But at least the anti-science Right has popular fiction novels on which to base their claims...
I first saw this in the Wall Street Journal today...
Climate scientists armed with new data from the ocean depths and from space satellites have found that Earth is absorbing much more heat than it is giving off, which they say validates computer projections of global warming.
Lead scientist James Hansen, a prominent NASA climatologist, described the findings on the planet's out-of-balance energy exchange as a ''smoking gun" that should dispel doubts about forecasts of climate change.
Hansen's team, reporting yesterday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise by 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if emissions of greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.
The NASA-led researchers were able to measure Earth's energy imbalance because of more- precise ocean readings collected by 1,800 technology-packed floats deployed in seas worldwide beginning in 2000, in an international monitoring effort called Argo. The robots regularly dive as deep as a mile undersea to take temperature and other readings.
Their measurements are supplemented by better satellite gauging of ocean levels, which rise from meltwater and as the sea warms and expands.
With this data, the scientists calculated the oceans' heat content and the global energy imbalance. They found that for every square meter of surface area, the planet is absorbing almost 1 watt more of the sun's energy than it is radiating back to space as heat -- a historically large imbalance. Such absorbed energy will steadily warm the atmosphere.
''There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming," said Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University's Earth Institute. ''This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we have been looking for."
Think of the Planet Earth as someone who is smoking six packs of cigarettes a day. We are being presented with reams of evidence showing that smoking is detrimental to its health and is damaging its lungs. But the other side insists that we must continue smoking six packs a day and perhaps more or else the world economy will suffer.
Who are you going to believe? The legions of scientists on one side of the debate, or the right-wing politicians and corporate funded think tanks on the other side?
Friday, April 29, 2005
Methodists back off on gay purge
I was happy to see today that my church is starting to rethink this issue:
Methodists to reinstate defrocked minister
LINTHICUM, Md. (AP) -- The United Methodist Church reversed itself Friday, deciding to reinstate a lesbian minister who was defrocked after revealing her relationship with another woman.
A church panel voted 8 to 1 to set aside an earlier decision to defrock Irene "Beth" Stroud for violating the church's ban on openly gay clergy.
The Philadelphia minister said she was relieved by the ruling and hopes the church will become more inclusive to people regardless of sexual orientation.
Methodists to reinstate defrocked minister
LINTHICUM, Md. (AP) -- The United Methodist Church reversed itself Friday, deciding to reinstate a lesbian minister who was defrocked after revealing her relationship with another woman.
A church panel voted 8 to 1 to set aside an earlier decision to defrock Irene "Beth" Stroud for violating the church's ban on openly gay clergy.
The Philadelphia minister said she was relieved by the ruling and hopes the church will become more inclusive to people regardless of sexual orientation.
GOP's awful excuse for a budget
What an absolute travesty this Republican budget is.
...a $2.56 trillion federal budget for 2006 that aims to trim the growth of Medicaid by $10 billion over five years, add $106 billion in tax cuts and clear the way for oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.
So the Republican budget calls for $10 billion in cuts to healthcare services for the poor while turning around and showering the wealthiest folks with $106 billion in tax cuts.
I especially like this part of the story buried at the bottom of the article in the Washington Post:
The cost of those tax-cut extensions would more than nullify the savings from the spending cuts... the budget instructs lawmakers to raise the federal government's statutory debt limit this fall by $781 billion, to $8.96 trillion. The government's borrowing limit will then have climbed by $3 trillion since Bush took office.
There is the Bush legacy for you: $3 trillion added to the nation's debt - and climbing.
And don't forget that the billions being spent on the Iraqi quagmire is all off budget stuff!
...a $2.56 trillion federal budget for 2006 that aims to trim the growth of Medicaid by $10 billion over five years, add $106 billion in tax cuts and clear the way for oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.
So the Republican budget calls for $10 billion in cuts to healthcare services for the poor while turning around and showering the wealthiest folks with $106 billion in tax cuts.
I especially like this part of the story buried at the bottom of the article in the Washington Post:
The cost of those tax-cut extensions would more than nullify the savings from the spending cuts... the budget instructs lawmakers to raise the federal government's statutory debt limit this fall by $781 billion, to $8.96 trillion. The government's borrowing limit will then have climbed by $3 trillion since Bush took office.
There is the Bush legacy for you: $3 trillion added to the nation's debt - and climbing.
And don't forget that the billions being spent on the Iraqi quagmire is all off budget stuff!
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
I’m not always reasonable when I’m angry
Shouldn’t Bush’s judicial nominees be permitted an up-or-down vote before the full Senate? Isn’t that a reasonable thing to ask?
Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole makes that case on today’s NY Times op-ed page.
But reasonable as that sounds, I’m still opposed. Why? Because I’m still angry about the things that Dole neglects to mention in his article. Dole tries to make it seem that the Democrats just started filibustering judicial nominees without any provocation.
”By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the Senate to function as an institution.”
That “tradition of self-restraint” apparently wasn’t in effect back when Bill Clinton was in office either. Back then, Republicans used other Senate procedures to keep more than 60 of Clinton’s judicial nominees from receiving up-or-down votes. That is six times as many as Bush has faced from the Democratic opposition. How come there were no anguished cries and gnashing of teeth from conservatives back when those judicial nominees were left to languish without an up-or-down vote?
Since that time, the Republicans have abused their majority status by altering the rules to eliminate blue-slipping and other procedures once available to the minority party. Without access to these “pocket vetoes” which Republicans used incessantly throughout Clinton’s two terms, Democrats were forced to use the filibuster option lest they have no say whatsoever in the appointment of judges.
And to their credit, Democrats have used that power very infrequently - blocking only 10 of Bush’s picks out of more than 215, for a 95 percent approval rate. That rate would be even higher today except that Republicans have lately taken to holding up votes on some of Bush’s non-controversial nominees in order to keep that number as low as possible for political purposes.
When I think of all the Democratic judges who were blocked from recieving a confirmation vote a few years ago I tend to get angry. And when I get angry I am not always persuaded by logic and reason. If you think that the Democrats blocking 10 of Bush’s judicial picks is unfair, then you should understand why it was even more unfair (six times over) when the same thing happened to Clinton appointees. Even with 10 blocked nominees, the Republicans are coming out of this with a much better deal than the Democrats got. Why should they get every judicial nomination they want, especially when Bush is making no effort to compromise and pick people who would be even nominally acceptable to the other party?
If the Republicans were really committed to reforming the judicial confirmation process they would let these 10 nominations go before trying to change the rules of the Senate. Instead, they are trying to obliterate the last option Democrats have for having any voice in this process in order to punch through this last motley bunch of nominees. If they are successful Bush will have no more reason to moderate any of his nominations. He will have carte blanche to fill up the courts with all the like-minded far-right evangelicals he can find and be assured of the kind of 100 percent approval rate from the rubber-stamp Senate that would make most dictators blush.
Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole makes that case on today’s NY Times op-ed page.
But reasonable as that sounds, I’m still opposed. Why? Because I’m still angry about the things that Dole neglects to mention in his article. Dole tries to make it seem that the Democrats just started filibustering judicial nominees without any provocation.
”By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the Senate to function as an institution.”
That “tradition of self-restraint” apparently wasn’t in effect back when Bill Clinton was in office either. Back then, Republicans used other Senate procedures to keep more than 60 of Clinton’s judicial nominees from receiving up-or-down votes. That is six times as many as Bush has faced from the Democratic opposition. How come there were no anguished cries and gnashing of teeth from conservatives back when those judicial nominees were left to languish without an up-or-down vote?
Since that time, the Republicans have abused their majority status by altering the rules to eliminate blue-slipping and other procedures once available to the minority party. Without access to these “pocket vetoes” which Republicans used incessantly throughout Clinton’s two terms, Democrats were forced to use the filibuster option lest they have no say whatsoever in the appointment of judges.
And to their credit, Democrats have used that power very infrequently - blocking only 10 of Bush’s picks out of more than 215, for a 95 percent approval rate. That rate would be even higher today except that Republicans have lately taken to holding up votes on some of Bush’s non-controversial nominees in order to keep that number as low as possible for political purposes.
When I think of all the Democratic judges who were blocked from recieving a confirmation vote a few years ago I tend to get angry. And when I get angry I am not always persuaded by logic and reason. If you think that the Democrats blocking 10 of Bush’s judicial picks is unfair, then you should understand why it was even more unfair (six times over) when the same thing happened to Clinton appointees. Even with 10 blocked nominees, the Republicans are coming out of this with a much better deal than the Democrats got. Why should they get every judicial nomination they want, especially when Bush is making no effort to compromise and pick people who would be even nominally acceptable to the other party?
If the Republicans were really committed to reforming the judicial confirmation process they would let these 10 nominations go before trying to change the rules of the Senate. Instead, they are trying to obliterate the last option Democrats have for having any voice in this process in order to punch through this last motley bunch of nominees. If they are successful Bush will have no more reason to moderate any of his nominations. He will have carte blanche to fill up the courts with all the like-minded far-right evangelicals he can find and be assured of the kind of 100 percent approval rate from the rubber-stamp Senate that would make most dictators blush.
GOP surrender monkeys to throw Tom DeLay to the wolves
HaHaHaHa!
GOP to Reverse Ethics Rule Blocking New DeLay Probe
House Republican leaders, acknowledging that ethics disputes are taking a heavy toll on the party's image, decided yesterday to rescind a controversial rule change that led to the three-month shutdown of the ethics committee...
Republicans touched off a political uproar in January by changing a rule that had required the ethics committee to continue considering a complaint against a House member if there was a deadlock between the committee's five Republicans and five Democrats. The January change reversed this, calling for automatic dismissal of an ethics complaint when a deadlock occurs.
Republicans on the committee say they will launch an investigation of DeLay's handling of overseas trips and gifts as soon as the impasse over the rules is broken. The Washington Post reported last weekend that Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff charged DeLay's airfare to London and Scotland to his American Express card in 2000. House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists.
As Kos notes, this is only one of a string of things that Republicans have caved on recently. He mentions Social Security privatization, which is going nowhere in the Senate; the the Terri Schiavo/Judge-bashing fiasco, and the Nuclear Option power grab, which Sen. Frist keeps putting off as wavering Republicans refuse to commit to a vote.
But you can also throw in the John Bolton nomination to be U.N. ambassador which is for all practical purposes dead in the water after moderate Republicans in the Senate couldn’t be corralled by the party’s leadership.
I certainly hope that these wussy Republicans will buck up and support their illustrious majority leader to the bitter end. I can’t think of a better person to lead a party which has become so corrupted by power that it is constantly finding itself on the opposite side of public opinion. The GOP deserves Tom DeLay.
GOP to Reverse Ethics Rule Blocking New DeLay Probe
House Republican leaders, acknowledging that ethics disputes are taking a heavy toll on the party's image, decided yesterday to rescind a controversial rule change that led to the three-month shutdown of the ethics committee...
Republicans touched off a political uproar in January by changing a rule that had required the ethics committee to continue considering a complaint against a House member if there was a deadlock between the committee's five Republicans and five Democrats. The January change reversed this, calling for automatic dismissal of an ethics complaint when a deadlock occurs.
Republicans on the committee say they will launch an investigation of DeLay's handling of overseas trips and gifts as soon as the impasse over the rules is broken. The Washington Post reported last weekend that Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff charged DeLay's airfare to London and Scotland to his American Express card in 2000. House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists.
As Kos notes, this is only one of a string of things that Republicans have caved on recently. He mentions Social Security privatization, which is going nowhere in the Senate; the the Terri Schiavo/Judge-bashing fiasco, and the Nuclear Option power grab, which Sen. Frist keeps putting off as wavering Republicans refuse to commit to a vote.
But you can also throw in the John Bolton nomination to be U.N. ambassador which is for all practical purposes dead in the water after moderate Republicans in the Senate couldn’t be corralled by the party’s leadership.
I certainly hope that these wussy Republicans will buck up and support their illustrious majority leader to the bitter end. I can’t think of a better person to lead a party which has become so corrupted by power that it is constantly finding itself on the opposite side of public opinion. The GOP deserves Tom DeLay.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Americans oppose eliminating filibuster
This really isn’t surprising.
...a strong majority of Americans oppose changing the rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to win confirmation of President Bush's court nominees, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll....
...The wide-ranging survey also recorded a precipitous decline in support for the centerpiece of Bush's Social Security plan -- private or personal accounts...
...The poll also registered drops in key Bush performance ratings, growing pessimism about the economy and continuing concern about U.S. involvement in Iraq....
The radicals who run the Republican Party today are constantly on the wrong side of public opinion. Whether it is pushing forward with a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, privatizing Social Security or getting involved in the Terry Schiavo case - they are constantly pushing an agenda that is contrary to popular opinion.
Unfortunately for American democracy, they don’t care. President Bush and his supporters believe they have been annointed by God himself and therefore do not care what anyone else thinks. And as long as they can depend on gobs of corporate campaign money, a jury-rigged election system and a public that is easily duped by phony terror alerts and tall tales of imminent threats posed by tiny far away nations, they won’t have to.
...a strong majority of Americans oppose changing the rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to win confirmation of President Bush's court nominees, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll....
...The wide-ranging survey also recorded a precipitous decline in support for the centerpiece of Bush's Social Security plan -- private or personal accounts...
...The poll also registered drops in key Bush performance ratings, growing pessimism about the economy and continuing concern about U.S. involvement in Iraq....
The radicals who run the Republican Party today are constantly on the wrong side of public opinion. Whether it is pushing forward with a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, privatizing Social Security or getting involved in the Terry Schiavo case - they are constantly pushing an agenda that is contrary to popular opinion.
Unfortunately for American democracy, they don’t care. President Bush and his supporters believe they have been annointed by God himself and therefore do not care what anyone else thinks. And as long as they can depend on gobs of corporate campaign money, a jury-rigged election system and a public that is easily duped by phony terror alerts and tall tales of imminent threats posed by tiny far away nations, they won’t have to.
Keeping "People of Faith" off the Bench
News Flash
Conservative Christian leaders railed against the filibusters Sunday night at a nationally televised rally in Louisville, Kentucky.
Speakers characterized the filibusters as a Democratic-led campaign to keep "people of faith" off the federal bench.
So if the Democrats are blocking all the "People of Faith" from the federal bench, does that mean all the other judges that have been approved are not "People of Faith"?
Democrats have blocked 10 of Bush's 215 judicial nominees through filibuster threats, contending they were too far to the right to be fair judges; 205 have been confirmed.
So why is President Bush appointing all these non-People of Faith? More than 95 percent of his nominees are apparently heathen pagans and non-believers. Why aren't these Christian conservatives upset with Bush for such a dreadful record of court appointments?
Conservative Christian leaders railed against the filibusters Sunday night at a nationally televised rally in Louisville, Kentucky.
Speakers characterized the filibusters as a Democratic-led campaign to keep "people of faith" off the federal bench.
So if the Democrats are blocking all the "People of Faith" from the federal bench, does that mean all the other judges that have been approved are not "People of Faith"?
Democrats have blocked 10 of Bush's 215 judicial nominees through filibuster threats, contending they were too far to the right to be fair judges; 205 have been confirmed.
So why is President Bush appointing all these non-People of Faith? More than 95 percent of his nominees are apparently heathen pagans and non-believers. Why aren't these Christian conservatives upset with Bush for such a dreadful record of court appointments?
Monday, April 25, 2005
Gurwitz whitewashes DeLay scandals
It wasn’t illegal and Democrats do it too.
That’s a quick summary of Jonathan Gurwitz’ column on Sunday in which he attempts to defend House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Of course that kind of defense didn’t go over well with Republicans when Bill Clinton used it. After all, nothing that Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky was illegal. And it was true that Republicans were also guilty of committing adultery - Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, Bob Barr, Rudolph Giuliani, and so forth. But they still impeached him anyway.
And the rest of Gurwitz’ attempt at defending DeLay doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny either. He tries to downplay all the charges against DeLay by putting his best possible spin on them:
DeLay's problem is not that he played a major role in the GOP redistricting effort in Texas two years ago. That's hardball politics, Texas-style...
No, the problem is not that DeLay played hardball politics over the re-redicstricting fiasco. The problem is that DeLay may have broken state laws by funneling corporate money into state races as part of that hardball effort. That is what the DA in Austin is looking into.
DeLay's problem is not that Travis County's Democratic district attorney, Ronnie Earle, is on an extended fishing expedition to net him...
Gurwitz tries to pull the wool over his readers’ eyes here by talking about Earle’s 1994 case against GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for allegedly misusing state telephones for political business. Earle dropped the case after a judge questioned the admissibility of his evidence at a pretrial hearing.
That certainly hasn’t been the case this time.
Following a two-year investigation, Earle has obtained indictments against eight corporations, in addition to three people close to DeLay - John Colyandro, executive director of DeLay’s PAC Texans for a Republican Majority; Warren Robold, a Washington, D.C., fund-raiser for DeLay; and Jim Ellis a key aide to DeLay. The charges include multiple counts of money laundering and the illegal use of corporate contributions.
If Earle had evidence of wrongdoing by DeLay, in all likelihood he would have gotten a grand jury indictment before the November election.
Not necessarily. As any prosecutor knows, it is not always easy to pin blame on the top guy. They are usually well shielded by subordinates who end up taking the fall in their place. In this case, Earle is biding his time waiting to see if one of the underlings will turn on their boss.
DeLay's problem is not that he has taken perfectly legal trips paid for by businesses and trade associations.
No, the problem is he took trips paid for by corporate lobbyists which is not allowed under House rules. As the Washington Post reported this weekend, DeLay’s plane trip to London and Scotland in 2000 was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff.
DeLay's problem is not that his wife and daughter drew perfectly legal salaries for work done for his campaign and political action committees. An Associated Press review of lawmakers' hiring practices found that roughly four dozen members of Congress hired spouses and children for campaign and political work, including Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif.
Once again, the “everybody does it” defense falls flat especially when you are caught exploiting the rules to the extent that DeLay does. The half a million dollars paid to his wife and daughter over four years pales in comparison to what most other House members have done. This is like a guy who gets pulled over for flying down the road at 110 mph saying he should be excused because some other folks were going 75 mph.
Finally, Gurwitz concedes that DeLay does have some problems, but he chalks that up to his being too cozy with Washington scoundrels like Abramoff. His harshest criticism of DeLay is that he is starting to act like the Democrats did before they lost control of Congress in 1994. But I would argue that DeLay has far exceeded the level of sleaze that Republicans were willing to tolerate back then. The “musty smell” that Gurwitz refers to is particularly rank this time.
That’s a quick summary of Jonathan Gurwitz’ column on Sunday in which he attempts to defend House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Of course that kind of defense didn’t go over well with Republicans when Bill Clinton used it. After all, nothing that Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky was illegal. And it was true that Republicans were also guilty of committing adultery - Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, Bob Barr, Rudolph Giuliani, and so forth. But they still impeached him anyway.
And the rest of Gurwitz’ attempt at defending DeLay doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny either. He tries to downplay all the charges against DeLay by putting his best possible spin on them:
DeLay's problem is not that he played a major role in the GOP redistricting effort in Texas two years ago. That's hardball politics, Texas-style...
No, the problem is not that DeLay played hardball politics over the re-redicstricting fiasco. The problem is that DeLay may have broken state laws by funneling corporate money into state races as part of that hardball effort. That is what the DA in Austin is looking into.
DeLay's problem is not that Travis County's Democratic district attorney, Ronnie Earle, is on an extended fishing expedition to net him...
Gurwitz tries to pull the wool over his readers’ eyes here by talking about Earle’s 1994 case against GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for allegedly misusing state telephones for political business. Earle dropped the case after a judge questioned the admissibility of his evidence at a pretrial hearing.
That certainly hasn’t been the case this time.
Following a two-year investigation, Earle has obtained indictments against eight corporations, in addition to three people close to DeLay - John Colyandro, executive director of DeLay’s PAC Texans for a Republican Majority; Warren Robold, a Washington, D.C., fund-raiser for DeLay; and Jim Ellis a key aide to DeLay. The charges include multiple counts of money laundering and the illegal use of corporate contributions.
If Earle had evidence of wrongdoing by DeLay, in all likelihood he would have gotten a grand jury indictment before the November election.
Not necessarily. As any prosecutor knows, it is not always easy to pin blame on the top guy. They are usually well shielded by subordinates who end up taking the fall in their place. In this case, Earle is biding his time waiting to see if one of the underlings will turn on their boss.
DeLay's problem is not that he has taken perfectly legal trips paid for by businesses and trade associations.
No, the problem is he took trips paid for by corporate lobbyists which is not allowed under House rules. As the Washington Post reported this weekend, DeLay’s plane trip to London and Scotland in 2000 was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff.
DeLay's problem is not that his wife and daughter drew perfectly legal salaries for work done for his campaign and political action committees. An Associated Press review of lawmakers' hiring practices found that roughly four dozen members of Congress hired spouses and children for campaign and political work, including Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif.
Once again, the “everybody does it” defense falls flat especially when you are caught exploiting the rules to the extent that DeLay does. The half a million dollars paid to his wife and daughter over four years pales in comparison to what most other House members have done. This is like a guy who gets pulled over for flying down the road at 110 mph saying he should be excused because some other folks were going 75 mph.
Finally, Gurwitz concedes that DeLay does have some problems, but he chalks that up to his being too cozy with Washington scoundrels like Abramoff. His harshest criticism of DeLay is that he is starting to act like the Democrats did before they lost control of Congress in 1994. But I would argue that DeLay has far exceeded the level of sleaze that Republicans were willing to tolerate back then. The “musty smell” that Gurwitz refers to is particularly rank this time.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Double trouble
I can't tell you how thoroughly unscandalous I find this switcheroo story
involving San Antonio mayoral candidate Julian Castro and his twin brother Joaquin Castro.
People watching the River Parade on Monday may have thought they were seeing mayoral candidate Julian Castro waving as the San Antonio City Council barge floated down the waterway.
But if they did, they were wrong.
Julian Castro was hosting a neighborhood association meeting that night in District 7, which he still represents. His identical twin brother, Joaquin Castro, was on the boat.
So Joaquin, who happens to be a State Representative, filled in for his brother by riding on the parade float and waving to the crowd. And this is a scandal because...... some people might have thought they were seeing Julian? Yawn. Excuse me while I try to work up some outrage over this.
Cincinnatus, who is backing Judge Phil Hardberger in this race, manages to work up a healthy dose of outrage and calls the whole ordeal "shameful." Meanwhile, P.M. Bryant is more forgiving and accepts the Castro brothers' explanation.
If the other mayoral candidates thought that making a fuss about this would play to their advantage, I'm afraid they were sadly mistaken. It has instead worked to the Castro brothers' advantage by focusing attention on their most distinguishing asset. This is what people expect with twins. They eat this kind of thing up. I'm sure somebody is busy right now writing a movie script about this race that they will be pitching to Walt Disney.
I could be wrong, but the way the national media is playing up the humorous, novelty side of this story is exactly the kind of thing that plays to a politician's favor. And I just heard this morning that the Castro switch was played to great humorous effect on Good Morning America. In addition, there are now rumors that the brothers will be invited onto the David Letterman Show next week as well as countless other news and entertainment programs.
Want to watch your political opponent leave you in the dust? Help to turn them into a national media celebrity a week before the election.
I won't be surprised to see Julian win this race now in a walk.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
I could spit on a stranger
I commented recently on a spate of pie-throwing attacks against conservative commentators in a tongue-in-cheek post.
At the time I was challenged to "show any examples of rightwingers suppressing debate such as this..."
So today in the news we have this example...
KANSAS CITY, Missouri (AP) -- A man spit tobacco juice into the face of Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new memoir.
Note: The title of this post comes from one of my favorite songs by Nickel Creek.
At the time I was challenged to "show any examples of rightwingers suppressing debate such as this..."
So today in the news we have this example...
KANSAS CITY, Missouri (AP) -- A man spit tobacco juice into the face of Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new memoir.
Note: The title of this post comes from one of my favorite songs by Nickel Creek.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Tom DeLay is losing it
I guess the pressure is just getting to be too much for him.
The other day in an interview with Fox Radio, the House Majority Leader went off on Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, attacking him for being an “activist judge” who bases his decisions on international law and not the Constitution. This is a silly argument and one that I have refuted before.
Apparently DeLay is still steamed because Justice Kennedy denied him the pleasure of watching children get executed. Tsk. Tsk.
But DeLay’s little tirade did not end there. He was also incensed because Justice Kennedy uses some kind of high-tech thingymabob called the Internet.
"And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
Well, we all know that the Internet is evil since it was created by Al Gore.
But seriously. Has DeLay been breathing in too many pesticide fumes lately? What the heck is his problem with someone doing research on the Internet? Maybe if he could figure out how to turn a computer on he would find there is more to the Internet than spam e-mail and porn sites.
The other day in an interview with Fox Radio, the House Majority Leader went off on Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, attacking him for being an “activist judge” who bases his decisions on international law and not the Constitution. This is a silly argument and one that I have refuted before.
Apparently DeLay is still steamed because Justice Kennedy denied him the pleasure of watching children get executed. Tsk. Tsk.
But DeLay’s little tirade did not end there. He was also incensed because Justice Kennedy uses some kind of high-tech thingymabob called the Internet.
"And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
Well, we all know that the Internet is evil since it was created by Al Gore.
But seriously. Has DeLay been breathing in too many pesticide fumes lately? What the heck is his problem with someone doing research on the Internet? Maybe if he could figure out how to turn a computer on he would find there is more to the Internet than spam e-mail and porn sites.
Initial thoughts on the new Pope
Ratzinger. Wow. What an awful name. Good thing he will be known as Pope Benedict rather than Pope Ratzinger.
On the other hand, Pope Joseph wouldn’t have been so bad, but I don’t know when the last time a Pope was allowed to keep his own name.
And it’s Pope Benedict XVI. How original. But then what did we expect from someone who is intent on keeping every aspect of church doctrine the same as it has been for hundreds of years? Still, Ratzinger is no more conservative than John Paul II was so everything is still just status quo.
So I am rather indifferent to the whole thing. If it were up to me I would have shaken things up and picked a woman to be the next pope. But of course I’m not Catholic so it doesn’t matter what I think.
On the other hand, Pope Joseph wouldn’t have been so bad, but I don’t know when the last time a Pope was allowed to keep his own name.
And it’s Pope Benedict XVI. How original. But then what did we expect from someone who is intent on keeping every aspect of church doctrine the same as it has been for hundreds of years? Still, Ratzinger is no more conservative than John Paul II was so everything is still just status quo.
So I am rather indifferent to the whole thing. If it were up to me I would have shaken things up and picked a woman to be the next pope. But of course I’m not Catholic so it doesn’t matter what I think.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Oklahoma City bombing anniversary
Ten years ago
today I was sitting in the newsroom at the Kerrville Daily Times scanning the AP wire when I saw a news alert come across about a bomb going off at a federal building in Oklahoma City. I told my editor about it and he at first seemed indifferent. The Daily Times was still an afternoon paper at that point and my editor was putting the finishing touches on that day’s front page. He wasn’t in any mood to tear all of his work up and start over at the last minute. But I was insistent as I saw more and more news alerts coming across the wire and he finally conceded that we should probably include something about it on the front page. Before long he was tearing up inside pages as well to make room for pictures and graphics as the realization slowly dawned that this was one of the biggest news stories of the year.
Even in those pre-9/11 days early speculation pointed to foreign terrorists as the culprits - most likely Middle Eastern. But as it turned out it was the work of domestic terrorists which made the tragedy all the more disturbing. This hit home especially hard in Kerrville because there was an active group of militia folks running about town making anti-government noises at that time.
A few days after the bombing we were back in the newsroom when we suddenly heard an explosion go off somewhere in the distance. I remember people literally falling out of their chairs to race for the cars to find out what was going on. Our ever ready photographer Ken Schmidt was out the door in a flash and on the scene in a matter of moments.
Fortunately, there was no damage or injuries from the explosion. The feds had raided one of the local militia groups and confiscated a bunch of bomb-making materials which they took out into a field and blew up. This particular group had produced a video purporting to show people how to make their own homemade bombs and were selling it on the Internet. Quite possibly they were harmless eccentrics like most of the people caught up in the militia movement, but the mood of the country had quickly soured on that sort of thing.
today I was sitting in the newsroom at the Kerrville Daily Times scanning the AP wire when I saw a news alert come across about a bomb going off at a federal building in Oklahoma City. I told my editor about it and he at first seemed indifferent. The Daily Times was still an afternoon paper at that point and my editor was putting the finishing touches on that day’s front page. He wasn’t in any mood to tear all of his work up and start over at the last minute. But I was insistent as I saw more and more news alerts coming across the wire and he finally conceded that we should probably include something about it on the front page. Before long he was tearing up inside pages as well to make room for pictures and graphics as the realization slowly dawned that this was one of the biggest news stories of the year.
Even in those pre-9/11 days early speculation pointed to foreign terrorists as the culprits - most likely Middle Eastern. But as it turned out it was the work of domestic terrorists which made the tragedy all the more disturbing. This hit home especially hard in Kerrville because there was an active group of militia folks running about town making anti-government noises at that time.
A few days after the bombing we were back in the newsroom when we suddenly heard an explosion go off somewhere in the distance. I remember people literally falling out of their chairs to race for the cars to find out what was going on. Our ever ready photographer Ken Schmidt was out the door in a flash and on the scene in a matter of moments.
Fortunately, there was no damage or injuries from the explosion. The feds had raided one of the local militia groups and confiscated a bunch of bomb-making materials which they took out into a field and blew up. This particular group had produced a video purporting to show people how to make their own homemade bombs and were selling it on the Internet. Quite possibly they were harmless eccentrics like most of the people caught up in the militia movement, but the mood of the country had quickly soured on that sort of thing.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Pink light sabers
I thought Fox Trot was particularly hilarious this weekend for anyone who missed it.
Black smoke
No pope today.
I'm so glad that CNN has its cameras trained on that smokestack at the Vatican to let me know the instant that the Cardinals have or have not made a decision. It would be a shame to miss that first whiff of smoke as it rises from the chimney.
Seriously, though, I find it curious that the two leading contenders are both 78 years old. Pope John Paul II was a spritely 58 when he was tapped for the job back in 1978, but now they are dismissing the chances of some cardinals who are 60 and 63 because they are supposedly too young.
John Paul II was 84 when he died and the last years of his life were plagued with health woes that made it difficult for him to carry out even the simplest ceremonial tasks. Unless the Vatican wants to go through this process again in just a few years they might want to consider some younger folks.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Gun nuts on parade
The NRA is holding its national convention in Houston this weekend. Last night they had right-wing rocker Ted Nugent kick things off by playing the National Anthem on his electric guitar ala Jimi Hendrix. Gov. Rick Perry gave the introductory address on Friday and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was the keynote speaker on Saturday.
These are good times for the NRA - the undisputed heavyweight of political advocacy groups. They have outspent their biggest political rival - Brady Handgun Control - by something like 17 to 1 and the results are obvious. The GOP - which acts like a subsidiary of the NRA - controls every branch of the federal government. Despite polls showing widespread support for the assault weapons ban, Congress let the law lapse rather than risk the wrath of the gun lobby.
I don't have a problem with gun nuts in general (and I use that term endearingly since I am related to a number of self-described gun nuts). But no one I know is as extreme as the current leadership of the NRA. Wayne LaPierre, who coined the term "jack-booted thugs" to describe federal agents, is a certifiable lunatic and the extreme positions he has led the NRA to take over the years has made this country more dangerous. Opposition to the assault weapons ban is just one of many outrageous positions the NRA has taken in recent years. They have also opposed laws limiting the sale of armor-piercing, cop-killer bullets as well as laws banning the sale of plastic guns which can slip by security screens in airports.
The NRA today is a lot like the Christian Coalition in that it would appear to be representing a large segment of our population, but is driven according to an agenda set by a small group of extremists on the far-right fringe. I hope that one day soon some level-headed people will regain control of this organization and restore its tarnished credibility. Until then, I can't see much difference between the NRA and the nutjobs who run these militia groups. Only the NRA is scarier because it has the leadership of our country in its hip pocket.
These are good times for the NRA - the undisputed heavyweight of political advocacy groups. They have outspent their biggest political rival - Brady Handgun Control - by something like 17 to 1 and the results are obvious. The GOP - which acts like a subsidiary of the NRA - controls every branch of the federal government. Despite polls showing widespread support for the assault weapons ban, Congress let the law lapse rather than risk the wrath of the gun lobby.
I don't have a problem with gun nuts in general (and I use that term endearingly since I am related to a number of self-described gun nuts). But no one I know is as extreme as the current leadership of the NRA. Wayne LaPierre, who coined the term "jack-booted thugs" to describe federal agents, is a certifiable lunatic and the extreme positions he has led the NRA to take over the years has made this country more dangerous. Opposition to the assault weapons ban is just one of many outrageous positions the NRA has taken in recent years. They have also opposed laws limiting the sale of armor-piercing, cop-killer bullets as well as laws banning the sale of plastic guns which can slip by security screens in airports.
The NRA today is a lot like the Christian Coalition in that it would appear to be representing a large segment of our population, but is driven according to an agenda set by a small group of extremists on the far-right fringe. I hope that one day soon some level-headed people will regain control of this organization and restore its tarnished credibility. Until then, I can't see much difference between the NRA and the nutjobs who run these militia groups. Only the NRA is scarier because it has the leadership of our country in its hip pocket.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Life without parole
We finally have something that Mark Harden and I can agree on.
I was happy to see this bill
finally make its way through the Senate. By giving jurors the option of life without parole, there will be less reason for them to hand out death sentences, which I oppose on moral and philosophical grounds.
As I noted last week, an earlier version of this bill fell through because Republican senators feared that it would undermine support for the death penalty. But this time the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., D-Brownsville, struck a compromise with with Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, that cleared the way for its passage. Unfortunately, the compromise meant eliminating the option of life with the possibility of parole after 40 years, thus further tying the hands of juries in capital cases.
Apparently it all boils down to a matter of trust. Sen. Lucio says he trusts Texas jurors.
“I think the more options juries have, the better," Lucio said. "I trust Texas jurors."
Sen. Ogden thinks they are morons.
Ogden said giving jurors three possible sentences to choose between might confuse them and open the door to additional appeals from inmates.
Having three options to choose from is just sooooo confusing for those poor ignorant Texas jurors. I’m so glad Sen. Ogden is looking out for them by limiting their options to just two. In fact, maybe we should just make it even simpler and give them just one option. Then we could eliminate the hassle of having juries in the first place.
I was happy to see this bill
finally make its way through the Senate. By giving jurors the option of life without parole, there will be less reason for them to hand out death sentences, which I oppose on moral and philosophical grounds.
As I noted last week, an earlier version of this bill fell through because Republican senators feared that it would undermine support for the death penalty. But this time the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., D-Brownsville, struck a compromise with with Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, that cleared the way for its passage. Unfortunately, the compromise meant eliminating the option of life with the possibility of parole after 40 years, thus further tying the hands of juries in capital cases.
Apparently it all boils down to a matter of trust. Sen. Lucio says he trusts Texas jurors.
“I think the more options juries have, the better," Lucio said. "I trust Texas jurors."
Sen. Ogden thinks they are morons.
Ogden said giving jurors three possible sentences to choose between might confuse them and open the door to additional appeals from inmates.
Having three options to choose from is just sooooo confusing for those poor ignorant Texas jurors. I’m so glad Sen. Ogden is looking out for them by limiting their options to just two. In fact, maybe we should just make it even simpler and give them just one option. Then we could eliminate the hassle of having juries in the first place.
My kind of English
Your Linguistic Profile: |
60% General American English |
25% Dixie |
5% Midwestern |
5% Upper Midwestern |
5% Yankee |
(Survey found via Beginner's Mind)
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Guest blogging
I will be guest blogging for the next few days at S.A. Express-News Watch while the Alamo City Commando is off on a top secret aquatic reconnaissance and requisition mission.
I hope I don’t run off too many of his loyal readers with my liberal rants.
In the meantime, I was happy to see that the Texas Observer has launched a blog called Texas Legislature Observed Blog. Also, State Rep. Aaron Pena, D-McAllen, who does the A CAPITOL BLOG, has now launched LONE STAR RISING which will serve a blogging outlet for other Texas state legislators.
Seems like this blogging fad is proving to be more durable than many folks thought a couple of years ago.
I hope I don’t run off too many of his loyal readers with my liberal rants.
In the meantime, I was happy to see that the Texas Observer has launched a blog called Texas Legislature Observed Blog. Also, State Rep. Aaron Pena, D-McAllen, who does the A CAPITOL BLOG, has now launched LONE STAR RISING which will serve a blogging outlet for other Texas state legislators.
Seems like this blogging fad is proving to be more durable than many folks thought a couple of years ago.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Bush caves on farm subsidy cuts
The spineless Bush administration has caved on its plan to cut farm program subsidies.
After two months of fierce resistance from farmers and Congress, the Bush administration has dropped an effort to cut government payments to farmers.
Bush asked Congress in February to slash billions of dollars from payments to large farm operations, dropping the maximum farmers are allowed to collect from $360,000 to $250,000 and closing loopholes allowing some growers to obtain millions of dollars. He also proposed to cut all farm payments by 5 percent.
The problem with farm subsidies is that the bulk of the money goes to a handful of huge agri-business corporations - not small independent farmers.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns has argued that bigger operations collect too big a share of government payments. According to his department, 8 percent of producers receive 78 percent of subsidies.
The scary think now is that while Bush has wimped out on reducing the flow of federal dollars to these large farming conglomerates (which contribute heavily to Republican political causes), he is still requiring big cuts from the Agriculture Department.
Bush's proposed cuts would total $8 billion over 10 years, as calculated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Last month, House budget writers cut Agriculture Department spending for 2006 by $5.3 billion, while their Senate counterparts cut it by $2.8 billion.
On Tuesday, Johanns told key senators that while spending must be reduced to hold down the federal deficit, he is willing to look elsewhere in agriculture programs for cuts.
If the cuts don’t come from subsidy payments to corporate farming operations, where will they come from. Oh, yes. The story addresses that too.
If cuts don't come from payments to farmers, they still must come from somewhere. Republican committee chairmen have suggested reductions in spending on land conservation and nutrition programs, such as food stamps, also run by the Agriculture Department.
They will just cut funding for land conservation and food stamps! Suddenly, the Bush administration finds its spine when it comes to taking money away from poor hungry children and environmental conservation programs.
After two months of fierce resistance from farmers and Congress, the Bush administration has dropped an effort to cut government payments to farmers.
Bush asked Congress in February to slash billions of dollars from payments to large farm operations, dropping the maximum farmers are allowed to collect from $360,000 to $250,000 and closing loopholes allowing some growers to obtain millions of dollars. He also proposed to cut all farm payments by 5 percent.
The problem with farm subsidies is that the bulk of the money goes to a handful of huge agri-business corporations - not small independent farmers.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns has argued that bigger operations collect too big a share of government payments. According to his department, 8 percent of producers receive 78 percent of subsidies.
The scary think now is that while Bush has wimped out on reducing the flow of federal dollars to these large farming conglomerates (which contribute heavily to Republican political causes), he is still requiring big cuts from the Agriculture Department.
Bush's proposed cuts would total $8 billion over 10 years, as calculated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Last month, House budget writers cut Agriculture Department spending for 2006 by $5.3 billion, while their Senate counterparts cut it by $2.8 billion.
On Tuesday, Johanns told key senators that while spending must be reduced to hold down the federal deficit, he is willing to look elsewhere in agriculture programs for cuts.
If the cuts don’t come from subsidy payments to corporate farming operations, where will they come from. Oh, yes. The story addresses that too.
If cuts don't come from payments to farmers, they still must come from somewhere. Republican committee chairmen have suggested reductions in spending on land conservation and nutrition programs, such as food stamps, also run by the Agriculture Department.
They will just cut funding for land conservation and food stamps! Suddenly, the Bush administration finds its spine when it comes to taking money away from poor hungry children and environmental conservation programs.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Bush's iPod
I suppose this story was inevitable.
We now know what tunes President Bush likes to listen to on his new iPod. What does it say about the president when we analyze a random list of the songs programmed into his digital juke box? Nothing really. But we like to read about it anyway.
Here is a sample of his playlist from the NYTimes:
John Fogerty - "Centerfield" (Supposedly the song played at Texas Rangers baseball games while he was a part-owner.)
Van Morrison - "Brown Eyed Girl"
John Hiatt - "Circle Back"
Alan Jackson - unspecified
George Jones - unspecified
Alejandro Escovedo - "Castanets"
Joni Mitchell "(You're So Square) Baby I Don't Care"
The Gourds - "El Paso"
Blackie and the Rodeo Kings - "Swinging From the Chains of Love"
Stevie Ray Vaughn - "The House is Rockin'"
James McMurtry - "Valley Road"
The Thrills - "Say It Ain't So"
The Knack - "My Sharona"
I'll just say first that it's doubtful Bush actually picked all these songs himself. The story notes that the job of loading songs onto his iPod fell to a staffer who probably picks stuff he thinks the boss will like. Second, you can bet this list was perused by Bush's handlers before it was passed out to the media. And the bit about "My Sharona" being a dirty song is silly. I've listened to that song all my life and never gave it a second thought. What good rock song isn't dirty at some level?
Overall I find the list a bit boring. But mostly I'm just jealous because I don't have an iPod.
We now know what tunes President Bush likes to listen to on his new iPod. What does it say about the president when we analyze a random list of the songs programmed into his digital juke box? Nothing really. But we like to read about it anyway.
Here is a sample of his playlist from the NYTimes:
John Fogerty - "Centerfield" (Supposedly the song played at Texas Rangers baseball games while he was a part-owner.)
Van Morrison - "Brown Eyed Girl"
John Hiatt - "Circle Back"
Alan Jackson - unspecified
George Jones - unspecified
Alejandro Escovedo - "Castanets"
Joni Mitchell "(You're So Square) Baby I Don't Care"
The Gourds - "El Paso"
Blackie and the Rodeo Kings - "Swinging From the Chains of Love"
Stevie Ray Vaughn - "The House is Rockin'"
James McMurtry - "Valley Road"
The Thrills - "Say It Ain't So"
The Knack - "My Sharona"
I'll just say first that it's doubtful Bush actually picked all these songs himself. The story notes that the job of loading songs onto his iPod fell to a staffer who probably picks stuff he thinks the boss will like. Second, you can bet this list was perused by Bush's handlers before it was passed out to the media. And the bit about "My Sharona" being a dirty song is silly. I've listened to that song all my life and never gave it a second thought. What good rock song isn't dirty at some level?
Overall I find the list a bit boring. But mostly I'm just jealous because I don't have an iPod.
Monday, April 11, 2005
205 to 10
Buried at the bottom of this Washington Post article was this interesting tidbit pertaining to the controversy over the judicial confirmation process:
All rhetoric to the contrary, the Senate actually does approve some federal judges. At 5 p.m. today, the Senate is scheduled to begin considering the nomination of Paul A. Crotty to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York. Democrats predict he will be approved by a wide margin and with the support of both New York senators, Democrats Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Crotty's nomination has been pending awhile. Democrats complain that Republicans are purposely not sending consensus judges to the Senate floor so that the confirmation rate doesn't increase. After Crotty's presumed approval today, the tally will be 205 judges confirmed since Bush was elected in 2000, with 10 not confirmed.
"They wanted to have just the bad judges on the floor to make us look obstructionist and let pressure mount toward a nuclear showdown," one senior Democratic Senate aide said.
When Bill Clinton was in office, Republicans blocked 61 of his judicial nominees from coming up for a vote. Now these same hypocritical Republicans are threatening to change Senate rules to keep Democrats from filibustering any of Bush’s nominees all because they have blocked 10 of his picks. Note: Republicans have already changed a number of Senate rules that they used when they were in the minority to block Clinton nominees - thus leaving Democrats with only the filibuster to block any Bush nominees they object to.
Update
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article today (4/12/05 A4) about the Republicans threat to use the “nuclear option” the next time Democrats try to filibuster one of Bush’s judicial nominees. The story essentially points out that Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn’t have the votes to back up his threat because moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee, Olypia Snowe, Susan Collins and Chuck Hagel are either wavering or opposed. Meanwhile, even some conservatives like John McCain and John Warner are warning against taking such drastic steps.
But the part that got to me was this sentence:
President Bush has largely ignored the tradition of consulting with home-state senators before settling on judicial nominees.
This ticks me off because when Bill Clinton was in office he did follow this tradition and as a result nominated a number of judges who were hand-picked by Republicans like Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott.
Senators Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott each suggested candidates for district court seats in their home states; Hatch pushed strongly for the nomination of Ted Stewart in Utah, and Lott recommended Allen Pepper in Mississippi. Despite concerns expressed by civil rights and environmental groups, both Stewart and Pepper were nominated by President Clinton and quickly confirmed.
So, ironically, we have a lot of very conservative judges out there right now who are “Clinton-nominees” because President Clinton respected the tradition that Bush is now thumbing his nose at.
All rhetoric to the contrary, the Senate actually does approve some federal judges. At 5 p.m. today, the Senate is scheduled to begin considering the nomination of Paul A. Crotty to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York. Democrats predict he will be approved by a wide margin and with the support of both New York senators, Democrats Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Crotty's nomination has been pending awhile. Democrats complain that Republicans are purposely not sending consensus judges to the Senate floor so that the confirmation rate doesn't increase. After Crotty's presumed approval today, the tally will be 205 judges confirmed since Bush was elected in 2000, with 10 not confirmed.
"They wanted to have just the bad judges on the floor to make us look obstructionist and let pressure mount toward a nuclear showdown," one senior Democratic Senate aide said.
When Bill Clinton was in office, Republicans blocked 61 of his judicial nominees from coming up for a vote. Now these same hypocritical Republicans are threatening to change Senate rules to keep Democrats from filibustering any of Bush’s nominees all because they have blocked 10 of his picks. Note: Republicans have already changed a number of Senate rules that they used when they were in the minority to block Clinton nominees - thus leaving Democrats with only the filibuster to block any Bush nominees they object to.
Update
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article today (4/12/05 A4) about the Republicans threat to use the “nuclear option” the next time Democrats try to filibuster one of Bush’s judicial nominees. The story essentially points out that Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn’t have the votes to back up his threat because moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee, Olypia Snowe, Susan Collins and Chuck Hagel are either wavering or opposed. Meanwhile, even some conservatives like John McCain and John Warner are warning against taking such drastic steps.
But the part that got to me was this sentence:
President Bush has largely ignored the tradition of consulting with home-state senators before settling on judicial nominees.
This ticks me off because when Bill Clinton was in office he did follow this tradition and as a result nominated a number of judges who were hand-picked by Republicans like Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott.
Senators Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott each suggested candidates for district court seats in their home states; Hatch pushed strongly for the nomination of Ted Stewart in Utah, and Lott recommended Allen Pepper in Mississippi. Despite concerns expressed by civil rights and environmental groups, both Stewart and Pepper were nominated by President Clinton and quickly confirmed.
So, ironically, we have a lot of very conservative judges out there right now who are “Clinton-nominees” because President Clinton respected the tradition that Bush is now thumbing his nose at.
Friday, April 08, 2005
EPA nominee avoids derailment
It looks like Stephen Johnson may have dodged a bullet in his bid to win congressional approval to be the next head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A 24-year veteran of the EPA, Johnson’s nomination to head the agency, where he is currently the acting administrator, was not in doubt until the other day when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi raised objections about a little known EPA research project called CHEERS (Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study).
The program was limited to families in Duval County (Fla.) that routinely used pesticides inside their homes. It offered parents $970 over two years if they made sure their young children went about their usual activities as the use of pesticides continued. Researchers would then visit the home every three to six months to collect data.
Wow! Can you imagine? The government comes to your door and tells you they are concerned about the effect of certain pesticides on young children. Then they offer you money ($930) if you will continue to expose your child to these pesticides for the next two years so that they can record what happens. (Come here, Junior. Stand over there while I spray this.) Where did they come up with this? It sounds like something straight out of Hitler’s Nazi concentration camps.
Fortunately, the study had already been suspended pending further inverstigation after receiving negative publicity last year. What set Pelosi off was that they were even considering going forward with it.
Well, not any more.
A 24-year veteran of the EPA, Johnson’s nomination to head the agency, where he is currently the acting administrator, was not in doubt until the other day when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi raised objections about a little known EPA research project called CHEERS (Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study).
The program was limited to families in Duval County (Fla.) that routinely used pesticides inside their homes. It offered parents $970 over two years if they made sure their young children went about their usual activities as the use of pesticides continued. Researchers would then visit the home every three to six months to collect data.
Wow! Can you imagine? The government comes to your door and tells you they are concerned about the effect of certain pesticides on young children. Then they offer you money ($930) if you will continue to expose your child to these pesticides for the next two years so that they can record what happens. (Come here, Junior. Stand over there while I spray this.) Where did they come up with this? It sounds like something straight out of Hitler’s Nazi concentration camps.
Fortunately, the study had already been suspended pending further inverstigation after receiving negative publicity last year. What set Pelosi off was that they were even considering going forward with it.
Well, not any more.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Undermining the death penalty
This really ticks me off.
The Texas Senate refused to create a new alternative to the death penalty Tuesday when it rejected a proposal that would allow juries to lock up capital murderers without any chance for parole...
...Blocked by senators heeding the arguments of some prosecutors who believe the change would undermine the death penalty, it fell just short of the 21 votes — or two-thirds majority — necessary to bring any proposal to the Senate floor.
So they are afraid to give jurors the option of life without parole for fear that it might lead to fewer people being sentenced to death. Oh how horrible!
And they do this during the same week that people are mourning the death of Pope John Paul II, one of the leading opponents of the death penalty.
The Texas Senate refused to create a new alternative to the death penalty Tuesday when it rejected a proposal that would allow juries to lock up capital murderers without any chance for parole...
...Blocked by senators heeding the arguments of some prosecutors who believe the change would undermine the death penalty, it fell just short of the 21 votes — or two-thirds majority — necessary to bring any proposal to the Senate floor.
So they are afraid to give jurors the option of life without parole for fear that it might lead to fewer people being sentenced to death. Oh how horrible!
And they do this during the same week that people are mourning the death of Pope John Paul II, one of the leading opponents of the death penalty.
Raising the bar on sleaze
Remember when House Speaker Jim Wright was forced to resign from office in 1989 after Republicans hounded him for making $55,000 off of bulk sales of a vanity book to corporate lobbyists?
That plus his wife was revealed to have been paid $18,000 for doing unspecified work for a friend and business partner?
Well, the Republicans have certainly raised the bar for how much sleaze they will tolerate since then.
Today it was reported that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s wife and daughter were paid more than $500,000 from DeLay’s own political action committee since 2001.
Tack that on to the multitude of other scandals swirling around DeLay and it is a wonder how Republicans can stand to be in the same room with him without gagging.
That plus his wife was revealed to have been paid $18,000 for doing unspecified work for a friend and business partner?
Well, the Republicans have certainly raised the bar for how much sleaze they will tolerate since then.
Today it was reported that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s wife and daughter were paid more than $500,000 from DeLay’s own political action committee since 2001.
Tack that on to the multitude of other scandals swirling around DeLay and it is a wonder how Republicans can stand to be in the same room with him without gagging.
Sen. Corleone makes the judiciary an offer it can’t refuse
My long-winded lawyer friend Beldar gives a spirited (and lengthy) defense of Sen. Corleone today (oops! I mean Cornyn). As one might guess, Beldar argues that Cornyn’s veiled threat to the judiciary was taken out of context. He insists that everyone should read Cornyn’s speech in its entirety - no doubt in hopes that it will put most of them to sleep and cause them to forget why they were reading it in the first place when they wake up.
But I don’t buy the “out of context” argument in this case. There is nothing that Cornyn said before or after the key statements that change or alter thier intended meaning.
But Beldar does a good job of summarizing why it is that I have such a hard time accepting that Cornyn would be a party to this GOP effort to vilify the judiciary in the first place:
John Cornyn, as you probably know (but may have forgotten) was the Attorney General of Texas and an Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court before he was elected to the US Senate. In both of those capacities, he was extremely responsible and well-balanced. As the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Texas, he certainly had no record of encouraging lawlessness. He has no history of demagoguery. Lumping him in with nuts at either the left or right extremes simply isn't justified based on his past record. He's neither a Tom DeLay nor a Robert Byrd. There's no plausible basis to argue based on his own history that by speculating about a possible cause-and-effect link, he's sending a "coded message" approving and endorsing violence against judges.
But it is that last sentence where Beldar acknowledges that Cornyn speculated ”about a possible cause-and-effect link” which is key to the whole controversy. Beldar says there is no plausible basis to argue that such speculation sends a “coded message” approving and endorsing violence against judges. But no one is accusing Cornyn of directly approving and endorsing violence, but building a rationale that would explain such an action.
A Mafia don who drops in to visit a local shop owner would never make a direct endorsement of violence either. He would simply do what Cornyn did and warn the merchant about things that might happen if he doesn’t do certain things to keep other folks happy.
Beldar, in one of his numerous updates to his post, also prints the text of a “clarification” that Sen. Cornyn made on the Senate floor the other day. (You have to scroll down - way down).
But Cornyn neither retracts nor apologizes for his outrageous statement the day before. Instead, as he is becoming apt to do, he blames you and me for coming away with the “wrong impression.”
I regret it that my remarks have been taken out of context to create a wrong impression about my position, and possibly be construed to contribute to the problem rather than to a solution.
So it wasn’t Cornyn’s fault, you see. It was those other people who took his remarks out of context (which essentially means that they actually listened to what he said rather than dozing off at that point) who are to blame for contributing to the problem.
Cornyn goes on to say:
My point was, and is, simply this: We should all be concerned that the judiciary is losing the respect that it needs to serve the American people well.
No, Senator. It is you who have lost my respect this day.
But I don’t buy the “out of context” argument in this case. There is nothing that Cornyn said before or after the key statements that change or alter thier intended meaning.
But Beldar does a good job of summarizing why it is that I have such a hard time accepting that Cornyn would be a party to this GOP effort to vilify the judiciary in the first place:
John Cornyn, as you probably know (but may have forgotten) was the Attorney General of Texas and an Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court before he was elected to the US Senate. In both of those capacities, he was extremely responsible and well-balanced. As the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Texas, he certainly had no record of encouraging lawlessness. He has no history of demagoguery. Lumping him in with nuts at either the left or right extremes simply isn't justified based on his past record. He's neither a Tom DeLay nor a Robert Byrd. There's no plausible basis to argue based on his own history that by speculating about a possible cause-and-effect link, he's sending a "coded message" approving and endorsing violence against judges.
But it is that last sentence where Beldar acknowledges that Cornyn speculated ”about a possible cause-and-effect link” which is key to the whole controversy. Beldar says there is no plausible basis to argue that such speculation sends a “coded message” approving and endorsing violence against judges. But no one is accusing Cornyn of directly approving and endorsing violence, but building a rationale that would explain such an action.
A Mafia don who drops in to visit a local shop owner would never make a direct endorsement of violence either. He would simply do what Cornyn did and warn the merchant about things that might happen if he doesn’t do certain things to keep other folks happy.
Beldar, in one of his numerous updates to his post, also prints the text of a “clarification” that Sen. Cornyn made on the Senate floor the other day. (You have to scroll down - way down).
But Cornyn neither retracts nor apologizes for his outrageous statement the day before. Instead, as he is becoming apt to do, he blames you and me for coming away with the “wrong impression.”
I regret it that my remarks have been taken out of context to create a wrong impression about my position, and possibly be construed to contribute to the problem rather than to a solution.
So it wasn’t Cornyn’s fault, you see. It was those other people who took his remarks out of context (which essentially means that they actually listened to what he said rather than dozing off at that point) who are to blame for contributing to the problem.
Cornyn goes on to say:
My point was, and is, simply this: We should all be concerned that the judiciary is losing the respect that it needs to serve the American people well.
No, Senator. It is you who have lost my respect this day.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Cornyn's "cause-and-effect connection"
What should we make of this quote by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn yesterday on the floor of the Senate?
SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."
His comments, which seem to be a strained attempt to justify violence against judges, have provoked outrage across the blogoshpere:
* From Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall:
Sen. Cornyn (R) Texas suggested that a slow build-up of outrage against activist judges may be the root cause of the recent rash of murders and assaults against members of the judiciary around the country....
Let alone the fact that the statement is ridiculous on its face since violence against judges in this country is almost exclusively the work of disgruntled defendents or homicidal maniacs who manage to wrestle a gun away from a bailiff, what Cornyn is trying to suggest here seems genuinely outrageous.
* John Aravosis at AMERICAblog says “Senator John Cornyn should resign immediately.”
We now have Republican Senators making excuses for terrorists. Explaining why terrorism is understandable. Why terrorists have legitimate concerns. Justifying why the victims of terrorism are really to blame for these heinous crimes. Wonder what Senator Cornyn thinks of rape victims?
This is utterly outrageous. Outrageous. The GOP is now embracing domestic terrorists who are trying to undermine our democracy. And they're doing it so they can take down the judges who "killed" Terri Schiavo, and instead impose some Pat Robertson-like theocracy on our country. This is absolutely utterly beyond contempt.
* Byron LaMasters at Burnt Orange Report says
It would seem as if John Cornyn is attempting to use the recent violence and threats of violence against our judiciary for political gain. That is utterly shameless.
* Charles Kuffner at Off the Kuff says
You are a disgrace, John Cornyn. I cannot express my contempt strongly enough.
* And Matthew Yglesias has a thoughtful post about how supposedly moderate politicians will use the actions of extremists to their advantage.
Does Senator Cornyn want more people to go about murdering judges? One doubts it. But it seems that he's happy to try and use such incidents to advance his own agenda.
I am particularly perplexed because until now I have held Sen. Cornyn in rather high esteem, at least for a Republican. When he was first elected I consoled myself with the thought that he was at least an improvement over the more extreme right-winger Phil Gramm. But I’m not so sure that Gramm would have ever gotten himself into a situation like this - he was nothing if not media savvy.
I have interviewed Cornyn on a number of occasions back when he was running for attorney general and he always struck me as a fairly level-headed, main-stream conservative Republican. So what is with this chilling attack on our judiciary, especially from a former member of the judiciary who served on the Texas Supreme Court?
Cornyn has recently introduced legislation that would restrict the courts from using foreign decisions as precedence in decididing cases. He also wrote an article in the National Review on that same subject. This was all seemingly sparked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down the death penalty for juveniles.
But it also seems to be part of a larger more concerted effort by the GOP to take on the judiciary and sway public opinion in a bid to allow President Bush to get 100 percent of his judicial nominees past Senate Democrats rather than just the 98 percent he has achieved so far.
So my take is that Cornyn has gotten a little carried away with his new task of being the point man on the Republican leadership’s campaign to attack the credibility of the federal judiciary. His statement yesterday revealed a lack of common sense and judgement that is rather shocking for someone with his background and history. I would hope that the black eye Cornyn has received for this statement will serve as a lesson and put him on a more moderate course once again. But if he would rather follow the path of extremist radicals like Tom DeLay then he is going to find himself going over the same cliff that they are heading towards.
Update
OK, I think I understand better what is going on here...
Cornyn is a Republican tool, a team-player and he is simply following the playbook given to him by the Republican leadership. And the game afoot is coming up with a new boogey man for the mid-term elections in 2006.
The Republicans need a boogey man to run against that will distract their sheep-like followers from focusing on how they have run the economy into the ground, piled up sky-high deficits and left us with a foreign policy mess that will take generations to deal with.
In the past they were able to target a Democratic-controlled House or Senate whom they could blame for high taxes or for being soft-on-communism. For the 2002 mid-term elections they had the spectre of Saddam Hussein and his arsenal of WMDs with which to scare voters with.
Today they are casting about desperately for a new boogeyman to run against and they think they have finally found one (thanks to Terri Schiavo) in the federal and state judiciary.
The only problem, however, is that Tom DeLay and his minions keep coming across as being much scarier than any of these judges they are attempting to vilify. Can Sen. Cornyn’s shrill attacks change this? That is the real question.
SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."
His comments, which seem to be a strained attempt to justify violence against judges, have provoked outrage across the blogoshpere:
* From Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall:
Sen. Cornyn (R) Texas suggested that a slow build-up of outrage against activist judges may be the root cause of the recent rash of murders and assaults against members of the judiciary around the country....
Let alone the fact that the statement is ridiculous on its face since violence against judges in this country is almost exclusively the work of disgruntled defendents or homicidal maniacs who manage to wrestle a gun away from a bailiff, what Cornyn is trying to suggest here seems genuinely outrageous.
* John Aravosis at AMERICAblog says “Senator John Cornyn should resign immediately.”
We now have Republican Senators making excuses for terrorists. Explaining why terrorism is understandable. Why terrorists have legitimate concerns. Justifying why the victims of terrorism are really to blame for these heinous crimes. Wonder what Senator Cornyn thinks of rape victims?
This is utterly outrageous. Outrageous. The GOP is now embracing domestic terrorists who are trying to undermine our democracy. And they're doing it so they can take down the judges who "killed" Terri Schiavo, and instead impose some Pat Robertson-like theocracy on our country. This is absolutely utterly beyond contempt.
* Byron LaMasters at Burnt Orange Report says
It would seem as if John Cornyn is attempting to use the recent violence and threats of violence against our judiciary for political gain. That is utterly shameless.
* Charles Kuffner at Off the Kuff says
You are a disgrace, John Cornyn. I cannot express my contempt strongly enough.
* And Matthew Yglesias has a thoughtful post about how supposedly moderate politicians will use the actions of extremists to their advantage.
Does Senator Cornyn want more people to go about murdering judges? One doubts it. But it seems that he's happy to try and use such incidents to advance his own agenda.
I am particularly perplexed because until now I have held Sen. Cornyn in rather high esteem, at least for a Republican. When he was first elected I consoled myself with the thought that he was at least an improvement over the more extreme right-winger Phil Gramm. But I’m not so sure that Gramm would have ever gotten himself into a situation like this - he was nothing if not media savvy.
I have interviewed Cornyn on a number of occasions back when he was running for attorney general and he always struck me as a fairly level-headed, main-stream conservative Republican. So what is with this chilling attack on our judiciary, especially from a former member of the judiciary who served on the Texas Supreme Court?
Cornyn has recently introduced legislation that would restrict the courts from using foreign decisions as precedence in decididing cases. He also wrote an article in the National Review on that same subject. This was all seemingly sparked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down the death penalty for juveniles.
But it also seems to be part of a larger more concerted effort by the GOP to take on the judiciary and sway public opinion in a bid to allow President Bush to get 100 percent of his judicial nominees past Senate Democrats rather than just the 98 percent he has achieved so far.
So my take is that Cornyn has gotten a little carried away with his new task of being the point man on the Republican leadership’s campaign to attack the credibility of the federal judiciary. His statement yesterday revealed a lack of common sense and judgement that is rather shocking for someone with his background and history. I would hope that the black eye Cornyn has received for this statement will serve as a lesson and put him on a more moderate course once again. But if he would rather follow the path of extremist radicals like Tom DeLay then he is going to find himself going over the same cliff that they are heading towards.
Update
OK, I think I understand better what is going on here...
Cornyn is a Republican tool, a team-player and he is simply following the playbook given to him by the Republican leadership. And the game afoot is coming up with a new boogey man for the mid-term elections in 2006.
The Republicans need a boogey man to run against that will distract their sheep-like followers from focusing on how they have run the economy into the ground, piled up sky-high deficits and left us with a foreign policy mess that will take generations to deal with.
In the past they were able to target a Democratic-controlled House or Senate whom they could blame for high taxes or for being soft-on-communism. For the 2002 mid-term elections they had the spectre of Saddam Hussein and his arsenal of WMDs with which to scare voters with.
Today they are casting about desperately for a new boogeyman to run against and they think they have finally found one (thanks to Terri Schiavo) in the federal and state judiciary.
The only problem, however, is that Tom DeLay and his minions keep coming across as being much scarier than any of these judges they are attempting to vilify. Can Sen. Cornyn’s shrill attacks change this? That is the real question.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Big Government Republicans
Remember when Republicans used to advocate smaller government? You know - state’s rights, local control, and all that. Well all of that apparently went out of vogue about the time that Republicans began to realize the potential for pushing their agenda using their control of all branches of the federal government.
In an article titled “Big Government’s Changing Face” in today’s Wall Street Journal (page A4), this new Republican appreciation for big government is spelled out succintly and they note that it is not just the social conservatives - who want to control every aspect of our personal lives - who are happy about it.
Republicans are moving to expand Washington’s role ... in banking, insurance and telecommunications... The Bush administration and Congress are pushing federal regulation instead of state oversight - to the applause of business constituents who now consider that more efficient and less onerous than in the days of Democratic rule...
On regulation, some Republicans are working to please many business constituents who are important ideological and financial allies... In recent years, banks have pushed through changes in federal regulations that have preempted many state consumer safeguards...
Some other examples the article gives include:
* Federal legislation that would cap medical malpractice suits in state-court cases;
* So called “Clean Skies” legislation that would limit states’ authority over power-plant pollution and would set emission reduction standards that are considerably more lenient than are currently found in many states;
* A bill that would reduce states’ authority over electric grids and the siting of new power lines;
* Legislation that would limit and possibly eliminate states’ authority to regulate insurance companies
* Legislation that would weaken state consumer protections in small-business health insurance pool coverage.
So I don’t want to hear any more about how Republicans want to give power back to the people and reduce the control of big government. The real Republican agenda here is to serve the bidding of their corporate masters by whatever means are available. In the past, that was through state and local authorities, but today it can be accomplished using federal powers. So not much has changed. Consumers, workers and the environment are still at the mercy of big business and the bottom line, only now they can no longer look to the federal government for any kind of protection.
In an article titled “Big Government’s Changing Face” in today’s Wall Street Journal (page A4), this new Republican appreciation for big government is spelled out succintly and they note that it is not just the social conservatives - who want to control every aspect of our personal lives - who are happy about it.
Republicans are moving to expand Washington’s role ... in banking, insurance and telecommunications... The Bush administration and Congress are pushing federal regulation instead of state oversight - to the applause of business constituents who now consider that more efficient and less onerous than in the days of Democratic rule...
On regulation, some Republicans are working to please many business constituents who are important ideological and financial allies... In recent years, banks have pushed through changes in federal regulations that have preempted many state consumer safeguards...
Some other examples the article gives include:
* Federal legislation that would cap medical malpractice suits in state-court cases;
* So called “Clean Skies” legislation that would limit states’ authority over power-plant pollution and would set emission reduction standards that are considerably more lenient than are currently found in many states;
* A bill that would reduce states’ authority over electric grids and the siting of new power lines;
* Legislation that would limit and possibly eliminate states’ authority to regulate insurance companies
* Legislation that would weaken state consumer protections in small-business health insurance pool coverage.
So I don’t want to hear any more about how Republicans want to give power back to the people and reduce the control of big government. The real Republican agenda here is to serve the bidding of their corporate masters by whatever means are available. In the past, that was through state and local authorities, but today it can be accomplished using federal powers. So not much has changed. Consumers, workers and the environment are still at the mercy of big business and the bottom line, only now they can no longer look to the federal government for any kind of protection.
San Antonio blogging update
I checked my blog on Sunday and was surprised to see that I had more than 65 hits that day. On an average day during the week I generally get about half that many hits and on Sundays it is generally down to almost nothing. So this was quite unusual.
As it turns out I was privileged to be mentioned in a post by Sean-Paul Kelley on The Agonist, a progressive community weblog dedicated to international commentary, news and politics. The Agonist apparently generates quite a bit of traffic because just the brief mention of my blog in Sean-Paul’s post gave me more hits in one day than I think I have ever seen.
The reason for Sean-Paul’s interest in my site was his recent discovery that we are both based in San Antonio. The local blogging community (at least for political blogs) has grown exponentially in the past few months. Some of the new local blogs that have popped up (new to me, at least) include P.M. Bryant’s B and B, which focuses on science and environmental issues; The Jeffersonian with its focus on local politics and sports and authored by the anonymous Cincinnatus; and the group news and commentary site NewsHog, which has at least one of its main contributors - Cernig - based here.
On the other side of the aisle, the conservatives are well represented by Alamo City Commando and his S.A. Express-News Watch site which takes the local daily to task for being (ahem) too liberal. Commando recently welcomed old-timer Mark Harden to his site as a regular contributor. Mark’s former blog InSane Antonio preceded mine by several months.
I’m not sure who had the first blog up in San Antonio. That title could belong to Roscoe Ellis who to my dismay announced just this weekend that he is shuttering his Online Journal.
Some other local conservative blogs I have discovered recently include Ranten Raven’s The View From The Nest; Raving Heretic by Rick; Dead Can’t Rant by Dave and Renee; and the self-titled Tex the Pontificator.
Ben Kaminar, a St. Mary’s University law student has shut down Ben's World, which had a politically conservative focus, and is now considering starting a new blog with a focus on his religious studies.
There are some other local bloggers like Real Live Preacher and The Main Point Blog by Michael Main, who kind of operate in their own little cyber universes. And I am sure there are many more that I have missed.
All in all I’d say that we have the potential for some rather lively discussions with this diverse group.
Update
Just came across two more San Antonio-based bloggers, both from the conservative side:
But That's Just My Opinion by Jimmy Kerr and Pete The Elder by Pete.
As it turns out I was privileged to be mentioned in a post by Sean-Paul Kelley on The Agonist, a progressive community weblog dedicated to international commentary, news and politics. The Agonist apparently generates quite a bit of traffic because just the brief mention of my blog in Sean-Paul’s post gave me more hits in one day than I think I have ever seen.
The reason for Sean-Paul’s interest in my site was his recent discovery that we are both based in San Antonio. The local blogging community (at least for political blogs) has grown exponentially in the past few months. Some of the new local blogs that have popped up (new to me, at least) include P.M. Bryant’s B and B, which focuses on science and environmental issues; The Jeffersonian with its focus on local politics and sports and authored by the anonymous Cincinnatus; and the group news and commentary site NewsHog, which has at least one of its main contributors - Cernig - based here.
On the other side of the aisle, the conservatives are well represented by Alamo City Commando and his S.A. Express-News Watch site which takes the local daily to task for being (ahem) too liberal. Commando recently welcomed old-timer Mark Harden to his site as a regular contributor. Mark’s former blog InSane Antonio preceded mine by several months.
I’m not sure who had the first blog up in San Antonio. That title could belong to Roscoe Ellis who to my dismay announced just this weekend that he is shuttering his Online Journal.
Some other local conservative blogs I have discovered recently include Ranten Raven’s The View From The Nest; Raving Heretic by Rick; Dead Can’t Rant by Dave and Renee; and the self-titled Tex the Pontificator.
Ben Kaminar, a St. Mary’s University law student has shut down Ben's World, which had a politically conservative focus, and is now considering starting a new blog with a focus on his religious studies.
There are some other local bloggers like Real Live Preacher and The Main Point Blog by Michael Main, who kind of operate in their own little cyber universes. And I am sure there are many more that I have missed.
All in all I’d say that we have the potential for some rather lively discussions with this diverse group.
Update
Just came across two more San Antonio-based bloggers, both from the conservative side:
But That's Just My Opinion by Jimmy Kerr and Pete The Elder by Pete.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Pope John Paul II
I was just 13 the last time that a pope died but I still remember it well. I had just started keeping up with the news at that time reading the local paper and my parents' Time Magazine each week. I don't recall any long accolades to the departed pope at that time, just the excitement over the new guy who had just been selected - Pope John Paul I. And then he dropped dead just 30 days later and they had to rush out and start all over again.
So it seemed like Pope John Paul II got off to a rather bumpy start - having to take another guy's name and starting out with the notion that he was a last-minute replacement like a relief pitcher who comes into the game halfway through the first inning.
But John Paul II has certainly made his mark over the years, making most everybody forget there was ever a John Paul I. He was kind of like Ronald Reagan in some ways - hard not to like even when you didn't always agree with him. And there were a lot of things I disagreed with him on - abortion, contraception, homosexuality, the role of women in the church. It is said that he was very conservative and he certainly didn't budge on any of these issues. But I also remember him as being very liberal, especially when it came to criticizing the U.S. for our foreign and economic policies. He reached out to the world's poor and downtrodden and shamed the world's wealthy nations for doing nothing or not enough to address their problems. He criticized the U.S. for its military adventures in Central America and the Middle East. And he didn't back down from those positions either.
I'm not a Catholic, but I always had a great deal of respect for Pope John Paul II. I hope that the next pope will be someone I can respect and admire as well. They've got some big shoes to fill.
Update
Sister Helen Prejean, who I got to see in person a few months ago at Trinity United Methodist Church, has an Op-Ed in the NYTimes about John Paul II’s principled opposition to the death penalty.
So it seemed like Pope John Paul II got off to a rather bumpy start - having to take another guy's name and starting out with the notion that he was a last-minute replacement like a relief pitcher who comes into the game halfway through the first inning.
But John Paul II has certainly made his mark over the years, making most everybody forget there was ever a John Paul I. He was kind of like Ronald Reagan in some ways - hard not to like even when you didn't always agree with him. And there were a lot of things I disagreed with him on - abortion, contraception, homosexuality, the role of women in the church. It is said that he was very conservative and he certainly didn't budge on any of these issues. But I also remember him as being very liberal, especially when it came to criticizing the U.S. for our foreign and economic policies. He reached out to the world's poor and downtrodden and shamed the world's wealthy nations for doing nothing or not enough to address their problems. He criticized the U.S. for its military adventures in Central America and the Middle East. And he didn't back down from those positions either.
I'm not a Catholic, but I always had a great deal of respect for Pope John Paul II. I hope that the next pope will be someone I can respect and admire as well. They've got some big shoes to fill.
Update
Sister Helen Prejean, who I got to see in person a few months ago at Trinity United Methodist Church, has an Op-Ed in the NYTimes about John Paul II’s principled opposition to the death penalty.
Friday, April 01, 2005
The Slapstick Conspiracy
I'm suspicious. Who is behind this sudden rash of slapstick attacks on conservative pundits?
First William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, was hit in the face with a pie while speaking at Earlham College, a private Quaker college in Richmond, Ind.
Now right-wing pundit and former CNN Crossfire host Pat Buchanan gets doused with salad dressing during a speech at Western Michigan University.
These kinds of stunts always make the attackers look like idiots and build sympathy for their intended targets. Are there really a bunch of liberals running around who are stupid enough to do things like this? Well, yes. Without a doubt.
But what if it's not really liberals who are behind this? What if this is another of Karl Rove's schemes that he cooked up just to make liberals look bad? Hmmmmmmmm.
Oh, you're not convinced? Well look at the intended targets. If you were Karl Rove and wanted to make liberals look bad while building sympathy for conservatives you would then have to decide which conservatives would be the targets of these pie-throwing, salad dressing-tossing goons. You probably wouldn't want to pick your friends. Instead you might pick out some conservatives who have annoyed you in the past. Pat Buchanan and William Kristol are both solid conservatives, but both have also been staunch critics of the Bush administration at various times in the past. Pat even ran against Bush's father - twice. And Kristol is constantly nitpicking Bush administration policies in his magazine. Definitely not team players and prime candidates for the pie-in-the-face role.
If my theory is correct, then David Brooks had best watch out before he gets sprayed with a bottle of seltzer water at his next speaking event.
First William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, was hit in the face with a pie while speaking at Earlham College, a private Quaker college in Richmond, Ind.
Now right-wing pundit and former CNN Crossfire host Pat Buchanan gets doused with salad dressing during a speech at Western Michigan University.
These kinds of stunts always make the attackers look like idiots and build sympathy for their intended targets. Are there really a bunch of liberals running around who are stupid enough to do things like this? Well, yes. Without a doubt.
But what if it's not really liberals who are behind this? What if this is another of Karl Rove's schemes that he cooked up just to make liberals look bad? Hmmmmmmmm.
Oh, you're not convinced? Well look at the intended targets. If you were Karl Rove and wanted to make liberals look bad while building sympathy for conservatives you would then have to decide which conservatives would be the targets of these pie-throwing, salad dressing-tossing goons. You probably wouldn't want to pick your friends. Instead you might pick out some conservatives who have annoyed you in the past. Pat Buchanan and William Kristol are both solid conservatives, but both have also been staunch critics of the Bush administration at various times in the past. Pat even ran against Bush's father - twice. And Kristol is constantly nitpicking Bush administration policies in his magazine. Definitely not team players and prime candidates for the pie-in-the-face role.
If my theory is correct, then David Brooks had best watch out before he gets sprayed with a bottle of seltzer water at his next speaking event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)