Just in case you haven't been keeping track, Powerline, the blog that claims to be unconcerned with the daily hum of the mainstream media, now has had 5 of its last 13 entries revolve around Nick Coleman, 6 of 13 about the Star Tribune, and 7 of 13 about the mainstream media in some shape or form.
I haven't seen them this worked up since they won blog of the year from TIme. Not that they cared, of course, since that's a part of the mainstream media.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
And Then There Was One
The future of women's access to abortions is dim in Mississippi. Is this what we should expect in every state?
From CNN.com (click above for entire article)...
Mississippi: Window into future of abortion debate
Observers, activists say state is 'perfect lab' for restrictions
Tuesday, December 28, 2004 Posted: 11:28 AM EST (1628 GMT)
JACKSON, Mississippi (AP) -- Outside are protesters, praying or proffering pamphlets with grisly photos. Inside, young women sit quietly in a room furnished with a TV set and a gumball machine, waiting for their appointments at Mississippi's only abortion clinic.
These are busy -- but worrisome -- days for the Jackson Women's Health Organization, which has added many clients since the other remaining clinic closed last summer. The clinic's staff and supporters know their adversaries will try relentlessly to shut their office down, taking another step toward making legal abortions in the state virtually nonexistent.
For both sides in the national debate over abortion, Mississippi has become Exhibit A: It is widely considered the state with the most thorough arsenal of laws, policies and public pressure aimed at curtailing the procedure. There used to be seven abortion clinics in the state; now it is the most populous of a handful of states with only one.
"Mississippi is the picture of the future," said Susan Hill, a North Carolina-based businesswoman who owns several clinics, including the one in Jackson. "It's the perfect laboratory for any restriction -- there's no way, politically, that it won't sail through the legislature."
Roy McMillan, an anti-abortion activist who's been protesting outside Mississippi clinics for 25 years, is delighted that he no longer has to ponder which clinic to target.
"Thankfully, we've arrived at a time I always wanted -- when the women have to come through us," said McMillan, dressed in a well-worn Santa Claus suit as he confronted clinic employees and patients on a recent weekday.
"I would love our state to be the first to be abortion-free," McMillan said. "The governor should send the Highway Patrol and the National Guard to close this clinic down."
[snip]
Though many states have laws restricting abortion, Mississippi has striven to lead the pack. For example, it recently enacted the nation's most sweeping conscience clause -- allowing any health care provider to refuse to provide any abortion-related service, including emergency referrals.
Mississippi is one of only two states, along with North Dakota, requiring consent of both parents before a minor can get an abortion. It is one of two states, along with Texas, requiring that women seeking abortions be told, in contradiction of National Cancer Institute findings, that abortion might increase their risk of breast cancer.
The legislature has been so diligent that Pat Cartrette, executive director of Pro-Life Mississippi, says her group no longer has a wish list of abortion laws -- all its priorities have been enacted. Her group is now targeting the Jackson Women's Health Organization, asserting that one of the three doctors working there has vision problems.
"We don't need to wait for the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion," Cartrette said. "If we shine the light on the abortionists and the abortion industry, it will self-destruct, and we're seeing that happen in Mississippi."
[snip]
[Betty] Thompson [, longtime director of the Jackson clinic and now a consultant for it,] and her allies say the most onerous state requirement -- particularly for rural residents -- prohibits women from having abortions until at least 24 hours after they receive mandatory counseling from a doctor on the risks of the procedure and alternatives to it. The requirement forces some women to take a day off from work and spend a night in Jackson -- potentially a costly burden for low-income women.
Betty Thompson says Mississippi's laws regulating abortion are especially costly for low-income women.
[snip]
Some Mississippi women travel to Tennessee, which has no waiting period for abortions, or to Alabama and Louisiana, where clinics are more plentiful. Thompson said relatively affluent women tend to avoid the Jackson clinic for fear of being recognized and may travel to Atlanta, or even farther, to have abortions.
As with many social issues in Mississippi, racial demography surfaces in the abortion debate.
Blacks comprise 37 percent of the population, yet account for 73 percent of the state's abortions. Cartrette voices disappointment at Pro-Life Mississippi's failure to make more headway among blacks, while McMillan -- who is white -- often cradles an African-American doll in his arms while protesting and hands out pamphlets depicting abortion as a form of black genocide.
Such allegations irk Dr. Helen Barnes, who in the 1960s ran a clinic in the impoverished
Mississippi Delta and was one of the first black women in the state to practice as an obstetrician. Barnes delivered thousands of babies and provided birth control to women who had used lard as a contraceptive; nowadays, she opposes the state's anti-abortion laws and says officials should do more to make birth control available.
"I do hate that we're going backward," she said, referring to state-run medical facilities that now perform no abortions but would do so in the '60s if doctors judged them necessary to protect a woman's mental or physical health.
"If you followed the rules, it was acceptable," said the 76-year-old Barnes. "Now they're trying to make it a crime."
Compared to the powerful anti-abortion camp, which includes Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, Mississippi's abortion-rights movement is weak. Planned Parenthood monitors the state from an office in neighboring Alabama; its only health center in Mississippi does not offer abortions.
"Some Mississippi women drive across the state line to get abortions, but the poorest of the poor are either having the kids or getting a back alley abortion," said Larry Rodick, who heads Planned Parenthood's Alabama office. "Some of those women probably end up getting sick and dying, though we'll never know because they don't put it on the death certificate."
The Mississippi affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women are trying to build an abortion-rights coalition. NOW activist Michelle Colon said its priorities will include countering abstinence-only education programs with safe-sex information and challenging the anti-abortion protesters at the Jackson clinic.
Susan Hill, the clinic owner, is braced for prolonged confrontation.
"The state and the protesters are determined to close us and we're determined to stay open," she said. "It's the classic fight to the finish."
From CNN.com (click above for entire article)...
Mississippi: Window into future of abortion debate
Observers, activists say state is 'perfect lab' for restrictions
Tuesday, December 28, 2004 Posted: 11:28 AM EST (1628 GMT)
JACKSON, Mississippi (AP) -- Outside are protesters, praying or proffering pamphlets with grisly photos. Inside, young women sit quietly in a room furnished with a TV set and a gumball machine, waiting for their appointments at Mississippi's only abortion clinic.
These are busy -- but worrisome -- days for the Jackson Women's Health Organization, which has added many clients since the other remaining clinic closed last summer. The clinic's staff and supporters know their adversaries will try relentlessly to shut their office down, taking another step toward making legal abortions in the state virtually nonexistent.
For both sides in the national debate over abortion, Mississippi has become Exhibit A: It is widely considered the state with the most thorough arsenal of laws, policies and public pressure aimed at curtailing the procedure. There used to be seven abortion clinics in the state; now it is the most populous of a handful of states with only one.
"Mississippi is the picture of the future," said Susan Hill, a North Carolina-based businesswoman who owns several clinics, including the one in Jackson. "It's the perfect laboratory for any restriction -- there's no way, politically, that it won't sail through the legislature."
Roy McMillan, an anti-abortion activist who's been protesting outside Mississippi clinics for 25 years, is delighted that he no longer has to ponder which clinic to target.
"Thankfully, we've arrived at a time I always wanted -- when the women have to come through us," said McMillan, dressed in a well-worn Santa Claus suit as he confronted clinic employees and patients on a recent weekday.
"I would love our state to be the first to be abortion-free," McMillan said. "The governor should send the Highway Patrol and the National Guard to close this clinic down."
[snip]
Though many states have laws restricting abortion, Mississippi has striven to lead the pack. For example, it recently enacted the nation's most sweeping conscience clause -- allowing any health care provider to refuse to provide any abortion-related service, including emergency referrals.
Mississippi is one of only two states, along with North Dakota, requiring consent of both parents before a minor can get an abortion. It is one of two states, along with Texas, requiring that women seeking abortions be told, in contradiction of National Cancer Institute findings, that abortion might increase their risk of breast cancer.
The legislature has been so diligent that Pat Cartrette, executive director of Pro-Life Mississippi, says her group no longer has a wish list of abortion laws -- all its priorities have been enacted. Her group is now targeting the Jackson Women's Health Organization, asserting that one of the three doctors working there has vision problems.
"We don't need to wait for the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion," Cartrette said. "If we shine the light on the abortionists and the abortion industry, it will self-destruct, and we're seeing that happen in Mississippi."
[snip]
[Betty] Thompson [, longtime director of the Jackson clinic and now a consultant for it,] and her allies say the most onerous state requirement -- particularly for rural residents -- prohibits women from having abortions until at least 24 hours after they receive mandatory counseling from a doctor on the risks of the procedure and alternatives to it. The requirement forces some women to take a day off from work and spend a night in Jackson -- potentially a costly burden for low-income women.
Betty Thompson says Mississippi's laws regulating abortion are especially costly for low-income women.
[snip]
Some Mississippi women travel to Tennessee, which has no waiting period for abortions, or to Alabama and Louisiana, where clinics are more plentiful. Thompson said relatively affluent women tend to avoid the Jackson clinic for fear of being recognized and may travel to Atlanta, or even farther, to have abortions.
As with many social issues in Mississippi, racial demography surfaces in the abortion debate.
Blacks comprise 37 percent of the population, yet account for 73 percent of the state's abortions. Cartrette voices disappointment at Pro-Life Mississippi's failure to make more headway among blacks, while McMillan -- who is white -- often cradles an African-American doll in his arms while protesting and hands out pamphlets depicting abortion as a form of black genocide.
Such allegations irk Dr. Helen Barnes, who in the 1960s ran a clinic in the impoverished
Mississippi Delta and was one of the first black women in the state to practice as an obstetrician. Barnes delivered thousands of babies and provided birth control to women who had used lard as a contraceptive; nowadays, she opposes the state's anti-abortion laws and says officials should do more to make birth control available.
"I do hate that we're going backward," she said, referring to state-run medical facilities that now perform no abortions but would do so in the '60s if doctors judged them necessary to protect a woman's mental or physical health.
"If you followed the rules, it was acceptable," said the 76-year-old Barnes. "Now they're trying to make it a crime."
Compared to the powerful anti-abortion camp, which includes Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, Mississippi's abortion-rights movement is weak. Planned Parenthood monitors the state from an office in neighboring Alabama; its only health center in Mississippi does not offer abortions.
"Some Mississippi women drive across the state line to get abortions, but the poorest of the poor are either having the kids or getting a back alley abortion," said Larry Rodick, who heads Planned Parenthood's Alabama office. "Some of those women probably end up getting sick and dying, though we'll never know because they don't put it on the death certificate."
The Mississippi affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women are trying to build an abortion-rights coalition. NOW activist Michelle Colon said its priorities will include countering abstinence-only education programs with safe-sex information and challenging the anti-abortion protesters at the Jackson clinic.
Susan Hill, the clinic owner, is braced for prolonged confrontation.
"The state and the protesters are determined to close us and we're determined to stay open," she said. "It's the classic fight to the finish."
Friday, December 17, 2004
I don't normally post Atrios quotes
I just assume that everyone else in the world is reading him as well. But this one post so masterfully addresses the pro-choice issue that I feel it needs to be included:
What do pro-life Democrats want?Do they want to outlaw abortion? If so, I'm not going to tell them that view is okay. Do they want to add additional legal restrictions to abortion in response to the latest Republican icky-abortion-scare? If so, I'm not going to tell them that view is okay.... I'm anti-unwanted pregnancy. Frankly, I'm not particularly concerned about abortion rates as any sort of morality issue. Nor am I interested in any political campaign which implicitly shames women who have them.
We are rapidly evolving into a society ruled by shame...you are shamed for your "morality", your sexual preference, your patriotic views. I do not want to see my party follow the same path.
What do pro-life Democrats want?Do they want to outlaw abortion? If so, I'm not going to tell them that view is okay. Do they want to add additional legal restrictions to abortion in response to the latest Republican icky-abortion-scare? If so, I'm not going to tell them that view is okay.... I'm anti-unwanted pregnancy. Frankly, I'm not particularly concerned about abortion rates as any sort of morality issue. Nor am I interested in any political campaign which implicitly shames women who have them.
We are rapidly evolving into a society ruled by shame...you are shamed for your "morality", your sexual preference, your patriotic views. I do not want to see my party follow the same path.
Selective Memories
Hive fives to all the conservative bloggers tearing apart the Star Tribune's Nick Coleman for having the audacity to suggest that in this holiday season we spend a moment thinking about the honeless. Perhaps my favorite is the following, found on the People's Republic of Minnesota:
Friday, December 17, 2004
Reverend Nick
When you need to write a column in defense of your previous column wouldn't you ask yourself that perhaps you might be just a little out of touch with your readers? Hat tip to Powerline for this post regarding Nick Coleman's latest pontifications from the pulpit.
Coleman's judgment on his readers is that they are Pharisees (as the gospels portray the Pharisees). Coleman clearly places himself on a somewhat higher plane. Those of us who are in need of healing may touch the hem of his garment at 425 Portland Avenue.
Priceless.
Odd...I seem to remember a time when a certain writer who was published in the Star Tribune was forced to write a column to defend a column he wrote previously as well. It has something to do with Christmas in Cambodia, if I remember correctly. [cough*THE ROCKET*cough]
Perhaps the Powerliners are a little out of touch with the mainstream of Minnesota as well.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Reverend Nick
When you need to write a column in defense of your previous column wouldn't you ask yourself that perhaps you might be just a little out of touch with your readers? Hat tip to Powerline for this post regarding Nick Coleman's latest pontifications from the pulpit.
Coleman's judgment on his readers is that they are Pharisees (as the gospels portray the Pharisees). Coleman clearly places himself on a somewhat higher plane. Those of us who are in need of healing may touch the hem of his garment at 425 Portland Avenue.
Priceless.
Odd...I seem to remember a time when a certain writer who was published in the Star Tribune was forced to write a column to defend a column he wrote previously as well. It has something to do with Christmas in Cambodia, if I remember correctly. [cough*THE ROCKET*cough]
Perhaps the Powerliners are a little out of touch with the mainstream of Minnesota as well.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Found on DoubleFleeA
Only in Alabama (I hope)
By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - A judge refused to delay a trial Tuesday when an attorney objected to his wearing a judicial robe with the Ten Commandments embroidered on the front in gold.
Circuit Judge Ashley McKathan showed up Monday at his Covington County courtroom in southern Alabama wearing the robe. Attorneys who try cases at the courthouse said they had not seen him wearing it before. The commandments were described as being big enough to read by anyone near the judge.
Attorney Riley Powell, defending a client charged with DUI, filed a motion objecting to the robe and asking that the case be continued. He said McKathan denied both motions.
"I feel this creates a distraction that affects my client," Powell said.
McKathan told The Associated Press that he believes the Ten Commandments represent the truth "and you can't divorce the law from the truth. ... The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong."
He said he doesn't believe the commandments on his robe would have an adverse effect on jurors.
"I had a choice of several sizes of letters. I purposely chose a size that would not be in anybody's face," he said.
Here's the whole story
Stolen from www.doublefleea.blogspot.com
(I'll buy you a drink)
By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - A judge refused to delay a trial Tuesday when an attorney objected to his wearing a judicial robe with the Ten Commandments embroidered on the front in gold.
Circuit Judge Ashley McKathan showed up Monday at his Covington County courtroom in southern Alabama wearing the robe. Attorneys who try cases at the courthouse said they had not seen him wearing it before. The commandments were described as being big enough to read by anyone near the judge.
Attorney Riley Powell, defending a client charged with DUI, filed a motion objecting to the robe and asking that the case be continued. He said McKathan denied both motions.
"I feel this creates a distraction that affects my client," Powell said.
McKathan told The Associated Press that he believes the Ten Commandments represent the truth "and you can't divorce the law from the truth. ... The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong."
He said he doesn't believe the commandments on his robe would have an adverse effect on jurors.
"I had a choice of several sizes of letters. I purposely chose a size that would not be in anybody's face," he said.
Here's the whole story
Stolen from www.doublefleea.blogspot.com
(I'll buy you a drink)
Step away from the condoms
I think that Luke puts it best in his blog:
According to our government's faith-based abstinence programs masquerading as health and sex education classes, "condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 31 percent of the time." 31 percent is a big number, and a very scary number. So big and scary, in fact, that it's actually about 11% higher than your chance of getting HIV from a single unprotected encounter [infected male to female]...
What is it about condom use--about wrapping yourself in a non-permeable membrane--that makes you between 150 and 300% more likely to get what he or she has?
[W]e hear declared that the faith-based system works, and--for all the kids and parents know--it does, because no one is allowed to talk about things like pregnancy rates. Discourse gives kids ideas.But lack of data is not the same as positive data. Refusing to sponsor studies into the effectiveness of abstinence programs is not vindication, it's ignorance. And when sex is involved, ignorance is deadly.
According to our government's faith-based abstinence programs masquerading as health and sex education classes, "condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 31 percent of the time." 31 percent is a big number, and a very scary number. So big and scary, in fact, that it's actually about 11% higher than your chance of getting HIV from a single unprotected encounter [infected male to female]...
What is it about condom use--about wrapping yourself in a non-permeable membrane--that makes you between 150 and 300% more likely to get what he or she has?
[W]e hear declared that the faith-based system works, and--for all the kids and parents know--it does, because no one is allowed to talk about things like pregnancy rates. Discourse gives kids ideas.But lack of data is not the same as positive data. Refusing to sponsor studies into the effectiveness of abstinence programs is not vindication, it's ignorance. And when sex is involved, ignorance is deadly.
Well, if the Family Research Council has issues with him
He can't be all bad...
FRC Unsure of Intentions of Bush's Latest Nominee
Washington, D.C. - President Bush's appointment of Mike Leavitt as Health and Human Services Secretary leaves conservatives in a quandary. It is not a secret that many conservative organizations were in support of a true conservative to take over for departing Tommy Thompson.
"HHS Under Secretary Claude Allen, who established a bona fide record as a social conservative as Secretary of HHS for the state of Virginia and has been a superb Under Secretary at HHS for the last four years, would have understood the fine points of the cloning, stem cell research and other bio-tech issues perfectly," says Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council.
Though a self-proclaimed pro-lifer, Governor Leavitt's background begs serious questions as to his advocacy:
Leavitt rejected Utah's court appeal over the state's 1991 anti-abortion law
He vetoed HB4ll, the sex-ed bill designed to stop the graphic, inappropriate materials used in sex-ed programs.
Sanctioned the use of federal funds set aside for abstinence education in the state of Utah to be put towards programs that do not have a direct association with abstinence.
If confirmed by the Senate Leavitt will face a number of tough, controversial decisions--including Medicare reform, funding for stem-cell research, cloning and other sensitive ethical health issues. "The best predictor of future positions on controversial issues is the record of past decisions. Leavitt's past decisions raise legitimate questions about where he will be on these key values issues in the future if confirmed," continues Perkins.
FRC Unsure of Intentions of Bush's Latest Nominee
Washington, D.C. - President Bush's appointment of Mike Leavitt as Health and Human Services Secretary leaves conservatives in a quandary. It is not a secret that many conservative organizations were in support of a true conservative to take over for departing Tommy Thompson.
"HHS Under Secretary Claude Allen, who established a bona fide record as a social conservative as Secretary of HHS for the state of Virginia and has been a superb Under Secretary at HHS for the last four years, would have understood the fine points of the cloning, stem cell research and other bio-tech issues perfectly," says Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council.
Though a self-proclaimed pro-lifer, Governor Leavitt's background begs serious questions as to his advocacy:
Leavitt rejected Utah's court appeal over the state's 1991 anti-abortion law
He vetoed HB4ll, the sex-ed bill designed to stop the graphic, inappropriate materials used in sex-ed programs.
Sanctioned the use of federal funds set aside for abstinence education in the state of Utah to be put towards programs that do not have a direct association with abstinence.
If confirmed by the Senate Leavitt will face a number of tough, controversial decisions--including Medicare reform, funding for stem-cell research, cloning and other sensitive ethical health issues. "The best predictor of future positions on controversial issues is the record of past decisions. Leavitt's past decisions raise legitimate questions about where he will be on these key values issues in the future if confirmed," continues Perkins.
Some words on the potential new HHS head
From Saveroe.com:
Working Without a Net12.14.2004
I hate to sound like Chicken Little here, but as the nomination process to refill the president’s cabinet continues, there are ominous signs popping up like gaudy and ubiquitous billboards forecasting our future. Our presumptive Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mike Leavitt, has yet to go through so much as a confirmation Q&A and already the media are reporting that one priority may be deep cuts in health care programs for the elderly, poor, and disabled.
Between paying for the war, tax cuts taking priority over fiscal responsibility, and significant changes to social security, the money’s got to come from somewhere, right? Why not from those with little or no political clout, those already alienated from the system?
One would hope that the health care safety nets — Medicaid and Medicare — would remain intact, but there are no guarantees. Medicaid was very nearly block-granted last session of Congress. Proponents call this “states’ rights” or “state flexibility,” and it tends to mean that the federal government gives lump sums to states to provide the services they want to the populations they want to serve at reimbursement rates that they (the states) establish. Plainly, it means cuts in services, cuts in the number of providers willing to take crummy reimbursement rates to cover skyrocketing costs, and a kind of health care gerrymandering that would make Tom DeLay’s Texas redistricting map look like a kindergartner’s fridge masterpiece.
Of course, this is all yet to play itself out, unlike the FDA’s decision making on whether to send Plan B Emergency Contraception (EC) over the counter (OTC) for women 16 and over. This unresolved item has all but played itself out as the approval process — or in this case, the rejection process — started well over a year ago. Even though the science — and two FDA advisory panels — supports sending EC OTC for everyone, we’re left to wonder whether it will be available to anyone OTC.
While Leavitt would have limited say over the FDA’s decision-making process, he could send a clear message to the FDA, and all medical and scientific bodies that he oversees, that science should trump ideology. Of course that would trump the president’s message to the contrary — so you figure the odds of it happening.
If confirmed, Leavitt will have some difficult decisions to make — or rather will likely be implementing decisions made by the president — that will have a huge impact on access to health care, including reproductive health care. Will he be his own man? And how well do we know him?
These are questions the Senate will need to resolve — if they are serious about retaining even the most minimal health care assistance for those who need, and deserve, it.
Working Without a Net12.14.2004
I hate to sound like Chicken Little here, but as the nomination process to refill the president’s cabinet continues, there are ominous signs popping up like gaudy and ubiquitous billboards forecasting our future. Our presumptive Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mike Leavitt, has yet to go through so much as a confirmation Q&A and already the media are reporting that one priority may be deep cuts in health care programs for the elderly, poor, and disabled.
Between paying for the war, tax cuts taking priority over fiscal responsibility, and significant changes to social security, the money’s got to come from somewhere, right? Why not from those with little or no political clout, those already alienated from the system?
One would hope that the health care safety nets — Medicaid and Medicare — would remain intact, but there are no guarantees. Medicaid was very nearly block-granted last session of Congress. Proponents call this “states’ rights” or “state flexibility,” and it tends to mean that the federal government gives lump sums to states to provide the services they want to the populations they want to serve at reimbursement rates that they (the states) establish. Plainly, it means cuts in services, cuts in the number of providers willing to take crummy reimbursement rates to cover skyrocketing costs, and a kind of health care gerrymandering that would make Tom DeLay’s Texas redistricting map look like a kindergartner’s fridge masterpiece.
Of course, this is all yet to play itself out, unlike the FDA’s decision making on whether to send Plan B Emergency Contraception (EC) over the counter (OTC) for women 16 and over. This unresolved item has all but played itself out as the approval process — or in this case, the rejection process — started well over a year ago. Even though the science — and two FDA advisory panels — supports sending EC OTC for everyone, we’re left to wonder whether it will be available to anyone OTC.
While Leavitt would have limited say over the FDA’s decision-making process, he could send a clear message to the FDA, and all medical and scientific bodies that he oversees, that science should trump ideology. Of course that would trump the president’s message to the contrary — so you figure the odds of it happening.
If confirmed, Leavitt will have some difficult decisions to make — or rather will likely be implementing decisions made by the president — that will have a huge impact on access to health care, including reproductive health care. Will he be his own man? And how well do we know him?
These are questions the Senate will need to resolve — if they are serious about retaining even the most minimal health care assistance for those who need, and deserve, it.
Fox News shows it's bi-partisan
LOS ANGELES -- The Fox News Channel is adding a familiar face to its lineup, retiring U.S. Sen. Zell Miller.
The conservative Georgia Democrat -- who backed President Bush's re-election -- will join Fox as a contributor.
Fox says Miller will be seen on a variety of programs starting Jan. 6.
Miller made a memorable TV appearance last fall when he challenged MSNBC host Chris Matthews to a duel.
He made the comment when Matthews pressed him on barbs Miller launched at John Kerry in a speech at the Republican National Convention.
Miller, a two-term governor of Georgia, was appointed to the Senate in 2000. He's also taught history and political science.
The conservative Georgia Democrat -- who backed President Bush's re-election -- will join Fox as a contributor.
Fox says Miller will be seen on a variety of programs starting Jan. 6.
Miller made a memorable TV appearance last fall when he challenged MSNBC host Chris Matthews to a duel.
He made the comment when Matthews pressed him on barbs Miller launched at John Kerry in a speech at the Republican National Convention.
Miller, a two-term governor of Georgia, was appointed to the Senate in 2000. He's also taught history and political science.
Just Remember
The economy is recovering, and more people are working every day...(emphasis added, click link about for full article)
More families on the edge of hunger
Rene Sanchez, Star Tribune
December 15, 2004
DES MOINES -- Every morning at St. Mary Family Center, long before the lights flicker on or the front door opens, Chris Rohwer sees another crush of new faces peering in the window, waiting for the boxes filled with free food.
The people who keep coming have changed. Many are not homeless or jobless. They work. But their pay is too low or their hours too paltry to make ends meet. And many are making their first trip for help. "We never have a slow day," said Rohwer, 63, who manages the center. "At least a dozen people are always standing outside even before we open."
The federal government has a name for their plight: food insecurity. Pantries across the country are seeing more of it now than they have in at least a decade. And some say they are having difficulty responding to the need because national attention is focused more on obesity than hunger.
An annual study released Tuesday by the U.S. Conference of Mayors contends that requests for emergency food assistance have increased by 14 percent this year -- and that more than half of those asking for such aid are families with children.
The Agriculture Department released similar news last month. It found that 12.6 million American families are struggling to feed themselves, 2 million more than in 1999. That figure has increased for five consecutive years.
"We are still far short in meeting the challenges of our neediest citizens," said Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell, a co-chairman of the mayoral group's 20th hunger survey.
'Living on the edge'
Some cities in the Midwest are hard hit by the new demand.
In Chicago, food banks say they have been besieged with first-time customers this year and that nearly half of them are from households with at least one working adult.
Lakeview Pantry near Wrigley Field, which has been giving food away for more than 30 years, served more than 950 families last month -- 100 more than last year. "November was one of the busiest months we've ever had," said Greg Nergaard, the program coordinator.
Here in Des Moines, a network of eight pantries in the city and some suburbs has served about 600 more families this year than last.
At Rohwer's center, a former convenience store on a ragged edge of downtown, 95 families came in for food in November, double the monthly average.
"We've been getting calls from people all year saying, 'I've never done this before, what do I do when I come in?' " said Sister Sandy Rodemyer, the director of the Des Moines Area Religious Council's Emergency Food Pantry. "It seems like so many more people are living on the edge."
In Minnesota, some advocacy groups say visits to food shelves have increased by more than 20 percent over the past two years and that more than half of the families seeking emergency food in Twin Cities suburbs include someone who is employed.
Robb Kline, a director of Second Harvest Heartland, which oversees community programs combating hunger in Minnesota and western Wisconsin, said his organization has been forced to start buying some of its food stock because donations are declining.
"We never had to do that in the past," Kline said. "It's getting harder now to get the public interested in this subject."
Authorities call the problem "food insecurity" because most of the people coming to pantries are not suffering from serious, prolonged hunger; rather, they are having a hard time maintaining adequate food supplies at home -- and either skimping on meals or skipping some altogether when money gets tight.
Last month's federal study on the subject found that, while more than 11 percent of households lack consistent access to food, only about 4 percent ever go hungry for an extended period of time.
A decade ago, federal officials vowed to cut in half by 2010 the percentage of families struggling to stay well fed. And progress was made toward that goal in the late 1990s, when the economy was booming
But since then food insecurity has increased. Jean Daniel, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture Department, said the reasons aren't clear. "I don't have an answer," she said. "But we are remaining steadfast in our effort to fight the problem."
She said that the department has tried to make it easier for needy families to receive food stamps, for example, but that "all people eligible are not participating."
Some skeptics suggest that not all of the demand at food shelves is legitimate. Many charitable groups, they say, lack guidelines for giving away food or verifying incomes and sometimes serve families that are not in dire straits.
But other public officials are turning new attention toward the problem. Earlier this year in Congress, a bipartisan group of senators formed a caucus to investigate and spotlight issues relating to hunger.
Groups providing food to the needy say the surge in requests for help is not seasonal.
Susan Paterson-Nielsen, the director of the human services department in West Des Moines, a city of about 50,000 residents, said pantries there have been serving a growing influx of families for most of the year. "We've been seeing 30 to 45 new households a week," she said. "That's a lot for a community our size."
The Census Bureau reported this summer that the number of Americans living in poverty -- about 36 million -- has risen for three consecutive years. Its research of the nation's workforce last year showed other signs of trouble: Median household income was stagnant. Women's earnings declined. The proportion of people who received health insurance through their employer fell to the lowest level in a decade.
Pantries say all those trends are keeping them busy.
Working, hungry
At St. Mary Family Center, Rohwer said many clients coming for food have jobs -- just not good ones. Some of them have no choice but to work part-time, or to accept low wages and benefits that often do not include health insurance.
Iowa has lost about 32,000 manufacturing jobs since 1999.
"We're not seeing more people because a big company closed down or moved," Rohwer said. "People are just having a tougher time getting the kind of work they need to keep up with the cost of things. Sometimes, after they pay their bills, they don't have much left for food."
Rene Sanchez is at rsanchez@startribune.com.
More families on the edge of hunger
Rene Sanchez, Star Tribune
December 15, 2004
DES MOINES -- Every morning at St. Mary Family Center, long before the lights flicker on or the front door opens, Chris Rohwer sees another crush of new faces peering in the window, waiting for the boxes filled with free food.
The people who keep coming have changed. Many are not homeless or jobless. They work. But their pay is too low or their hours too paltry to make ends meet. And many are making their first trip for help. "We never have a slow day," said Rohwer, 63, who manages the center. "At least a dozen people are always standing outside even before we open."
The federal government has a name for their plight: food insecurity. Pantries across the country are seeing more of it now than they have in at least a decade. And some say they are having difficulty responding to the need because national attention is focused more on obesity than hunger.
An annual study released Tuesday by the U.S. Conference of Mayors contends that requests for emergency food assistance have increased by 14 percent this year -- and that more than half of those asking for such aid are families with children.
The Agriculture Department released similar news last month. It found that 12.6 million American families are struggling to feed themselves, 2 million more than in 1999. That figure has increased for five consecutive years.
"We are still far short in meeting the challenges of our neediest citizens," said Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell, a co-chairman of the mayoral group's 20th hunger survey.
'Living on the edge'
Some cities in the Midwest are hard hit by the new demand.
In Chicago, food banks say they have been besieged with first-time customers this year and that nearly half of them are from households with at least one working adult.
Lakeview Pantry near Wrigley Field, which has been giving food away for more than 30 years, served more than 950 families last month -- 100 more than last year. "November was one of the busiest months we've ever had," said Greg Nergaard, the program coordinator.
Here in Des Moines, a network of eight pantries in the city and some suburbs has served about 600 more families this year than last.
At Rohwer's center, a former convenience store on a ragged edge of downtown, 95 families came in for food in November, double the monthly average.
"We've been getting calls from people all year saying, 'I've never done this before, what do I do when I come in?' " said Sister Sandy Rodemyer, the director of the Des Moines Area Religious Council's Emergency Food Pantry. "It seems like so many more people are living on the edge."
In Minnesota, some advocacy groups say visits to food shelves have increased by more than 20 percent over the past two years and that more than half of the families seeking emergency food in Twin Cities suburbs include someone who is employed.
Robb Kline, a director of Second Harvest Heartland, which oversees community programs combating hunger in Minnesota and western Wisconsin, said his organization has been forced to start buying some of its food stock because donations are declining.
"We never had to do that in the past," Kline said. "It's getting harder now to get the public interested in this subject."
Authorities call the problem "food insecurity" because most of the people coming to pantries are not suffering from serious, prolonged hunger; rather, they are having a hard time maintaining adequate food supplies at home -- and either skimping on meals or skipping some altogether when money gets tight.
Last month's federal study on the subject found that, while more than 11 percent of households lack consistent access to food, only about 4 percent ever go hungry for an extended period of time.
A decade ago, federal officials vowed to cut in half by 2010 the percentage of families struggling to stay well fed. And progress was made toward that goal in the late 1990s, when the economy was booming
But since then food insecurity has increased. Jean Daniel, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture Department, said the reasons aren't clear. "I don't have an answer," she said. "But we are remaining steadfast in our effort to fight the problem."
She said that the department has tried to make it easier for needy families to receive food stamps, for example, but that "all people eligible are not participating."
Some skeptics suggest that not all of the demand at food shelves is legitimate. Many charitable groups, they say, lack guidelines for giving away food or verifying incomes and sometimes serve families that are not in dire straits.
But other public officials are turning new attention toward the problem. Earlier this year in Congress, a bipartisan group of senators formed a caucus to investigate and spotlight issues relating to hunger.
Groups providing food to the needy say the surge in requests for help is not seasonal.
Susan Paterson-Nielsen, the director of the human services department in West Des Moines, a city of about 50,000 residents, said pantries there have been serving a growing influx of families for most of the year. "We've been seeing 30 to 45 new households a week," she said. "That's a lot for a community our size."
The Census Bureau reported this summer that the number of Americans living in poverty -- about 36 million -- has risen for three consecutive years. Its research of the nation's workforce last year showed other signs of trouble: Median household income was stagnant. Women's earnings declined. The proportion of people who received health insurance through their employer fell to the lowest level in a decade.
Pantries say all those trends are keeping them busy.
Working, hungry
At St. Mary Family Center, Rohwer said many clients coming for food have jobs -- just not good ones. Some of them have no choice but to work part-time, or to accept low wages and benefits that often do not include health insurance.
Iowa has lost about 32,000 manufacturing jobs since 1999.
"We're not seeing more people because a big company closed down or moved," Rohwer said. "People are just having a tougher time getting the kind of work they need to keep up with the cost of things. Sometimes, after they pay their bills, they don't have much left for food."
Rene Sanchez is at rsanchez@startribune.com.
Drinking Liberally - December 15th
Same time (8-10pm)
Same place (Liquor Lyle's)
New faces every time.
Topic - What would you like to stuff in Cheney's stocking this year?
Same place (Liquor Lyle's)
New faces every time.
Topic - What would you like to stuff in Cheney's stocking this year?
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Concerned Women For America HATES Planned Parenthood
Just in case you haven't caught on yet:
'Choice on Earth' Is a Snow Job 12/14/2004By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
A word about Planned Parenthood's 'Choice on Earth' Christmas Cards
The repeat offenders at Planned Parenthood are pandering their so-called 'Choice on Earth' holiday cards once again. "Tis the season to share with family, friends, colleagues, and loved ones the holiday message, 'Choice on Earth.' … Choose between cards that are blank on the inside or pre-printed inside with our special message: 'Warmest wishes for a peaceful holiday season.'"
This year's cards have pink snowflakes on the cover. Apparently, when there's no concern about offending God and millions of Christians, why worry about the weatherman or Mother Nature.
"Choice on Earth" is a snow job. The largest provider of abortion in the United States is hardly an advocate of choice except when it comes to destroying the lives of innocent unborn children.
For them, there is no "peaceful holiday season."
Consider some of the choices Planned Parenthood opposes:
"Choose Life" license plates
Freedom of speech for their opponents
Informed consent by women contemplating abortion
Father's right to prior notification of abortion
Pregnancy care centers helping women who choose life
Parental notice and consent laws
Criminal prosecution for intentional injury of unborn children
Medical care for babies who survive abortion
Job protection for health care providers who conscientiously oppose participating in abortions
Partial-birth abortion ban
FDA review of its approval of RU486
Routine health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
Software filters in public schools and libraries
Protecting children from "consensual" sex with adults
Complete information on condom effectiveness
In this blessed season when we celebrate the birth of the Christ Child, let's speak up for those who will never have a choice because their lives were ended by abortion. Contact your congressional representatives and tell them it is not your choice to fund Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars.
'Choice on Earth' Is a Snow Job 12/14/2004By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
A word about Planned Parenthood's 'Choice on Earth' Christmas Cards
The repeat offenders at Planned Parenthood are pandering their so-called 'Choice on Earth' holiday cards once again. "Tis the season to share with family, friends, colleagues, and loved ones the holiday message, 'Choice on Earth.' … Choose between cards that are blank on the inside or pre-printed inside with our special message: 'Warmest wishes for a peaceful holiday season.'"
This year's cards have pink snowflakes on the cover. Apparently, when there's no concern about offending God and millions of Christians, why worry about the weatherman or Mother Nature.
"Choice on Earth" is a snow job. The largest provider of abortion in the United States is hardly an advocate of choice except when it comes to destroying the lives of innocent unborn children.
For them, there is no "peaceful holiday season."
Consider some of the choices Planned Parenthood opposes:
"Choose Life" license plates
Freedom of speech for their opponents
Informed consent by women contemplating abortion
Father's right to prior notification of abortion
Pregnancy care centers helping women who choose life
Parental notice and consent laws
Criminal prosecution for intentional injury of unborn children
Medical care for babies who survive abortion
Job protection for health care providers who conscientiously oppose participating in abortions
Partial-birth abortion ban
FDA review of its approval of RU486
Routine health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
Software filters in public schools and libraries
Protecting children from "consensual" sex with adults
Complete information on condom effectiveness
In this blessed season when we celebrate the birth of the Christ Child, let's speak up for those who will never have a choice because their lives were ended by abortion. Contact your congressional representatives and tell them it is not your choice to fund Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars.
Friday, December 10, 2004
Another strike against women's choice
From CommonDreams.org:
PPFA: So-Called 'Abortion Non-Discrimination Act' Threatens Women's Health; Sweeping Refusal Clause Strips State Autonomy and Jeopardizes Women's Reproductive Health
WASHINGTON -- December 8 -- Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today challenged President Bush's signing of the Weldon Amendment, or so-called "Abortion Non- Discrimination Act" (ANDA). The legislation, originally proposed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and added as an amendment to the final version of the omnibus appropriations bill, will allow health care organizations to refuse to comply with existing federal, state or local laws pertaining to abortion.
"This amendment's Orwellian name makes it sound as if it protects women seeking abortions from discrimination. In fact, it discriminates against them," said PPFA President Gloria Feldt.
"It also discriminates against health care providers as well as state and local governments that want to provide comprehensive women's health care. It allows any health care provider or institution, religious or otherwise, to refuse to provide a much- needed reproductive health care service. The vast majority of Americans oppose allowing health care entities to deny services to women, even if those entities claim their refusal is based on religious or moral grounds, which ANDA does not require. This sweeping federal refusal clause will allow the whims of a corporate entity to trump the conscience and very real medical needs of women nationwide. Simply put, you ought to be able to trust your doctor or hospital to give you a full range of options and respect your health care choices. ANDA lets them discriminate against you."
ANDA was added to the appropriations bill by anti-choice Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.). The bill provides a sweeping exemption from existing laws relating to safe and legal abortion services. Health care entities, as defined by the law, include hospitals, provider-sponsored organizations, health maintenance organizations, health insurance plans or any other kind of health care facilities, organizations or plans.
Feldt said, "PPFA and others will be working to see the law blocked in the courts or repealed in Congress, where Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has promised Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) a vote to repeal the bill.We will also continue to work with our allies in Congress and across the pro-choice movement to strengthen legislative protections on reproductive rights and health through measures like the Putting Prevention First Act (PPFA), which promotes family planning programs. If ANDA's anti-choice supporters really cared about preventing abortions, they would help us do more to support family planning instead of penalizing women and service providers with vague, unfair, and dangerous legislation."
PPFA: So-Called 'Abortion Non-Discrimination Act' Threatens Women's Health; Sweeping Refusal Clause Strips State Autonomy and Jeopardizes Women's Reproductive Health
WASHINGTON -- December 8 -- Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today challenged President Bush's signing of the Weldon Amendment, or so-called "Abortion Non- Discrimination Act" (ANDA). The legislation, originally proposed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and added as an amendment to the final version of the omnibus appropriations bill, will allow health care organizations to refuse to comply with existing federal, state or local laws pertaining to abortion.
"This amendment's Orwellian name makes it sound as if it protects women seeking abortions from discrimination. In fact, it discriminates against them," said PPFA President Gloria Feldt.
"It also discriminates against health care providers as well as state and local governments that want to provide comprehensive women's health care. It allows any health care provider or institution, religious or otherwise, to refuse to provide a much- needed reproductive health care service. The vast majority of Americans oppose allowing health care entities to deny services to women, even if those entities claim their refusal is based on religious or moral grounds, which ANDA does not require. This sweeping federal refusal clause will allow the whims of a corporate entity to trump the conscience and very real medical needs of women nationwide. Simply put, you ought to be able to trust your doctor or hospital to give you a full range of options and respect your health care choices. ANDA lets them discriminate against you."
ANDA was added to the appropriations bill by anti-choice Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.). The bill provides a sweeping exemption from existing laws relating to safe and legal abortion services. Health care entities, as defined by the law, include hospitals, provider-sponsored organizations, health maintenance organizations, health insurance plans or any other kind of health care facilities, organizations or plans.
Feldt said, "PPFA and others will be working to see the law blocked in the courts or repealed in Congress, where Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has promised Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) a vote to repeal the bill.We will also continue to work with our allies in Congress and across the pro-choice movement to strengthen legislative protections on reproductive rights and health through measures like the Putting Prevention First Act (PPFA), which promotes family planning programs. If ANDA's anti-choice supporters really cared about preventing abortions, they would help us do more to support family planning instead of penalizing women and service providers with vague, unfair, and dangerous legislation."
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Is that an echo (chamber) I hear?
From Smarty:
I think it's nice that Rumsfeld heard criticisms from the troops -- though not, in this case, troops that had actually gotten to Iraq yet -- but to try to turn this into some sort of claim of generalized incompetence on the part of the Administration is to show, yet again, the ignorance of so many of the critics.
-Instapundit
Yeah, because Rumsfeld was holding that pep rally in order to hear criticism. That question he was asked? That was totally planned out. Really! The shock and befuddlement on his face was all entirely part of the script. The point of that exercise was to show what a bunch of whiners those troops who haven’t “actually gotten to Iraq yet” are.
Good thing we have the brave and noble right wing blogosphere protecting freedom and the Bush administration in this country when the whiny troops fail us. God bless ‘m!
You know, I resisted the whole “chickenhawk” thing for a long time. I didn’t think it was fair to criticize people for supporting a war they weren’t actually fighting. I still don’t think it’s very fair, to be honest. But when you write snarky comments about the people who are actually fighting that war in order to make yourself sound tough, well, Mr. Reynolds, you are a chickensh*thawk. So, screw you.
There. I said it.
I think it's nice that Rumsfeld heard criticisms from the troops -- though not, in this case, troops that had actually gotten to Iraq yet -- but to try to turn this into some sort of claim of generalized incompetence on the part of the Administration is to show, yet again, the ignorance of so many of the critics.
-Instapundit
Yeah, because Rumsfeld was holding that pep rally in order to hear criticism. That question he was asked? That was totally planned out. Really! The shock and befuddlement on his face was all entirely part of the script. The point of that exercise was to show what a bunch of whiners those troops who haven’t “actually gotten to Iraq yet” are.
Good thing we have the brave and noble right wing blogosphere protecting freedom and the Bush administration in this country when the whiny troops fail us. God bless ‘m!
You know, I resisted the whole “chickenhawk” thing for a long time. I didn’t think it was fair to criticize people for supporting a war they weren’t actually fighting. I still don’t think it’s very fair, to be honest. But when you write snarky comments about the people who are actually fighting that war in order to make yourself sound tough, well, Mr. Reynolds, you are a chickensh*thawk. So, screw you.
There. I said it.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
When you run out of arguements...
...play the "Nazi" card.
From Americans United (click above for full story):
Did Scalia Skip History Class?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has long distinguished himself as an opponent of church-state separation. Now, however, more than merely taking a stand against core First Amendment principles, Scalia has decided to turn history on its head.
At an interfaith conference celebrating the 350th anniversary of America's Jewish community, Scalia declared that the Founders intended for religion to play a part in government. To further his claim, the Associated Press reported that he pointed to the hackneyed examples of official religiosity in America: the word "God" on U.S. currency; chaplains of various faiths in the military and the legislature; real estate tax exemption for houses of worship and the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Not satisfied merely misinterpreting the legacy of the founders, Scalia then cryptically asked "Did it turn out that by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States?" He answered himself, saying, "I don't think so."
Many listeners at the event took this to mean that Scalia was blaming the Holocaust on church-state separation. If this is indeed the way that the man who is under consideration to be the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court sees world history, there is no appropriate response but outrage.
Nazi Germany was far from a bastion of secularism. The Common Dreams News Center and Ethics Daily both note prominent links between the Nazi state under Hitler and German religious institutions. By decree, Hitler merged the German Protestant Church into the Reich, and held the legal authority to appoint priests with the state.
The State Government guaranteed the funding of the official Protestant church at the same time that the Nazi party made overtures to the Catholic hierarchy. Pope Pius XII went so far as to arrange for special greetings to Hitler on his birthday. A famous photo from this time shows two Catholic bishops giving the Nazi salute.
By popping off about the different traditions of Europe and the United States, Scalia appears to be obfuscating about the true nature of American and European history. In an attempt to reinforce his point that secular Europe is the opposite of religious America, Scalia noted, "In Europe, religion-neutral leaders almost never publicly use the word ‘God.'"
What Scalia fails to grasp is the extent to which the tradition of laïcité in France and secularism in other European counties is both inspired by the example of America's Founders and counter to direct experience with theocratic efforts to merge church and state. Europe, we often forget, went through the Dark Ages and a long period of religious warfare.
Concluded Scalia, "The founding fathers never used the phrase separation of church and state."
That's just wrong. This assertion and the Religious Right's oft-repeated claims that America was founded as a Christian nation are easily debunked by the words of the Founders.
AU provides materials on the Founding Father's true views of the Seperation of church and state, for all you proof-hounds who love quoting things. Click on the link under the title to access their web site.
From Americans United (click above for full story):
Did Scalia Skip History Class?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has long distinguished himself as an opponent of church-state separation. Now, however, more than merely taking a stand against core First Amendment principles, Scalia has decided to turn history on its head.
At an interfaith conference celebrating the 350th anniversary of America's Jewish community, Scalia declared that the Founders intended for religion to play a part in government. To further his claim, the Associated Press reported that he pointed to the hackneyed examples of official religiosity in America: the word "God" on U.S. currency; chaplains of various faiths in the military and the legislature; real estate tax exemption for houses of worship and the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Not satisfied merely misinterpreting the legacy of the founders, Scalia then cryptically asked "Did it turn out that by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States?" He answered himself, saying, "I don't think so."
Many listeners at the event took this to mean that Scalia was blaming the Holocaust on church-state separation. If this is indeed the way that the man who is under consideration to be the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court sees world history, there is no appropriate response but outrage.
Nazi Germany was far from a bastion of secularism. The Common Dreams News Center and Ethics Daily both note prominent links between the Nazi state under Hitler and German religious institutions. By decree, Hitler merged the German Protestant Church into the Reich, and held the legal authority to appoint priests with the state.
The State Government guaranteed the funding of the official Protestant church at the same time that the Nazi party made overtures to the Catholic hierarchy. Pope Pius XII went so far as to arrange for special greetings to Hitler on his birthday. A famous photo from this time shows two Catholic bishops giving the Nazi salute.
By popping off about the different traditions of Europe and the United States, Scalia appears to be obfuscating about the true nature of American and European history. In an attempt to reinforce his point that secular Europe is the opposite of religious America, Scalia noted, "In Europe, religion-neutral leaders almost never publicly use the word ‘God.'"
What Scalia fails to grasp is the extent to which the tradition of laïcité in France and secularism in other European counties is both inspired by the example of America's Founders and counter to direct experience with theocratic efforts to merge church and state. Europe, we often forget, went through the Dark Ages and a long period of religious warfare.
Concluded Scalia, "The founding fathers never used the phrase separation of church and state."
That's just wrong. This assertion and the Religious Right's oft-repeated claims that America was founded as a Christian nation are easily debunked by the words of the Founders.
AU provides materials on the Founding Father's true views of the Seperation of church and state, for all you proof-hounds who love quoting things. Click on the link under the title to access their web site.
Drinking Liberally Wed, December 8th
Where: Liquor Lyle's
When: 8-10 p.m.
How to identify: Look for the fools wearing pro-Democrat buttons.
Topic: Where the hell is my blue internet?
First pitcher is on me (I say, because I know no one reading this is coming).
When: 8-10 p.m.
How to identify: Look for the fools wearing pro-Democrat buttons.
Topic: Where the hell is my blue internet?
First pitcher is on me (I say, because I know no one reading this is coming).
Thinking about "ecoterrorism"
The recent house burnings in the news this week made me ponder what the FBI has dubbed "ecoterrorism." Now, I am against these sorts of demonstrations. I would have preferred that the protesters had chained themselves to the finished houses in the complex. In the kitchen. And forced the new owners to eat nothing but Vegan food. That would teach everyone a lesson, I think.
But what makes this "ecoterrorism" versus arson? According to the Washington Times which I have been reading way too much lately:
The FBI defines ecoterrorism as criminal violence committed for "environmental-political reasons."
That's pretty clear. But this is the same administration who shot down hate crimes legislation because "all crime is hate crime." If this instance of ecoterrorism is arson with intent, then we are painting "terrorism" in very broad strokes. Terrorism is becoming defined as an act that causes people fear.
On that note, I am waiting for these new terrorisms to be prosecuted shortly:
Euroterrorism - the act of buying and publicly using any product from the EU, as nothing good can come from that sector of the world, other than the VAT. (2 years imprisonment with wine and pomme-frites)
Econoterrorism - the act of reporting that the economy is doing poorly, inspiring consumer fear and dropping the stock market (2-4 years imprisonment, and not in Martha Stewart luxury)
Patroterrorism - the act of speaking out against the leaders of our country, thereby making good folk afraid and "letting the terrorists win." (5-7 years in a work camp with Tommy Thompson)
But what makes this "ecoterrorism" versus arson? According to the Washington Times which I have been reading way too much lately:
The FBI defines ecoterrorism as criminal violence committed for "environmental-political reasons."
That's pretty clear. But this is the same administration who shot down hate crimes legislation because "all crime is hate crime." If this instance of ecoterrorism is arson with intent, then we are painting "terrorism" in very broad strokes. Terrorism is becoming defined as an act that causes people fear.
On that note, I am waiting for these new terrorisms to be prosecuted shortly:
Euroterrorism - the act of buying and publicly using any product from the EU, as nothing good can come from that sector of the world, other than the VAT. (2 years imprisonment with wine and pomme-frites)
Econoterrorism - the act of reporting that the economy is doing poorly, inspiring consumer fear and dropping the stock market (2-4 years imprisonment, and not in Martha Stewart luxury)
Patroterrorism - the act of speaking out against the leaders of our country, thereby making good folk afraid and "letting the terrorists win." (5-7 years in a work camp with Tommy Thompson)
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Pro-lifers get uppity
From the Washington Times (my bold added):
Pro-lifers set sights on new Congress
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The pro-life movement, which helped pass several initiatives in the 108th Congress, thinks Republican gains in the Senate will aid the chances for bills to enforce state parental notification laws and to alert pregnant women about fetal pain.
"There is enough of a shift that we think bills such as these two ... have a real chance," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
The Senate has been the biggest blockade to pro-life bills. Republican pickups in this year's election mean the chamber will have about three additional pro-life votes come January, Mr. Johnson said.
He said he hopes the defeat of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, might make some pro-choice senators "who marched in lock step with the abortion lobby ... less inclined to get out on thin ice" in blocking abortion restrictions.
Both sides of the abortion debate are anticipating a Supreme Court vacancy, particularly after deteriorating health has forced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to miss several sessions.
Mr. Johnson said a battle over any Supreme Court nominee would take top priority for his group.
Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, also said a Supreme Court vacancy would be a "huge priority" for her side. She promised a "tremendous fight" over any nominee who would "turn back the clock" on abortion or other rights.
Until that fight erupts, however, the pro-life lobby will focus on other legislation.
One priority, introduced as a bill for the first time in May, would require doctors to tell women seeking abortions after 20 weeks about the capacity of the fetus to feel pain and offer the option of pain-reducing drugs.
The fetal-pain issue garnered interest during a federal court case in New York, in which the government was defending the federal ban on late-term partial-birth abortions. The judge in that case said the defense presented "credible evidence" that a fetus feels pain.
Mr. Johnson said there is growing support for the fetal pain bill in the House, and he hopes it can pass both chambers this term.
A bill returning to the scene next session would make it a federal crime to circumvent a state's parental-notification law by transporting a pregnant teen across the state line for an abortion without parental involvement.
The measure passed the House three times but stalled in the Senate.
Miss Saporta said the fetal-pain bill is "part of their campaign to separate the fetus from the woman."
Although the teen-transport bill likely will be introduced in both chambers, she said, passage would "put the most vulnerable teens at risk" by forcing those in dangerous family situations to involve their parents in abortion decisions and by making other family members criminals if they intervene.
Connie Mackey, vice president for government affairs for the Family Research Council, said her group also will push a ban on cloning human embryos for any purpose.
The legislation stalled last session, but House and Senate sponsors plan to bring back their bills next session. "We will be working hard" to pass them, Mrs. Mackey said.
She said her group will fight for more federal funding for adult stem-cell research, as a more promising alternative to embryonic stem-cell research. Pro-life lawmakers also are considering proposals to regulate abortion clinics and ban or limit RU-486, a home drug treatment that induces an abortion.
Miss Saporta said she also suspects conservative lawmakers will try to ban or limit RU-486 but predicted they will fail.
"It will be somewhat easier for anti-choice forces to pass further restrictions on abortion, but they won't be successful in all of their initiatives," she said.
Pro-lifers set sights on new Congress
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The pro-life movement, which helped pass several initiatives in the 108th Congress, thinks Republican gains in the Senate will aid the chances for bills to enforce state parental notification laws and to alert pregnant women about fetal pain.
"There is enough of a shift that we think bills such as these two ... have a real chance," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
The Senate has been the biggest blockade to pro-life bills. Republican pickups in this year's election mean the chamber will have about three additional pro-life votes come January, Mr. Johnson said.
He said he hopes the defeat of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, might make some pro-choice senators "who marched in lock step with the abortion lobby ... less inclined to get out on thin ice" in blocking abortion restrictions.
Both sides of the abortion debate are anticipating a Supreme Court vacancy, particularly after deteriorating health has forced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to miss several sessions.
Mr. Johnson said a battle over any Supreme Court nominee would take top priority for his group.
Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, also said a Supreme Court vacancy would be a "huge priority" for her side. She promised a "tremendous fight" over any nominee who would "turn back the clock" on abortion or other rights.
Until that fight erupts, however, the pro-life lobby will focus on other legislation.
One priority, introduced as a bill for the first time in May, would require doctors to tell women seeking abortions after 20 weeks about the capacity of the fetus to feel pain and offer the option of pain-reducing drugs.
The fetal-pain issue garnered interest during a federal court case in New York, in which the government was defending the federal ban on late-term partial-birth abortions. The judge in that case said the defense presented "credible evidence" that a fetus feels pain.
Mr. Johnson said there is growing support for the fetal pain bill in the House, and he hopes it can pass both chambers this term.
A bill returning to the scene next session would make it a federal crime to circumvent a state's parental-notification law by transporting a pregnant teen across the state line for an abortion without parental involvement.
The measure passed the House three times but stalled in the Senate.
Miss Saporta said the fetal-pain bill is "part of their campaign to separate the fetus from the woman."
Although the teen-transport bill likely will be introduced in both chambers, she said, passage would "put the most vulnerable teens at risk" by forcing those in dangerous family situations to involve their parents in abortion decisions and by making other family members criminals if they intervene.
Connie Mackey, vice president for government affairs for the Family Research Council, said her group also will push a ban on cloning human embryos for any purpose.
The legislation stalled last session, but House and Senate sponsors plan to bring back their bills next session. "We will be working hard" to pass them, Mrs. Mackey said.
She said her group will fight for more federal funding for adult stem-cell research, as a more promising alternative to embryonic stem-cell research. Pro-life lawmakers also are considering proposals to regulate abortion clinics and ban or limit RU-486, a home drug treatment that induces an abortion.
Miss Saporta said she also suspects conservative lawmakers will try to ban or limit RU-486 but predicted they will fail.
"It will be somewhat easier for anti-choice forces to pass further restrictions on abortion, but they won't be successful in all of their initiatives," she said.
The Squeaky Wheel Makes TV Boring
They're loud, they're proud, they really need to get out more...
Activists Dominate Content Complaints
December 06, 2004
By Todd Shields
In an appearance before Congress in February, when the controversy over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl moment was at its height, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell laid some startling statistics on U.S. senators.
The number of indecency complaints had soared dramatically to more than 240,000 in the previous year, Powell said. The figure was up from roughly 14,000 in 2002, and from fewer than 350 in each of the two previous years. There was, Powell said, “a dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes.”
What Powell did not reveal—apparently because he was unaware—was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003—99.8 percent—were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.
This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified...
Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints—aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS— were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners’ statements.)
The prominent role played by the PTC has raised concerns among critics of the FCC’s crackdown on indecency. “It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio,” said Jonathan Rintels, president and executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an artists’ advocacy group.
PTC officials disagree.
“I wish we had that much power,” said Lara Mahaney, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles-based group. Mahaney said the issue should not be the source of complaints, but whether programming violates federal law prohibiting the broadcast of indecent matter when children are likely to be watching. “Why does it matter how the complaints come?” Mahaney said. “If the networks haven’t done anything illegal, if they haven’t done anything indecent, why do they care what we say?”
Powell, who said during the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas in April that he was unsure how many complaints come from organized groups, addressed the question in an op-ed piece in The New York Times last Friday.
“Advocacy groups do generate many complaints, as our critics note, but that’s not unusual in today’s Internet world…that fact does not minimize the merits of the groups’ concerns,” Powell wrote.
Powell’s fellow Republican commissioner, Kathleen Abernathy, last week said that the agency does not let the number or the sources of complaints determine its indecency findings. “As long as you’re following precedents and the law, it shouldn’t matter,” Abernathy told Mediaweek.
At issue is a process that once relied upon aggrieved listeners and viewers contacting the FCC, but that increasingly is driven by organized groups with a focus on programming content. The FCC does not monitor programming for fear of assuming a role as national censor; it relies on complaints to initiate its indecency proceedings.
So far this year, the system has resulted in millions of dollars in settlements and proposed fines against broadcasters.
In such a system, even the number of complaints becomes an object of contention. For example, the agency on Oct. 12, in proposing fines of nearly $1.2 million against Fox Broadcasting and its affiliates, said it received 159 complaints against Married by America, which featured strippers partly obscured by pixilation.
But when asked, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau said it could find only 90 complaints from 23 individuals. (The smaller total was first reported by Internet-based TV writer Jeff Jarvis; Mediaweek independently obtained the Enforcement Bureau’s calculation.)
And Fox, in a filing last Friday, told the FCC that it should rescind the proposed fines, in part because the low number of complaints fell far short of indicating that community standards had been violated.
“All but four of the complaints were identical…and only one complainant professed even to have watched the program,” Fox said. It said the network and its stations had received 34 comments, “a miniscule total for a show that had a national audience of 5.1 million households.”
Even as some question whether the FCC should let the views of 23 people lead to fines, others take the agency to task for routinely failing to account for many of the complaints it receives. “Over 4,000 people filed a complaint against Married by America. Where do the complaints go?” asked the PTC’s Mahaney.
The PTC has worked hard to achieve its influence over broadcast content. Founded in 1995 by longtime conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III, it set out to make an impact in 2003, including what it called “a massive, coordinated and determined campaign” for more action by the FCC against broadcast indecency. “We delivered on that promise,” Bozell said in the group’s annual report.
The document listed tools developed by the PTC, including continual monitoring and archiving of broadcast network programs and “cutting-edge technology to make it easier for members to contact program sponsors, the FCC, or the networks directly with a simple click of the button.”
The result, the group said, was “a more than 2,400 percent increase in online activism.”
Activists Dominate Content Complaints
December 06, 2004
By Todd Shields
In an appearance before Congress in February, when the controversy over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl moment was at its height, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell laid some startling statistics on U.S. senators.
The number of indecency complaints had soared dramatically to more than 240,000 in the previous year, Powell said. The figure was up from roughly 14,000 in 2002, and from fewer than 350 in each of the two previous years. There was, Powell said, “a dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes.”
What Powell did not reveal—apparently because he was unaware—was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003—99.8 percent—were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.
This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified...
Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints—aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS— were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners’ statements.)
The prominent role played by the PTC has raised concerns among critics of the FCC’s crackdown on indecency. “It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio,” said Jonathan Rintels, president and executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an artists’ advocacy group.
PTC officials disagree.
“I wish we had that much power,” said Lara Mahaney, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles-based group. Mahaney said the issue should not be the source of complaints, but whether programming violates federal law prohibiting the broadcast of indecent matter when children are likely to be watching. “Why does it matter how the complaints come?” Mahaney said. “If the networks haven’t done anything illegal, if they haven’t done anything indecent, why do they care what we say?”
Powell, who said during the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas in April that he was unsure how many complaints come from organized groups, addressed the question in an op-ed piece in The New York Times last Friday.
“Advocacy groups do generate many complaints, as our critics note, but that’s not unusual in today’s Internet world…that fact does not minimize the merits of the groups’ concerns,” Powell wrote.
Powell’s fellow Republican commissioner, Kathleen Abernathy, last week said that the agency does not let the number or the sources of complaints determine its indecency findings. “As long as you’re following precedents and the law, it shouldn’t matter,” Abernathy told Mediaweek.
At issue is a process that once relied upon aggrieved listeners and viewers contacting the FCC, but that increasingly is driven by organized groups with a focus on programming content. The FCC does not monitor programming for fear of assuming a role as national censor; it relies on complaints to initiate its indecency proceedings.
So far this year, the system has resulted in millions of dollars in settlements and proposed fines against broadcasters.
In such a system, even the number of complaints becomes an object of contention. For example, the agency on Oct. 12, in proposing fines of nearly $1.2 million against Fox Broadcasting and its affiliates, said it received 159 complaints against Married by America, which featured strippers partly obscured by pixilation.
But when asked, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau said it could find only 90 complaints from 23 individuals. (The smaller total was first reported by Internet-based TV writer Jeff Jarvis; Mediaweek independently obtained the Enforcement Bureau’s calculation.)
And Fox, in a filing last Friday, told the FCC that it should rescind the proposed fines, in part because the low number of complaints fell far short of indicating that community standards had been violated.
“All but four of the complaints were identical…and only one complainant professed even to have watched the program,” Fox said. It said the network and its stations had received 34 comments, “a miniscule total for a show that had a national audience of 5.1 million households.”
Even as some question whether the FCC should let the views of 23 people lead to fines, others take the agency to task for routinely failing to account for many of the complaints it receives. “Over 4,000 people filed a complaint against Married by America. Where do the complaints go?” asked the PTC’s Mahaney.
The PTC has worked hard to achieve its influence over broadcast content. Founded in 1995 by longtime conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III, it set out to make an impact in 2003, including what it called “a massive, coordinated and determined campaign” for more action by the FCC against broadcast indecency. “We delivered on that promise,” Bozell said in the group’s annual report.
The document listed tools developed by the PTC, including continual monitoring and archiving of broadcast network programs and “cutting-edge technology to make it easier for members to contact program sponsors, the FCC, or the networks directly with a simple click of the button.”
The result, the group said, was “a more than 2,400 percent increase in online activism.”
Monday, December 06, 2004
And in the "Go Figure" department
Fox to Provide News for Clear Channel
SAN ANTONIO - Clear Channel Communications Inc., the nation's largest radio station operator, has selected Fox News Radio to provide national news for most of its news and talk stations in deal expected to nearly double Fox's radio presence...
Fox currently provides one-minute newscasts to 275 stations. Starting next year, it will provide more than 100 Clear Channel stations with a five-minute top-of-the-hour newscast, a nightly news broadcast, and around-the-clock dedicated national news coverage. Fox News will be in many of Clear Channel's most prominent news/talk stations, including Los Angeles, Phoenix, Atlanta and San Diego.
In return, Fox News Radio will have access to news produced by San Antonio-based Clear Channel's news network. Fox also expects to hire more news anchors, studios and staff, but said it was too early to be more specific.
"This deal positions Fox News to become a significant player in the radio industry and is another example of our commitment to the medium," said Roger Ailes, Fox News chairman and CEO.
SAN ANTONIO - Clear Channel Communications Inc., the nation's largest radio station operator, has selected Fox News Radio to provide national news for most of its news and talk stations in deal expected to nearly double Fox's radio presence...
Fox currently provides one-minute newscasts to 275 stations. Starting next year, it will provide more than 100 Clear Channel stations with a five-minute top-of-the-hour newscast, a nightly news broadcast, and around-the-clock dedicated national news coverage. Fox News will be in many of Clear Channel's most prominent news/talk stations, including Los Angeles, Phoenix, Atlanta and San Diego.
In return, Fox News Radio will have access to news produced by San Antonio-based Clear Channel's news network. Fox also expects to hire more news anchors, studios and staff, but said it was too early to be more specific.
"This deal positions Fox News to become a significant player in the radio industry and is another example of our commitment to the medium," said Roger Ailes, Fox News chairman and CEO.
From William Gibson
I hadn't really thought of which of my own books would be pulled if they pass that law prohibiting libraries from offering anything that presents homosexuality as other than purely unnatural sin. Virtual Light -- for sure! I remember wandering into A Different Light for the first time and discovering, to my delight, that I was included in their rather exclusive selection of science fiction. Made me feel kind of like an honorary homosexual!
Books that would be banned if such a law were passed:
"Heather has Two Mommies
"The Color Purple"
"The Picture of Dorian Gray"
"Brideshead Revisted"
"Handmaid's Tale"
"Zami: A new spelling of my name"
"Beowolf"
"Canterberry Tales"
"Me Talk Pretty Someday"
"The Works of Sappho"
Much Shakespeare...
Books that would be banned if such a law were passed:
"Heather has Two Mommies
"The Color Purple"
"The Picture of Dorian Gray"
"Brideshead Revisted"
"Handmaid's Tale"
"Zami: A new spelling of my name"
"Beowolf"
"Canterberry Tales"
"Me Talk Pretty Someday"
"The Works of Sappho"
Much Shakespeare...
Target Versus Walmart
In the continuing struggle between Red and Blue, we have a new entry: Target v. Walmart.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of Target. They never have what I want, their furniture has the quality and durability of Ikea, but without the Swedish Meatballs, and I would like to use a toilet plunger that actually forces the feces through the pipe, rather than one that is a fashion accessory by Michael Graves.
But when I enter a Walmart, I feel my IQ going down 10 points, as if it were the shopping equivalent of chewing on lead-based paint chips. I hate their HR policies that hold back women. I hate their movies more edited than even Blockbuster dares to do. I hate that you can buy O'Reilly and Coulter, but not Jon Stewart.
And that creepy Roll-back guy really freaks me out.
Luckily, Concerned Women for America has decided to make Target and Walmart fight to the death in the name of the Holy Father. And I believe they may be right: Target V. Walmart is the ultimate battle of Good Versus Evil. One is a giant corporation who makes lots of money selling crap and lets the Salvation Army have a kettle outside. One is a giant corporation who makes a lot of money selling crap who doesn't let the Salvation Army have a kettle outside.
The Family Values coalitions have told their people to make this another battle over homosexuality: Target offers partner benefits, and is ousting the Salvation Army, so give your business to the God-lovin', Republican friendly Walmart. Yet if you look at OpenSecrets.org, you see that in the 2002 campaign cycle, Target actually gave a larger percentage of their donations to Republicans than Walmart did (94% vs.89%). So, just as in the regular battle of Red and Blue, Target is being "targeted" for just not being red enough. (Yes, it was inevitable that this joke would occur at some point in this diatribe.)
In conclusion, I think that Target versus Walmart will end like Freddy Vs. Jason: confusing, a little disappointing, and nothing will be resolved. And I will be doing my Christmas shopping at the outlet malls. Thanks, Bush Economy!
Now, I'm not a huge fan of Target. They never have what I want, their furniture has the quality and durability of Ikea, but without the Swedish Meatballs, and I would like to use a toilet plunger that actually forces the feces through the pipe, rather than one that is a fashion accessory by Michael Graves.
But when I enter a Walmart, I feel my IQ going down 10 points, as if it were the shopping equivalent of chewing on lead-based paint chips. I hate their HR policies that hold back women. I hate their movies more edited than even Blockbuster dares to do. I hate that you can buy O'Reilly and Coulter, but not Jon Stewart.
And that creepy Roll-back guy really freaks me out.
Luckily, Concerned Women for America has decided to make Target and Walmart fight to the death in the name of the Holy Father. And I believe they may be right: Target V. Walmart is the ultimate battle of Good Versus Evil. One is a giant corporation who makes lots of money selling crap and lets the Salvation Army have a kettle outside. One is a giant corporation who makes a lot of money selling crap who doesn't let the Salvation Army have a kettle outside.
The Family Values coalitions have told their people to make this another battle over homosexuality: Target offers partner benefits, and is ousting the Salvation Army, so give your business to the God-lovin', Republican friendly Walmart. Yet if you look at OpenSecrets.org, you see that in the 2002 campaign cycle, Target actually gave a larger percentage of their donations to Republicans than Walmart did (94% vs.89%). So, just as in the regular battle of Red and Blue, Target is being "targeted" for just not being red enough. (Yes, it was inevitable that this joke would occur at some point in this diatribe.)
In conclusion, I think that Target versus Walmart will end like Freddy Vs. Jason: confusing, a little disappointing, and nothing will be resolved. And I will be doing my Christmas shopping at the outlet malls. Thanks, Bush Economy!
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Abstinence only education - Making Kids even Dumber about Sex
I can only assume that the people making the curriculum for abstinence only sex-ed must be the same people who think Saddam attacked the US on 9/11. I blame Fox News. then again, I always do.
Kids get dose of false data with abstinence programs, congressional report says
Ceci Connolly, Washington Post
December 2, 2004
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Many youngsters participating in federally funded, abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals can result in pregnancy, a congressional staff analysis has found.
Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis released Wednesday. The analysis reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen popular projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teen-agers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., an administration critic who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.
Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since they began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.
The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate, but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods.
Among the misconceptions Waxman's investigators cited:
• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
Condoms, used properly and consistently, fail less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say.
Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Health and Human Services Department, said in a statement that the Waxman report was a political document that did a "disservice to our children."
Kids get dose of false data with abstinence programs, congressional report says
Ceci Connolly, Washington Post
December 2, 2004
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Many youngsters participating in federally funded, abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals can result in pregnancy, a congressional staff analysis has found.
Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis released Wednesday. The analysis reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen popular projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teen-agers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., an administration critic who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.
Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since they began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.
The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate, but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods.
Among the misconceptions Waxman's investigators cited:
• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
Condoms, used properly and consistently, fail less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say.
Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Health and Human Services Department, said in a statement that the Waxman report was a political document that did a "disservice to our children."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
