The New Bamboozlement

Good work, Casey. I'm in...

Wallis on Justice Sunday

An attempt to hijack Christianity
by Jim Wallis

Last week, I wrote about the "Justice Sunday" event held at a Louisville, Kentucky, mega-church. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson, and Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler were joined by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on video in the event titled "Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith." Of course, I have no objection to Christian leaders expressing their faith in the public arena - it's a good thing that I do all the time. The question is not whether to do so, but how. As I heard more and more about "Justice Sunday," it felt to me like it was crossing an important line - saying that a political issue was a test of faith.

So, when I was invited to speak at an interfaith "Freedom and Faith" service at Central Presbyterian Church in Louisville, I agreed. On Sunday morning, I flew to Louisville, and that afternoon addressed more than 1,000 people who attended the rally. I didn't go to say that these leaders shouldn't bring their faith into politics; the issues concerning them - abortion and family values - are also important to me. But the way they were doing it was wrong. The clear implication of their message was that those who opposed them are not people of faith.

We can get some historical perspective by looking at how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did it - and he was the church leader who did it best. Once after he was arrested, he wrote a very famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," addressed to the white clergy who were opposing him on the issues of racial segregation and violence against black people. Never once did he say that they were not people of faith. He appealed to their faith, challenged their faith, asked them to go deeper with their faith, but he never said they were not real Christians. If Dr. King refused to attack the integrity and faith of his opponents over such a clear gospel issue, how can the Religious Right do it over presidential nominees and a Senate procedural issue known as the filibuster?

After the "Justice Sunday" event, and the controversy surrounding it, some of the sponsors are denying they ever claimed that those who oppose them are hostile to people of faith. Yet their words stand for themselves. In the letter announcing the event on the Family Research Council Web site, Tony Perkins wrote: "Many of these nominees to the all-important appellate court level are being blocked...because they are people of faith and moral convictions.... We must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith."

So, I told the Louisville rally that when someone has stolen our faith in the public arena, it is time to take our faith back. "Justice Sunday" was an attempt to hijack Christianity for a partisan and ideological agenda. Those on the Religious Right are declaring a religious war to give their version of faith religious supremacy in America. And some members of the Republican Party seem ready almost to declare a Christian theocracy in America. It is time to take back both our faith and our Constitution.

It is now clear there are some who will fight this religious war by any means necessary. So we will fight, but not the way they do. We must never lie or misrepresent the facts or the truth. We must not demonize or vilify those who are our opponents. We must claim that those who disagree with our judgments are still real people of faith. We must not fight the way they do, but fight we must. A great deal is at stake in this battle for the heart and soul of faith in America and for the nation's future itself. We will not allow faith to be put into the service of one political agenda.

This is a call for the rest of the churches to wake up. This is a call for people of faith everywhere to stand up and let their faith be heard. This is not a call to be just concerned, or just a little worried, or even just alarmed. This is a call for clear speech and courageous action. This is a call to take back our faith, and in the words of the prophet Micah, "to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God."

From Mother Jones...
Left, Right, & Wrong
NEWS: What’s missing from the debate over values in America
By Garret Keizer
March/April 2005 Issue (http://www.motherjones.com/toc/2005/03/index.html)

SOME TIME AFTER ELECTION DAY and the equivocal Thanksgiving that follows, I receive a call from a woman in my community, the kind of troubled, searching- for-some-answer call I used to get when I worked as a minister, though I am not doing that work now, and the woman never came to my church when I was.
The woman is not dismayed over Blue States and Red States. The woman is dismayed that yet another local kid has died in an alcohol-related car crash. By my count, this makes five in seven years, an alarmingly high number for one rural county in northeastern Vermont. The woman is dismayed by people who want the surviving driver, a young single mother who’s “come a long way” since the accident, to serve a stiffer jail sentence than the one she received. The woman is also dismayed by neighbors who neither know nor seem to care about what their children do on the weekends. Finally, she is dismayed because this annual blood sacrifice has come to seem like a basic fact of life, another form of the “shit” that “happens.”
I share all of the woman’s concerns -- in addition to one of my own: the way the current Republican rhetoric of “traditional values” speaks to tragedies of this kind, to that gut need we all have for a palpable catharsis and a culpable face. Not least of all, to the need we feel for order when our world starts falling apart. I try my liberal best to speak to the larger picture, the corporate policies that have decimated agricultural communities like our own, the connection between the low price of raw milk and the high sales of cheap beer. But I am speaking a language of things unseen. The woman is speaking of what she sees with her own two eyes on her own dirt road. Most of all, she is speaking of her struggle to protect what she values, which is partly her community and partly its youth and absolutely her teenage son.
If there is anything the left fails to appreciate, and that politicians on the right exploit with unerring tact, it is the nature of that woman’s struggle. I mean the class nature no less than the moral nature. You may call it universal if you wish, because it is common to parents everywhere and, in fact, to anyone who loves anything at all, but the struggle to preserve what you cherish becomes especially acute when you live in poverty, or close to poverty, when your well-kept prefab sits on its half-acre lot a quarter mile up the road from the shack with all the dogs. Or, tougher still, when you live in the shack with all the dogs and try to teach your kids not to treat animals like the little sadists up in the prefab house. Sophisticated people of independent means can afford to be disdainful of lower-class attempts at “respectability,” chalking it up to religious prejudice or provincial narrowness, but when their own kids come anywhere within the smell of social dysfunction, they have the private-school applications in the mail. To be sure, the private school they choose will be very “diverse,” which is to say, diverse according to every criterion but class. There will be that very nice boy from the Philippines, but there won’t be any rough boys from Podunk.
Those without the privilege of mobility must learn instead the rigid disciplines of standing still, that is, of making a stand. There are things we do in this house and things we don’t do, things the rednecks do or the gringos do that are not for us. Often those engaged in this kind of struggle will turn to religion. Though I served a small and not very moralistic (Episcopal) church, I saw this more than once. People go to church for all kinds of reasons, but the main reason that people of a certain age will start going to church is that their kids are starting to overdose on the dominant culture. They go to church hoping to find solid ground. Sometimes they go to the polls hoping for the same thing.
“You know where I stand,” George W. Bush said any number of times before his 2004 electoral victory, and I certainly did: on the wrong side of every issue. But did voters know where the Democratic Party stood or, more to the point, on what it stood? Did it stand on anything? If the question offends you, permit me to ask another. Had Howard Dean been an evangelical Christian with an evangelical Christian base, would his followers have deserted him because his Iowa holler made him “unelectable”? Or would they have closed ranks behind him because his stand on the Iraq war made him right?

So I heard on AirAmericaRadio (and NPR, I think) that Scottie McC. is p.o.'d at the liberal media -- i.e., NYT -- for publishing "irresponsible headlines" on this regime's proposal to cut SS benefits...

So what about the irresponsibility of the damn regime for even considering these cuts that will hurt everyone above $20K/year???

Translation: irresponsible headlines = truth

Did I hear a Quack-Quack-Quack from 1600 Pa.?

President Gambles in Bid to Achieve Agenda

"If Bush succeeds, he'll regain control of a national agenda that has slipped from his grasp; if he fails, he risks early admission into lame-duck status."

Its time to just consider Bush as an irrelevant lame duck, or just lame.

This is a previous Wallis article with a petition link.

Filibustering people of faith?
by Jim Wallis

During the 2004 election campaign, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson virtually said Christians could only vote for George W. Bush. Many of you, along with other Christians and people of faith, responded with letters to the editor, newspaper ads, and even bumper stickers reminding America that "God is not a Republican...or a Democrat." Then the Republican National Committee circulated lists of "duties" to local churches, which included turning over their congregational membership lists. The RNC also sent postcards to voters in some states with images of a Bible being banned and a man putting a wedding ring on another man - warning that this was what "liberal" politicians planned to do.
Now the Religious Right is saying that supporting the president's judicial nominations is a test of orthodoxy. This is a dramatic new and serious breach in the relationship between faith and politics.
James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson, and Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler are hosting "Justice Sunday," a telecast this weekend from a mega-church in Louisville, Kentucky. Their message is that those who don't support President Bush's judicial nominees are hostile to "people of faith."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to join them by video to get political support for his effort to end the Senate practice known as the filibuster, which is designed to delay a vote on controversial issues in order to protect strong minorities from being overrun by majorities. The Republican leader's appearance at this event endorses the Religious Right's claim that the Democratic filibuster of a small number of very conservative judges is "a filibuster against people of faith."
Despite the fact that Democrats oppose these judges for their views on a variety of subjects, conservative leaders have singled out abortion and gay marriage as their chief concerns and only want judges who support their agenda. Despite the fact that many Democrats who oppose some of President Bush's nominees are themselves people of faith, Republicans and their religious supporters are questioning the faith and religious integrity of their opponents.
That is an escalation of the religious/political war. And the two together sound like assertions of a Republican theocracy. Behind these activities lies a fundamental assumption by Republican operatives and their conservative religious allies that they own religion in America. They demand that religious people vote only their way. They claim that "values voters" in America belong to them, and they disrespect the faith of those who disagree with their agenda. There are better words for this than just "politically divisive" or "morally irresponsible." For these are not merely political offenses, they are religious ones. And for offenses such as these, theological terms are better - terms such as idolatry and blasphemy.
We should bring our religious convictions about all moral issues to the public square - such as the uplifting of the poor, the protection of the environment, the ethics of war, or the tragic number of abortions in America - without attacking the sincerity of other people's faith, or demanding that we should win because we are religious. We must make moral arguments and mobilize effective movements for social change that can powerfully persuade our fellow citizens, religious or not, on what is best for the common good.
What I hear, from one end of this country to the other, is how tired we are of ideological religion and how hungry we are for prophetic faith. Join me in sending a message to Senator Frist that we are people of faith, and these Religious Right leaders do not speak for us.
Tell Frist to stop playing the Religious faith card.
http://go.sojo.net/campaign/frist

Scott McClellan should be grateful that none of the media outlets have called him what he is:

A LIAR.

How's this for a headline, Scotty?

SCOTT McCLELLAN LIES DAILY ON PRESIDENT'S BEHALF

He should be on his knees bowing and scraping for the cover he's been given by the lifeless mainstream media. And he definitely should shut his yap when somebody finally prints something about REALITY, as opposed to the LIES that Scotty stumbles through daily.

He reminds me of that little guy that stood in downtown Baghdad as American tanks rolled in behind him and said, "The Americans will be defeated easily." You have diverged seriously from reality, Scotty... it must be quite shocking when some slice of the real world penetates the lapdog fog in which you exist. Breathe deep the gathering gloom, Scott...Americans are starting to see behind the curtain.

Posted by: Victoria Ellen at April 29, 2005 03:17 PM

Brilliant! And unfortunately, it's also timeless...pick any day Scotty talks to the press, and that headline can be run...

~ Repost from end of previous thread ~

Victoria Ellen,

I have been watching your posts. I find I agree with you so much, you seem to be writing for me sometimes. I appreciate your insight, candor, and spirit. Thanks.

Truth and Madame:

Thanks for the props... There are many people here who post really insightful, well-written items...

I'm happy and proud to be a part of it.

P.S. For some reason the Scotty whining thing really riled me...

If anybody wants a laugh, check out the caption contest for the photo at Think Progress.

The Largest Benefit Cuts for the Middle Class in U.S. History

April 29, 2005

President Bush's press conference last night offered few new details about his push to privatize Social Security, with the exception of this whopper: the single largest benefit cuts in the program's history . Don't be fooled by "progressive indexing." There's nothing progressive about scamming people out of their hard earned retirement dollars by cutting benefits and replacing the most successful public program ever created with a system of private accounts.

Progressive indexing would significantly cut Social Security benefits for millions of Americans. The president's proposed progressive indexation would tie Social Security benefits to inflation rather than wage growth - a move that would force significant benefit cuts for millions of Americans. Under the president's plan, any worker making $58,000 a year or more will see their benefits cut by 31 percent.

On top of the benefit cuts, the president still insists on replacing Social Security with private accounts - a trillion dollar boondoggle that does nothing to ensure a secure retirement. President Bush insisted last night that private accounts must be a part of any legislative package, again confirming his commitment to right-wing ideology over policies that help Americans.

Protect Social Security and help people save on top of their guaranteed benefits. If the president wants to do something progressive, he should raise the earnings cap on Social Security taxes or dedicate his massive tax cuts for the wealthy to help Social Security's solvency. He should help people increase savings options outside of Social Security without replacing the one guaranteed part of a secure retirement.

THE VERDICT IS IN! THE PRESS CONFERENCE WAS A FLOP!

Not Exactly Must-See TV
Washington Post - 1 hour ago
Strong-armed, beguiled and wheedled into pre-empting an hour of
prime-time national programming last night for President Bush's news
conference, the networks were assured they would be getting must-see TV.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/04/29/BL2005042900675.html

from American Progress Report ~

SOCIAL SECURITY
Massive Middle-Class Benefit Cuts

Last night the president proposed deep Social Security benefit cuts for
middle-class Americans. He formally "backed a specific plan to reduce
future benefits for tens of millions of Americans." Yet in presenting
the idea of progressive indexation - a change in law that will give
workers less money by tying their benefits to inflation instead of wage
growth - President Bush described it as a system "where benefits for
low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are
better off." Here is the part he skipped: the plan "would reduce annual
benefits for an average wage-earner who is 25 today and retires in 2045
by 16 percent.. For an average-earner who retires in 2075, the benefit
reduction would be 28 percent."

After Bush's Scripted TV Appearance, Instant AOL Poll Had 64%
Dissatisfied with His Remarks and 59% Rating His Overall Job Performance
as Poor as of 7 AM EST on Friday.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050428072909990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Stuck In The Spin Cycle
Robert L. Borosage, TomPaine.com
The president's attempt to boost his polling numbers was a call to
worsen our economic crisis.
http://www.tompaine.com/20050429/articles/stuck_in_the_spin_cycle.php

Bush's Snake Oil Plan
Roger Hickey, TomPaine.com
The president's Social Security proposal will hurt the very people he
claims to want to help.
http://www.tompaine.com/20050429/articles/bushs_snake_oil_plan.php

Light, Sweet-Talking And Crude
Frank O'Donnell, TomPaine.com
Last night's press conference shows Bush is more interested in
conserving his poll numbers than energy.
http://www.tompaine.com/20050429/articles/light_sweettalking_and_crude.php

PENTAGON OFFICIAL SURPRISES SENATORS ON NORTH KOREA'S NUCLEAR
CAPABILITY: The Pentagon's top military intelligence officer said
yesterday that North Korea has the ability to arm a missile with a
nuclear device, stunning senators he was addressing and prompting
attempts by other defense and intelligence officials later to play down
the remarks. The statement by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby before the
Senate Armed Services Committee marked the first time that a U.S.
official had publicly attributed such a capability to North Korea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042802113.html

N. Korea Nuclear Capability "Troubling Beyond Words"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042905Z.shtml

Iran Hints Talks on Ending Its Nuclear Program Are Near Collapse
Iran hardened its position a day before it was expected to begin
negotiations with European nations in London.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/29/international/middleeast/29iran.html?ex=1272427200&en=3246230d95f8f665&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Posted by: Fe at April 29, 2005 05:05 PM

Oh Fe, you're going to make poor Scotty McC even madder... how dare you post "irresponsible headlines" from such liberal sources as AOL!

... how dare you post "irresponsible headlines" from such liberal sources as AOL!

Posted by: madame defarge at April 29, 2005 05:08 PM

Madame:

There is some compost whose odor is too far gone to camouflage. Not even Scotty can cover it up.

Interesting article about important it is to know the percentages of the total budget for specific items...

Numbers Before Politics
By Dean Baker

Since last autumn’s Republican victory, progressives have engaged in considerable soul searching. The most basic question has been: Why do so many people support conservative policies that hurt them? For an important subset of these policies, the answer is simple: They don’t know the numbers.

Public opinion polls consistently show that people hugely overestimate the portion of public spending that goes to programs like welfare or foreign aid. For example, a Kaiser poll from the mid-’90s found that 40 percent of respondents ranked welfare as one of the two largest items in the federal budget, and 40 percent put foreign aid in this category. At the time, the two largest items in the federal budget were Social Security at 22 percent and military spending at 18 percent. The share of the budget going to Aid for Families with Dependent Children, the core welfare program, was less than 1 percent. Adding in food stamps, housing subsidies and other low-income programs could push this figure close to 4 percent. Less than 0.5 percent of the budget went for anything remotely resembling foreign aid.

The extent of this misinformation is important. If a person believes that 25 percent of the budget is already going to welfare, then she is likely to have a very different attitude toward further spending than if she knew the real numbers. She would believe that welfare spending is already imposing a substantial tax burden—one that must have a real effect on the living standards of many middle income families.

--snip--
Such grossly distorted views of the budget are not inevitable. Part of the problem may be attributable to ideology. For example, some people may simply want to believe that welfare programs take up the bulk of the budget regardless of the facts. Part of the confusion is also attributable to right-wing politicians who foster such misconceptions. Ronald Reagan used to talk about the pain felt by hardworking families who had to pay for their groceries while seeing lazy welfare cheats in front of them in the checkout line, buying expensive cuts of meat with food stamps. But the main reason for public ignorance on the size of social program spending is simply how the media reports budget numbers.

--snip--
Reporting on the budget in ways that actually convey information is not rocket science. The most obvious way is to simply express spending and tax items as a share of the total budget. For example, the $16 billion TANF bill can be described as 0.6 percent of federal spending; the $5 billion foreign aid appropriation can be referred to as 0.2 percent of federal spending. This would immediately inform readers and listeners of the context and relative importance of this item in the budget.

--snip--
In short, a simple, and winnable, agenda item for progressives should be to convince media outlets to practice good journalism when they cover national or state budgets. All but the most closed-minded editors and producers should be open to the argument that the goal of budget reporting is to convey information.

Haggling over the way in which budget numbers are reported may seem like a rather indirect approach—- to increasing public funding for child care or nutrition programs. But sustaining public support for any social spending will always be an uphill struggle as long as the public is so hugely misinformed.

Progressives will have to confront many other important questions on framing and values, but this is a simple question of getting the numbers right. And here the battle lines are not drawn between left and right, but between honest and dishonest.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2076/

Media coverage of president's press conference largely ignored Bush's trust fund contradiction

ost major televised media outlets failed to note that President Bush, in his one-hour press conference on April 28, made two flatly contradictory statements about the viability of U.S. treasury bonds, in which the Social Security trust fund is invested. Repeating a claim made in his recent travels throughout the country in support of Social Security privatization, Bush said that the treasury bonds owned by the trust fund represent worthless IOUs from the U.S. government. But he later touted those same bonds for holders of his proposed private accounts looking for a safe investment that would be "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government." No reporter challenged Bush on the contradiction during the press conference, and only George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC's This Week, noted it in the post-conference analysis.

And CBS News anchor Bob Schieffer did the rest of TV news media one better -- specifically noting that Bush mentioned treasury bonds as a safe investment, while failing to note that he has repeatedly disparaged treasury bonds when talking about the trust fund and did so again last night. Schieffer later commended Bush's performance in the press conference, saying "I think it's fair to say he did not step on his own story."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504290004

Poor Scotty... it would appear that the media is beginning to awaken from their long slumber...

There may be hope for this country yet.

Scotty mad. Grrrr.

I know I'm really not supposed to post articles in their entirety...but this one really grabbed me. Perhaps it's because it's about women my age who were exercising their first amendment rights with sentiments I can relate to...or maybe because I remember the obnoxious right-wing hecklers with bullhorns screaming in my 7 year old's ear as well as interrupting the Kerrys at the Milwaukee rally last summer -- and they weren't arrested...or maybe it's because our first amendment rights are being violated whenever the president appears in public!!!

Published on Friday, April 29, 2005 by the Associated Press
Kerry Supporters Arrested at Bush Rally Sue Law Enforcement

IOWA CITY -- Two women who were arrested at campaign rally for President Bush last fall and strip-searched at a county jail say law enforcement officers conspired to violate their constitutional rights.

Alice McCabe and Christine Nelson are suing the U.S. Secret Service and three of its agents, the Iowa State Patrol and two patrolmen, and Linn County.

The two women, both school teachers in their 50s, were among scores of people who were arrested, removed or barred from Bush rallies last year for wearing shirt or buttons favoring his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry, or for vocally criticizing the president.

"I believe the federal government behaved very badly in this situation," said David O'Brien, the women's attorney.

Bob Teig, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Cedar Rapids, said the office had not yet seen the complaint and could not comment.

McCabe and Nelson are described in the lawsuit as political novices, motivated by their opposition to Bush administration policies in Iraq.

Both attended Bush's Sept. 3 rally at a Cedar Rapids park, with McCabe holding a sheet of paper reading, "No More War," and Nelson wearing a Kerry button.

While standing on a sidewalk near, but not inside, the rally site, a Secret Service agent told McCabe she was on private property and would have to move.

The women moved to a parking area, where a member of the local Republican Party was holding a bucket to collect contributions.

The agent approached again and repeated the order to move. After asking why, McCabe was arrested by a state trooper. Nelson was arrested later by another trooper, according to the lawsuit.

The women -- among five protesters arrested during the rally -- were handcuffed, taken to the county jail, strip-searched and charged with criminal trespass.

The charges were dropped months later.

Their lawsuit claims their rights to free speech, free assembly, equal protection and due process were violated. It claims federal agents conspired with local and state law enforcement to deprive them of those rights.

The lawsuit claims the decision by police to conduct a strip search violated constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Typically suspects are searched only if authorities have cause to believe they possess a weapon or illegal drugs, O'Brien said.

"We don't think they had a reasonable belief that these two, 50-year-old school teachers had a weapon or contraband in their possession that day," O'Brien said, whose clients requested a jury trial and unspecified damages.

Their experience in the world of political protest was hardly unique during the 2004 election cycle, said Chris Hansen, senior staff counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Dozens of people were arrested for protesting outside events, removed after getting inside ticket-only areas or asked to sign forms endorsing Bush to get inside.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently asked a judge to toss out a case filed by the ACLU and two West Virginia residents who were arrested for wearing anti-Bush shirts at a campaign rally.

"We're still seeing it happen," said Hansen, citing recent cases of protesters being escorted from appearances Bush has made in recent months to tout his Social Security plan.

"During the election, and now after it ... these kinds of problems are popping up almost every time the president travels," Hansen said.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0429-07.htm

Victoria Ellen, MD, Truth, et al...

Have you caught on to, Scott Mc Clellan's, to use a poker term, "tell".

Also, I went over to the blog that Casey introduced me to, First-Draft, which is a group blog. One of the blogger's, Holden Caulfield, has a running thing called "Holden's Obsession with the Gaggle". It's a deconstruction and highlights reel of today's batch of administration sponsored LIES. It is priceless and almost snagged a Koufax award this year for Holden. There is little doubt in my mind that they will get an award next year. But if you find Scottie entertaining, you will love this.

Posted by: madame defarge at April 29, 2005 05:31 PM

Well, Madame, the Bush supporter I spoke to said, "Well if they're dumb enough to wear a 'Kerry' t'shirt to a Bush rally then they deserve to be kicked out."

Funny thing to me, it's that silly little thing called "Freedom of Speech"--such a minor detail.

Under the constitution, we were given the freedom to speak our mind as long as the words are not used to endanger another person's life. The Supremes, even with their neoCON status, should even slap down these fascists conmen.

"And conservative Republicans will balk at his call last night for 'progressive indexing,' which would reduce future payments for middle- and upper-income retirees by linking increases to prices rather than wages. Stephen Moore, a leading proponent of personal accounts, warned of a 'nightmare' in which benefit cuts 'cost Republicans the Senate in 2006.'"

Let's hope so.

I don't understand something. Why is SS in trouble? Is it because the gov't has been borrowing money from it for decades? And the neocons don't want to pay it back? So they create a crisis, and they dramatically lower taxes for the rich so we have a huge deficit and can't pay it back?

This is what my neighbor is telling me.

-------------

Saw a great billboard today while in Portland. It was by gay.com, a dating website. There was a huge American flag, beautifully colored, and two guys standing in front of it. The caption was "come together" - the flag was brilliant, because it made a political statement within an advertisement. I hope to see a lot more "in your face, we're American too" stuff in the future. Kudos to gay.com. More! More! More! Let's get that gay cable station on the air, to counter all the brainwashing from the false christian stations. We need all of us to pull together. We're all threatened by the neocons.

Also saw a hilarious bumper sticker that said "slap your bishop" -

America Fights Back After Hostile Takeover. You betcha.

Have you caught on to, Scott Mc Clellan's, to use a poker term, "tell".

Posted by: spinnaker at April 29, 2005 06:20 PM

Spin,

Oh, yes!

Posted by: Amy at April 29, 2005 08:13 PM

That's great. We need that kind of stuff in Los Angeles too - not just the "gay" areas like Hollywood and the Westside but the homophobic areas like East Los Angeles, Koreatown, and the suburbs.

And up in the Bay Area, I know that even in normally homophobic Vietnamese community, you can count on one hour a week of gay-oriented radio programming. That's progress.

~don't miss this diary from dkos, complete with newspaper headlines gathered from around the country today, complete with pics. Bu$h may have TV news doing his bidding, but its obvious print media did not obey the Rove memo!

Afterglow: Bush's PR Nightmare (w/ pics!)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/29/9508/44105

Hey no fair!
By the time Bush's big middle class cuts hit, I won't be dead yet!!

& for those who wrote Democrats with spine posts in the last topic:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002253251_feistydems26.html

Resilient, Feisty Democrats Defy Expectations

I noticed that Bill Gates will sit on the board of Warren Buffet's company.

Is he now also turning rightwing? Why did he use Ralph Reed, formerly of the Christian Coalition and Bush campaigner as a consultant? He pays RR a $20,000/month retainer.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/04/12/microsoft

http://www.democrats.com/node/4388

http://www.prospect.org/web/view-print.ww?id=4261

http://www.microsucks.com

Then all of a sudden Microsoft is not backing gay antidiscrimination bill any more. A local church threatened a national boycott by Christian fundamentalists. How many computers can they buy?!!
Maybe we should threaten a national boycott of Microsoft by progressives and certainly by gays. I've never owned any of their products anyway because they're not very good and Gates is Republican.

http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5781

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501266.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/national/22gay.html

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/22/technology/microsoft_gayrights.dj

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer told employees in an internal memo that the software company's decision to not support a gay-rights bill pending in the state ...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-23-Microsoft-gay-rights_x.htm?POE=MONISVA

No wonder he donates to Bush & outsources to India.

There are a couple of people who work on cleaning up the vote 24/7 and Elizabeth is one of them (the other is Marjorie G).

Here is some information in case you ever wondered about the "Election Reform Committee" of which Jimmy Carter (logical) and James Baker (what?!!! am I dreaming?) are pivotal members.

This is a series of relevant articles pertaining to the Carter-Baker Election Commission. Some of the initial blog/sites are background. They can all be found at www.bradblog.com . I have gone through the blog and pulled the relevant entries. This is a good site, with other election reform info, so you may want to wade through it yourself.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-03-25T012905Z_01_N24598718_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-ELECTION-USA-CARTER-DC.XML
Election commission

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexandrovna/carter_baker_electoral_reform_controversy_414.htm
election commission – rigged

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001275.htm New “non-partisan” Voter’s rights Group (AVCR)

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001316.ht More on GOP Voter’s rights Group

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001279.htm High level GOP and “non-partisan” voter rights group 3/23/05

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001281.htm 3/24/05

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001282.htm AVCR

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001291.htm 3/28/05 AVCR GOP Active partisans

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001294.htm Velvet Revolution condemns Baker on commission 329/05

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001295.htm 3/30/05 commission

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001298.htm AVCR 3/31/05

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001316.htm Conyers to Carter, Baker inappropriate

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001322.htm 4/14/05 commission

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001332.htm commission “hearing” on CSPAN 4/18/05

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001333.htm Conyers decries commission 4/18/05

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001337.htm Exec Dir. Of commission goes ballistic 4/19/05

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001340.htm Conyers meets with Exec. Dir.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001345.htm Election Panel (not the commission)

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001357.htm commission

Thank you Elizabeth!

Bush's Rocky First 100 Days

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4973125,00.html

Posted by: DiAnne at April 29, 2005 10:42 PM

I hope Gates realizes that he is taking a step further right than the other major Seattle area company - the defense contractor pigs at Boeing.

Until now I've been told that MS = good, Boeing = bad. The paradigm is changing.

To add to the MS = Repug pile, the default page MSIE loads (www.msn.com) has been turning ever more right-wing as well, with Sports being provided by Fox and the MSNBC news hinting that the Dems wished for Terri Schiavo to die for their political gain.

I've loaded Firefox as my new browser, and will seriously consider switching to Mac for all non-gaming computing.

On another corporate front: I am trying to do everything to ensure that my employer does NOT join the Association of General Contractors (AGC). While it purports to be an advocacy group and a resource for contractors, it also has a major pro-Republican, anti-labor lobbying operation for which I am expected to cough up $150/year minimum. (But then, most construction contractors - my employer included - are hardcore right-wingers, what do you expect?)

I will keep all of you posted.

Sen. Barbara Boxer's PAC for a Change provides an easy way to urge the President to withdraw the Bolton nomination. Just enter your info at the link below to send the message:

http://ga4.org/campaign/new_nominee/

Ally
The paradigm is changing! Boeing actually got a bunch of business from India & China & that means nonmilitary aircraft. It may have been because of the weak dollar but still provides jobs.

Microsoft has no excuse. Having anything to do with Ralph Reed is unconscionable. Being bullied by a Redmond Church - give me a break. I don't believe it. Melinda Gates & Ralph Reed were both at the Bildenberg Conference. Who knows - going around giving all those vaccinations to poor children could end up to be a ruse for Christian missionary work. Let's watch. I don't trust them. For 2 decades they supported antidiscrimination against gays - suddenly they change. Gates' dad is cool though, & his step mom.

Also, the builder's association here are the Mafia who are trying to get Dino Rossi in as Governor. They have been searching for all the "felons" and "dead people" in our blue county (mostly the evil and decadent city) who are supposed to have influenced the election.

Meanwhile, if they are so honest, check out this lawsuit.

http://www.realchangenews.org/current/news1.html

Keep putting your money where your values are. The personal is political. You speak my language.

Amy
Cool stuff! Slap your bishop!! At first I didn't get the double meaning.

Tom Delay movie poster parody:

http://photos6.flickr.com/10983084_3cdf9af0f8.jpg

Here is the good Bill Gates, philanthropist & Kerry supporter. (the father of Microsoft Bill the Bush donor)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2003/0126/cover.html

Ally
If you check this - more on Microsoft.
Now the antigay preacher says Microsoft did not stop supporting antidiscrimination policy because of the threat of a boycott by them. He says companies of their size get boycott threats every week and that they are lying. He says that they are documented as having changed their positions months before they lied to the press and blamed his church.

http://www.thestranger.com
lead story

Thanks for keeping me and everyone else well informed, DiAnne.

The more I read, the less I am liking the news. Plus, meeting with Ralph Reed - for any reason - has no excuse.

And as for Boeing, I think its non-military products (namely, airliners) have helped the progressive cause - even though it probably wasn't Boeing's intent - by bringing people from all corners of the world together. My political maturing into a progressive owed much to those overseas trips I took - and yes, they were on the Everett-built 777s.

Today I kept these issues in mind - I spent the afternoon at an Apple Computer store for the first time as a serious customer (though I didn't buy anything yet), then headed to LAX to see my mother arrive from overseas - in a 747.

Posted by: DiAnne at April 30, 2005 03:51 PM

And as I was reading the story on The Stranger you quoted...

“You won’t stand up for two men or two women getting married, but you will put your power behind a guy who wants to dress up in a dress and come to work?”

Perfect. Pit gays against transgenders. Divide and conquer.