenry Brag About Their Cash
Today's Charlotte Observer contains an interesting item about the fundraising prowess of Virginia Foxx and Patrick McHenry, freshmen Republican congresspersons from the 5th and the 10th congressional districts, respectively.
Since both are from "safe" Republican districts, the Observer opines that the two are crowing to scare off potential Republican challengers in a 2006 primary.
"McHenry raised $155,122 from political action committees, including $26,500 from financial/insurance companies interested in how he votes as a member of the House Committee on Financial Services. McHenry, who's considered a rising star in the conservative House, also got a whopping $38,967 from other politicians' PACs. Foxx, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, got $54,023 from corporate PACs -- including $8,500 from farm companies and groups."
We're sure the farmers of Watauga County will be happy to know just how fat and sassy Madame Foxx is becoming, thanks to corporate farmers.
Since both are from "safe" Republican districts, the Observer opines that the two are crowing to scare off potential Republican challengers in a 2006 primary.
"McHenry raised $155,122 from political action committees, including $26,500 from financial/insurance companies interested in how he votes as a member of the House Committee on Financial Services. McHenry, who's considered a rising star in the conservative House, also got a whopping $38,967 from other politicians' PACs. Foxx, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, got $54,023 from corporate PACs -- including $8,500 from farm companies and groups."
We're sure the farmers of Watauga County will be happy to know just how fat and sassy Madame Foxx is becoming, thanks to corporate farmers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)