Archives
November 2004 Comments
October 2004 Comments
September 2004 Comments
August 2004 Comments
July 2004 Comments
June 2004 Comments
|
During the next month we will be posting periodically and return to regular posts in the New Year 2005. Now is a time for resting
and regrouping after a difficult campaign. But having been through this for the last forty years we know that patience is needed and
that when victory comes it will be especially sweet.
30 November 2004
This is the short bio
from the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/26/national/26gay.html?hp&ex=1101531600&en=7969c5a6c95f56c2&
of one of the main pushers of the
anti-gay marriage stuff. Why is it that these “born again” folks are give a
free ride on their previous lives when they dunk their head in a tub of water
and proclaim they are saved and decide to save everyone else in the world the
same way? Crazy days are here again.
Mr. Burress, a self-described former
pornography addict, had spent much of the 1990's fighting strip clubs and
X-rated bookstores. But here was something he saw as a potentially greater
threat to his fundamentalist Christian beliefs and traditional family values:
something he called the "gay agenda."
"We saw a stepped program, a plan
by gay advocates," Mr. Burress recalled. "It would lead to
homosexuality being taught in schools as equal to heterosexuality. And we saw
that what they couldn't get from legislatures they would try to get by going to
court."
And so Mr. Burress became a Paul
Revere for the movement against same-sex marriage, not only sounding warnings
across the land but also laying the groundwork for a church-based conservative
movement that he hopes will transform Ohio politics for years to come.
By January 1996, he had helped
organize a meeting of Christian conservatives where a program to combat
same-sex marriage was devised. By that fall, they had persuaded Congress and
President Bill Clinton to enact legislation defining marriage as between a man
and a woman…..
His opponents
praise (not including us in this
group, we think he is a jerk) Mr.
Burress for shaping issues in ways that are clear and compelling for the
average voter. But they also say he distorts those issues, and they say he is
closed-minded and intolerant of dissenting views, not to mention alternative
ways of life.
"He is pretty frightening,
because he and other spokesmen for the campaign believe that if you don't
subscribe to their view, there is something morally wrong with you," said
Alan Melamed, who managed the Ohio campaign against the constitutional
amendment.
Mr. Burress disagrees with such
descriptions. "I don't have a homophobic bone in my body," he said.
"What I'm concerned about is having these things forced on our
culture."
Mr. Burress was raised on a farm in Hamilton County outside Cincinnati. He attended a small Evangelical church two
and sometimes three times a week, and married a fellow parishioner when he was
18.
At 14, he said, he found a
pornographic magazine on the roadside and became obsessed with seeing more.
Every chance he got, he said, he drove into Cincinnati to buy, and sometimes steal, magazines or
videos.
Over the next two decades, he had four
daughters from two marriages. But he says his obsession with the raunchy
fantasy world of pornography ruined both marriages and drove him away from
religion.
"I was living a double
life," he said.
On Sept. 6, 1980 - a date he recalls
as vividly as others remember birthdays or deaths - Mr. Burress attended a
sermon given by his new son-in-law, the pastor at an evangelical church. The
experience reawakened religious stirrings inside him and he resolved to change
his life.
He said he abandoned his pornography
habit, started attending church again and began volunteering at Citizens for
Community Values, an antipornography group based in Cincinnati.
Within a few years, he was running the
group, effectively retiring from the landscaping business and travel agency he
owned. In 1998, he was married for the third time, to
a woman he met at an antipornography conference.
These folks are no
different than the Crusaders, the Salem
Witch killers and the Inquisitionists. They wish to impose their religious
views on all. The sanctity of marriage that this turkey wants to preserve was
twice violated by him and that was Ok ’cause he was saved. What a crock!
*****
26 November 2004
With the election in
the Ukraine in turmoil we just couldn’t resist posting
this comment from http://americablog.blogspot.com/
;
Irony isn't a strong enough word
by Rob in Baltimore - 11/25/2004 12:27:54 AM
Hollywood couldn't come up with irony like this. It had to come from the U.S. Department of State and the mouth of Colin Powell (Photos from Yahoo):
Good morning, everyone. A dozen years ago, Ukrainians chose freedom and independence, setting their country on a path of democracy and prosperity. The United States has been a consistent partner with Ukraine in this journey. Similarly, today the United States stands with the people of Ukraine and their effort to ensure their democratic choice.

Indeed, this is a critical moment. It is time for Ukrainian leaders to decide whether they are on the side of democracy or not, whether they respect the will of the people or not. If the Ukrainian Government does not act immediately and responsibly, there will be consequences for our relationship for Ukraine's hopes for Euro-Atlantic integration and for individuals responsible for perpetrating fraud.

The Central Election Commission has just announced official results and declared the current prime minister the winner. We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse. We have been following developments very closely and are deeply disturbed by the extensive and credible reports of fraud in the election. We call for a full review of the conduct of the election and the tallying of election results."
Permanent Link
*****
23 November 2004
We are going to take the next month off and return in the New Year. Now is a time for resting and regrouping after a difficult campaign. But having
been through this for the last forty years we know that patience is needed and that when victory comes it will be especially sweet.
18 November 2004
There was only one
Democrat incumbent in the House who lost his seat, outside of the four
Democrats in Texas who were redistricted out of office by Tom
DeLay.
From http://www.dailykos.com/
Here's a place were election machine shenanigans may
actually have miscalled an election. From the subscription-only Roll Call:
The Indiana Democratic Party on Friday requested a recount
of votes cast in the 9th district, where Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.)
was narrowly defeated by Republican Mike Sodrel on
Nov. 2.
The recount request was made after an election-equipment malfunction was
discovered in Franklin County,
which is not in the 9th district.
On Nov. 3, Hill conceded defeat to Sodrel, a
trucking company owner, and the most recent vote tally available from the
Indiana secretary of state’s office showed Hill trailing by 1,485 votes. As of
midday Friday, Sodrel had 142,257 votes to Hill’s
140,772.
An emergency meeting of the state’s recount commission was held Friday
afternoon and the machines, ballots and all other material relating to the
election were ordered impounded. The commission will meet again on Tuesday to
decide the next course of action and to hear cross petitions from Republicans.
"They want to hear from the other side as well," Kate Shepherd, a
spokeswoman for the Indiana
secretary of state’s office, said Friday.
Last week, Rock Island, Ill.-based election equipment vendor Fidlar Election Co. acknowledged that some of its
vote-scanning machines counted straight Democratic ticket votes as Libertarian
votes.
Hill was the only Democrat incumbent outside of Texas
to lose his election.
*****
Also from Kos:
Bush plans to replace Rice as National Security Advisor with
Stephen Hadley.
Who is Hadley? He was Condi Rice's deputy -- a prime suspect of the Plame outing, and the guy who took the fall (the blame) for
the "yellowcake" reference in Bush's 2003 SOTU address.
*****
Well folks that’s it until next
Tuesday. We are taking a few days off to visit our grandchildren and see
some clients and watch the Northern Kentucky Men’s Basketball Team begin their
regular season with the Lion’s Tip-off Classic in beautiful Highland
Heights, Kentucky across the
river from Cincinnati, Ohio.
We all need some days off from the Busharama Brouhaha.
Shalom!
17 November 2004
And from Michael
Moore the following Missive courtesy a reader of the website:
MICHAEL MOORE WROTE.....
QUOTING Monty Python,
'always look on the bright side of life!' There
IS some good news from Tuesday's election.
Here are 17 reasons not to slit your
wrists:
1. It is against the law for George W.
Bush to run for president again.
2. Bush's victory was the NARROWEST
win for a sitting president since
Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
3. The only age group in which the
majority voted for Kerry was young adults
(Kerry: 54%, Bush: 44%), proving once again that your parents are always
wrong and you should never listen to them.
4. In spite of Bush's win, the
majority of Americans still think the
country is headed in the wrong direction (56%),
think the war wasn't worth fighting (51%), and don't approve of
the job George W. Bush is doing (52%).
(Note to foreigners: Don't try to figure this one out. It's an American
thing, like Pop Tarts.)
5. The Republicans will not have a
filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the
Senate. If the Democrats do their job, Bush won't be able to pack the
Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues. Did I say "if the Democrats do
their job?" Um, maybe better to scratch this one.
6. Michigan voted for Kerry! So did the entire
Northeast, the birthplace of
our democracy. So did 6 of the 8 Great Lakes States. And the whole West
Coast! Plus Hawaii. Ok, that's a start. We've got most of the
fresh water,
all of Broadway, and Mt. St. Helens. We can dehydrate them or bury them in
lava. And no more show tunes!
7. Once again we are reminded that the
buckeye is a nut, and not just any
old nut -- a poisonous nut. A great nation was felled by a poisonous nut.
May Ohio State pay dearly this Saturday when it faces Michigan. (it did)
8. 88% of Bush's support came from
white voters. In 50 years, America will
no longer have a white majority. Hey, 50 years isn't such a long time! If
you're ten years old and reading this, your golden
years will be truly
golden and you will be well cared for in your old age.
9. Gays, thanks to the ballot measures
passed on Tuesday, cannot get married
in 11 new states. Thank God. Just think of all those wedding gifts we won't
have to buy now.
10. Five more African Americans were
elected as members of Congress,
including the return of Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. It's always good to
have more blacks in there fighting for us and doing the job our candidates
can't.
11. The CEO of Coors was defeated for
Senate in Colorado. Drink up!
12. Admit it: We like the Bush twins
and we don't want them to go away.
13. At the state legislative level,
Democrats picked up a net of at least 3
chambers in Tuesday's elections. Of the 98 partisan-controlled state
legislative chambers (house/assembly and senate), Democrats went into the
2004 elections in control of 44 chambers, Republicans controlled 53
chambers, and 1 chamber was tied. After Tuesday, Democrats now control 47
chambers, Republicans control 49 chambers, 1 chamber is tied and 1 chamber
(Montana House) is still undecided.
14. Bush is now a lame duck president.
He will have no greater moment than
the one he's having this week. It's all downhill for him from here on out --
and, more significantly, he's just not going to want to do all the hard work
that will be expected of him. It'll be like everyone's last month in 12th
grade -- you've already made it, so it's party time! Perhaps he'll treat the
next four years like a permanent Friday, spending even more time at the
ranch or in Kennebunkport. And why shouldn't he? He's already proved
his
point, avenged his father and kicked our ass.
15. Should Bush decide to show up to
work and take this country down a very
dark road, it is also just as likely that either of the following two
scenarios will happen: a) Now that he doesn't ever need to pander to the
Christian conservatives again to get elected, someone may whisper in his ear
that he should spend these last four years building "a legacy" so
that
history will render a kinder verdict on him and thus he will not push for
too aggressive a right-wing agenda; or b) He will become so cocky and
arrogant -- and thus, reckless -- that he will commit a blunder of such
major proportions that even his own party will have to remove him from
office.
16. There are nearly 300 million
Americans -- 200 million of them of voting
age. We only lost by three and a half million! That's not a landslide -- it
means we're almost there. Imagine losing by 20 million. If you had 58 yards
to go before you reached the goal line and then you barreled down 55 of
those yards, would you stop on the three yard line, pick up the ball and go
home crying -- especially when you get to start the next down on the three
yard line? Of course not! Buck up! Have hope! More sports analogies are
coming!!!
17. Finally and most importantly, over
55 million Americans voted for the
candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the
total
number of voters who voted for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore.
Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for
a trend it should be this -- that so many Americans were, for the first time
since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has
always been filled with evangelicals -- that is not news. What IS news is
that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal. In fact,
that's BIG news. Which means, don't expect the mainstream media, the ones
who brought you the Iraq War, to ever report the real truth about November
2, 2004. In fact, it's better that they don't. We'll need the element of
surprise in 2008.
Feeling better? I hope so. As my
friend Mort wrote me yesterday, "My
Romanian grandfather used to say to me, 'Remember, Morton, this is such a
wonderful country -- it doesn't even need a president!'"
But it needs us. Rest up, I'll write
you again tomorrow.
Yours,
Michael Moore
*****
And from California courtesy of CNBC we learn that
commercials supporting Arnold for
President have begun to run. That didn’t take long. If Arnold
is going to run, he can’t yet win because of the Constitution, we will mention
that Oprah
is our choice for President. She has brains, looks, money, and is a
self made person.
*****
Always worth a look, The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/index.php?pre=1
*****
A poignant post from: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/
Revenge of the Quisling Democrats
Man, those Senate Dems are sittin' pretty. First,
we have the pleasure of another milquetoast Red State Dem as Minority
Leader. And now, Holy Joe has signaled (i.e. telegraphed) to the administration
his distaste for all this "partisanship" business. Here's the
Pious One on Fox News Sunday (surprise, surprise):
I hope that in the second Bush term that President Bush will
develop a kind of consultative relationship, certainly with Democratic leaders
like Harry Reid.
And I think that will help avoid the kinds of filibusters that really a lot of
us moderate Democrats — and we talked about this just last week when we had a
phone conference — don't want to be involved in.
And we'd much prefer to give an up-or-down vote to a president's judicial
nominations.
He earned that right when he got elected.
Shouldn't we just affix a permanent "kick me" sign on Holy Joe's
back? Honestly, how low can the Senate Dems sink? Between Lieberman's puppy-dog
subservience and Ben Nelson's idiotic "there's no way they're gonna be able to demonize Harry Reid!" comment
in yesterday's NYT, we may end up pining for the fierce, take-no-prisoners
leadership of Tom Daschle. Unbelievable.
Yuval Rubinstein :: 5:32 AM :: Comments
(11) :: TrackBack (0)
Other blogs
commenting on this post
*****
And from :
http://www.talkleft.com/
These 5 New Republican Senators May Cost
You Sleep
Via Cursor, check out these profiles
of five new Republican Senators who "hope to make your worst
nightmares come true."
- Tom Coburn (OK): Keeping us
safe from condoms and the ‘gay agenda’
- Jim DeMint (SC): ‘The Family’
values, homophobia, and tax chicanery
- David Vitter (LA): Putting
young men and women in harm’s way
- Richard Burr (NC): Corporate
errand boy scoops up PAC money
- John Thune (SD): A
simple-minded campaign of flag-waving and heterosexuality
09:41 AM | Permalink
| Elections | Comments (2) | Trackback (0)
*****
And now more tax
dollars to rebuild:
from the LA Times:
Even as small groups of guerrillas continued putting up fierce resistance here
Sunday, U.S.
commanders were preparing for the next phase of the operation: the complete
reconstruction of a city that has been devastated in battle.
"It's a monumental task," acknowledged Marine Maj. Timothy Hanson,
one of the first civil affairs officers on the scene to assess the scope of
destruction in the city that had become the tactical and inspirational capital
of the Iraqi insurgency.
*****
Condi is the new
Secretary of State. The new joke is that finally Bush has a real secretary
which is what he though he was getting all along.
*****
Wal-Mart is spending tons of PR money to soften the image of
the behemoth. Today on CNBC there was a story about a fellow who makes dolls
who makes them in China so that WMT can sell them for $25 in the U.S. rather
than the $60 they would cost if they were made in the U.S. so its good to know that
WMT is helping to close the doll shortage in this country.
16 November 2004
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
reports:
The White House has
ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers
believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking
damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq
war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.
Some of the most damaging leaks came from Michael Scheuer,
former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, who wrote a book anonymously called
"Imperial Hubris" that criticized what he said was the
administration's lack of resolve in tracking down the al-Qaida chieftain and
the reallocation of intelligence and military manpower from the war on
terrorism to the war in Iraq. Scheuer announced Thursday that he was resigning
from the agency.
*****
Why the Dems can’t
win.
Who is a tea totaling Mormon (one of the most anti-gay
groups in the country); former Capitol Hill cop; staunch opponent of abortion;
and a co-sponsor of the constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning.
Who is it? A rising star of the "traditional values" Republican
Party? Some new young Turk who came into office on the coattails of George
Bush?
Nope! It's Harry
Reid of Nevada, the new face of the Democratic Party and the Senate minority
leader! That's right: an anti-choice, anti-free speech, anti-gay, heck even
anti-beer Senator is the spokesman for the Democratic Party.
Write it down. Because with his record, that might be hard to remember.
P.S. By the way, don't expect him to deliver. Reid couldn't even deliver Nevada,
even though Bush broke his promise to the state and tried to dump radioactive
waste in their backyard.
*****
The speech writer who
wrote this concession speech was not part of the Kerry Campaign.
My fellow Americans, the people of this nation have
spoken, and spoken with a clear voice. So I am here to offer my concession.
[Boos, groans, rending of garments]
I concede that I overestimated the intelligence of the
American people. Though the people disagree with the President on
almost every issue, you saw fit to vote for him. I never saw that coming.
That's
really special.
I concede that I misjudged the power of hate. That's
pretty powerful stuff, and I didn't see it. So let me take a moment to
congratulate the President's strategists: Putting the gay marriage amendments
on
the ballot in various swing states like Ohio...
well, that was just genius.
Genius. It got people, a certain kind of people, to the polls. The
unprecedented number of folks who showed up and cited "moral values"
as their
biggest issue, those people changed history. The folks who consider same sex
marriage a more important issue than war, or terrorism, or the economy... Who'd
have thought the election would belong to them? Well, Karl Rove did.
Got to give it up to him for that. [Boos.] Now, now. Credit where it's due.
I concede that I put too much faith in America's
youth. With 8 out of 10 of you opposing the President, with your friends and
classmates dying daily in a war you disapprove of, with your future being
mortgaged to pay for rich old peoples' tax breaks, you somehow managed to sit
on
your asses and watch the Cartoon Network while aging homophobic hillbillies
carried the day.
You voted with the exact same anemic percentage that you
did in 2000. You suck. Seriously, y'do. [Cheers, applause] Thank you. Thank
you very much.
There are some who would say that I sound bitter, that
now is the time for healing, to bring the nation together. Let me tell you
a little story. Last night, I watched the returns come in with some friends
here in Los Angeles. As the night
progressed, people began to talk
half-seriously about secession, a red state / blue state split.
The reasoning was this: We in blue states produce the vast
majority of the wealth in
this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the
majority of the money from those taxes while complaining about 'em. We in
the blue states are the only ones who've been attacked by foreign
terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in our
name.
We in the blue states produce the entertainment that you
consume
so greedily each day, while you in the red states show open disdain for us
and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual victims and targets of
the war on terror, while red state civilians are the ones standing behind
us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"
More than 40% of you Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein had something
to do with 9/11. I'm impressed by that, truly I am. Your sons and daughters who
might die in this war know it's not true, the people in the urban centers where
al Qaeda wants to attack know it's not
true, but those of you who are at practically no risk believe this easy lie
because you can.
As part of my concession speech, let me say that I really envy that luxury. I
concede that.
Healing? We, the people at risk from terrorists, the people who subsidize you,
the people who speak in glowing and respectful terms about the heartland of
America while that heartland insults and excoriates us... we wanted some
healing. We spoke loud and clear. And you refused to give it to us, largely
because of your high moral values.
You knew better: America
doesn’t need its allies, doesn't need to share the burden, doesn't need to unite
the world, and doesn’t need to provide for its future. Hell no. Not
when it's got a human shield of pointy-headed, atheistic, non-confrontational
breadwinners who are willing to pay the bills and play nice in the vain hope of
winning a vote that we can never have. Because we're "morally inferior,” I
suppose, we are supposed to respect your values while you insult ours. And the
big joke here is that for 20 years, we've done just that. It's not a "ha-ha"
funny joke, I realize, but it's a joke all the same.
But - as well as conceding the election today, I am also announcing my candidacy
for President in 2008. [Tumultuous cheers, applause, and foot-stomping.] Thank
you. And I make this pledge to you today: THIS time, next time, there
will be no pandering. This time I will run with all the open and joking
contempt for my opponents that our President
demonstrated towards the cradle of liberty, the Ivy League intellectuals, the
"media elite," and the "white-wine sippers." This time I
will not pretend that the simple folk of America
know just as much as the people who devote their lives to serving and studying
the nation and the world. They don't.
So that's why I'm asking for your vote in 2008, America.
Vote for me, because I know better, and I truly believe that I can help you.
Thank you, and may God, if she does in fact exist, bless each and every one of
you.
*****
And for What? Iraq Update November 15
38 US soldiers killed, 275 wounded during Fallujah assault:
military
AFP Baghdad - Thirty-eight US soldiers
have been killed and 275 wounded during a week-long assault on Iraq's rebel
city of Fallujah, where troops continue to hunt down die-hard pockets of
resistance, the US military said Monday. Three of the deaths were not related
to the fighting that has raged in the city since the battle was launched last
Monday evening, while 60 of the injured have returned to duty, it said in a
statement released overnight.
*****
The NYT has a story today that only 4
of the 22 Senators from the states of the Old Confederacy are Democrats. We
would make the argument that even in the 1940s and 1950s into the 1990s that
the Senators who were Democrats from the confederacy were not Democrats but
conservative bigots in Democrat clothing. The fact that they were Democrats
arose from southern hatred of Republicans for Reconstruction. Back during Reconstruction
after the Civil War all the blacks elected to office were Republicans. We would
guess that the Southerners voting Republican now would find that fact off
putting if they knew. But of course they don’t.
Also while on this subject the only seats the Republicans picked up in the
House of Representative were the four seats they won in Texas
because of Tom DeLay’s illegal redistricting tomfoolery.
Actually in the recent 2004 election more folks voted –by a margin of 2
million – for Democrat Senators than voted for Republican Senators.
*****
Week End of 13-14 November 2004
We think Gay Republicans who worked to defeat Kerry while supporting a platform that was anti-gay deserve outing.
By John Byrne | RAW STORY Editor
Two New York newspapers received calls from the Bush-Cheney campaign during the Republican National Convention urging them not to run a story suggesting that the campaign manager and public face of the campaign was gay, RAW STORY has learned.
Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman, who is now in the running to be chairman of the Republican Party, has repeatedly refused to answer questions about his sexuality in both public and private settings.
Steve Schmidt, deputy communications director for the Bush-Cheney campaign, also refused to deny that Mehlman was gay on the record in a telephone call with the activist weblog, blogACTIVE, which has been outing homophobic public officials, including California Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) and former Rep. Ed Schrock (R-Va.). Schmidt did not return to a call seeking comment today.
RAW STORY was party to an investigation of claims Mehlman was gay in the run-up to the election but no one was willing to go on the record.
Two of the sources told blogACTIVE, that they had been pressured by the Republican Party to remain silent. The site adds that two New York City newspapers “were called by press folks at the Bush campaign attempting to kill the Mehlman story.” So as to protect the reporters involved, this site cannot post the papers’ names online.
Mehlman, 37, who is single, spearheaded the Bush re-election campaign. The campaign used aggressively anti-gay tactics, including the mailing of a flyer in some states which suggested liberals would allow gay marriage and ban bibles. Many analysts believe Bush’s support for anti-gay marriage measures carried him to victory.
The Washington Blade asked Mehlman about openly gay staff in an interview in May.
“I’m not going to comment or provide information on the private activities of campaign staff,” he said, when asked if there were out gays among the president’s campaign advisers. “The president is leading based on principle. His principles are reflective of his values and his values are compassionate and conservative.”
RAW STORY revealed last month that both the Chief Financial Officer and the number two political adviser to the Republican National Committee are openly gay.
Neither would answer questions relating to the party’s policies, which many see as homophobic.
Asked about his sexuality Wednesday, Mehlman hung up the phone.
The 2004 Republican Party platform, approved in August, denounces prejudice and trumpets equality.
It begins, “Ronald Reagan believed that people were basically good, and had the right to be free. He believed that bigotry and prejudice were the worst thing a person could be guilty of.”
The platform includes a bolded section titled, “Ensuring Equal Opportunities.” The section leads with the sentence, “Our nation is a land of opportunity for all, and our communities must represent the idea of equality for every citizen.”
Such equality and freedom from prejudice, apparently, doesn’t apply to gay Americans.
“We believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage.”
“After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millenia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage.”
*****
From http://arachnae.blogspot.com/ the
website that goes by the name Prairie Angel.
Brad
DeLong points to a pattern:
In 1972, we reelected an incumbent. In 1976, we elected an
unknown southern governor who had not spent a day in Washington
D.C. and had no national political record.
In 1980, we elected an unknown governor--a southerner, if Orange
County is "southern"--who
had not spent a day in Washington D.C.
and had no national political record. In 1984 we reelected an incumbent
president. In 1988 we elected an incumbent vice president. In 1992 we elected
an unknown southern governor who had not spent a day in Washington
D.C. and had no national political record.
In 1996 we reelected an incumbent. In 2000 we elected an unknown southern
governor had not spent a day in Washington D.C.
and had no national political record.
The pattern is clear: when there isn't an unknown southern governor running,
an incumbent president can win reelection or an incumbent vice president can
win election; but the unknown southern governor without a national political
record wins the presidency--always.
*****
We think this letter is for real
since it came from the website for Bob Jones University. We have added the italics to underscore
how God is watching and approves.
http://www.bju.edu/letter
Congratulatory letter to President George W.
Bush from Dr. Bob Jones III
November
3, 2004
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The media tells us that you have received the largest number of popular
votes of any president in America's
history. Congratulations!
In your re-election, God has
graciously granted America—though she doesn't
deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a
mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound
of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord
daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.
Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You
owe the liberals nothing. They despise
you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.
Had your opponent won, I would have still given thanks, because the Bible
says I must (I Thessalonians 5:18).
It would have been hard, but because the Lord lifts up whom He will and pulls
down whom He will, I would have done it. It is easy to rejoice today, because
Christ has allowed you to be His servant in this nation for another
presidential term. Undoubtedly, you will
have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful
leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical
norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom,
freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four years—a brief time only—to
leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the
blessings of Almighty God.
Christ said, “If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there
shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my father honour” (John 12:26).
The student body, faculty, and staff at Bob
Jones University
commit ourselves to pray for you—that you would do
right and honor the Savior. Pull out all the stops and make a difference. If
you have weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed
yourself of them. Conservative Americans would love to see one president who
doesn't care whether he is liked, but cares infinitely that he does right.
Best wishes.
Sincerely your friend,
Bob Jones III
President
BJIII:lw
PS: A few moments ago I read this letter to the students in Chapel. They
applauded loudly their approval.
When I told them that Tom Daschle was no longer the minority leader of the
Senate, they cheered again.
On occasion, Christians have not agreed with things you said during your
first term. Nonetheless, we could not be
more thankful that God has given you four more years to serve Him in the White
House, never taking off your Christian faith and laying it aside as a man takes
off a jacket, but living, speaking, and making decisions as one who knows the
Bible to be eternally true.
Far Out, as we used to say.
*****
More on Alberto Gonzales:
Here is Alberto Gonzales' much
critized memo to President Bush (pdf)
Here is Colin Powell's response
to the memo. (pdf)
*****
Josh Marshall has an
interesting comment on the incestuous relationship between folks who have
been big deals in the American Iraq ruling junta and then have quit taking jobs
with a Washington lobbying firm
whose main business is to help (?)American companies develop business ties to Iraq
at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
.
*****
The Unexplained
Exit Poll Discrepancy
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
BuzzFlash was forwarded a
copy of a new research paper (271k PDF) on the exit polls from the 2004
election.
In "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Dr. Steven F. Freeman
says:
"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible,
it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote
counts in the three critical battleground states [Ohio,
Florida, and Pennsylvania]
of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."
The odds of those exit poll statistical anomalies occurring by chance are,
according to Freeman, "250,000,000 to one." That's 250 MILLION to
ONE.
He concludes the paper with this:
"Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature conclusion, but the
election's unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable
hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media, academia, polling
agencies, and the public to investigate."
*****
More on Gonzales from www.atrios.blogspot.com
I've been thinking a lot today about what the Democrats can do about the
Gonzales nomination. I do think it would be a mistake to filibuster, or at
least signal intent to filibuster, this nomination. He's a bad guy for all the
reasons we know, and his nomination proves that George Bush doesn't actually
give a shit about the lives of our soldiers in Iraq.
But, there is no shortage of bad guys Bush can put in charge of the JD and so
filibustering him will have little actual positive impact. Winning a battle is
always nice, but in this case winning achieves little.
The thing is, if the Dems start talking filibuster it will instantly become a
process story to the media. They love those, because they're easy, and it will
allow them to ignore the substance.
The nomination presents the Dems with a great opportunity. They can use the
hearings to shine as much light as they can on what has been transpiring. But,
also, they can use them to make the moral case against Gonzales and the man who
appointed them. This will take great skill, but it may be possible to
demonstrate how inept, morally bankrupt, and corrupt these people really are.
There's little value in filibustering Gonzales, but there is great value in
demonstrating just how inappropriate this nomination is.
-Atrios 9:58 PM
*****
We still have seen no mention in the mainstream press
or on TV of the Battle of Los
Angeles. The General has pictures of the tanks approaching
the protestors and a comment. Follow the General he leads to truth. http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
What Pogo said:

posted by Gen. JC Christian,
Patriot | 2:05
AM
*****
The General is always on duty, the following information was
posted at 1:56am. We have also added
at the bottom of the General’s message the information about marquette which may lead the
University to change its name.
Advice for the Democrats
posted by Gen. JC Christian,
Patriot | 1:55 AM
*****
marquette: And
this is only a small sample: go to http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/wcs/wcs06.htm
for a whole book of stuff.
CHAPTER IV.
MARQUETTE.
The minds of people having been corrupted through
centuries by the doctrines of the Church in regard to woman, it became an easy
step for the State to aid in her degradation. The system of feudalism arising
from the theory that warfare was the normal condition of man, still oppressed
woman by bringing into power a class of men accustomed to deeds of violence,
who found their chief pleasure in the sufferings of others. To be a woman
appealed to no instinct of tenderness in this class. To be a woman was not to
be protected unless such woman held power in her own right, or acted in place
of some feudal lord. The whole body of villeins, and
serfs were under absolute dominion of the feudal lords. They were regarded as
possessing no rights of their own; the priests had control of their souls, the
lord, of their bodies. But it was not upon the male serfs that the greatest
oppression fell. Although the tillage of the soil, the care of swine and cattle
was theirs, the masters claiming half or more of everything, even to one-half
of the wool shorn from the flock,1 and all exactions upon them were great
while their sense of security was slight, it was upon their wives and daughters
that the
p. 153
greatest outrages were inflicted. It was a pastime
of the castle retainers to fall upon peaceful villages, to the consternation of
the women, who were struck, tortured, and made the sport of ribald soldiers.2 "Serfs of the body," they had no
protection. The vilest outrages were perpetrated by the feudal lords under the
name of "rights." Women were taught by church and state alike that
the feudal lord or seigneur had a right to them not only as against themselves,
but as against any claim of husband or father. The custom
known by a variety of names, but more modernly as "marchetta,"
or "marquette," compelled newly married women to a most dishonorable
servitude. They were regarded as the rightful prey of the feudal lord
for from one to three days after their marriage,3 and from this custom, the oldest son of
the serf was held as the son of the lord, "as perchance it was he who
begot him."
From this nefarious degradation of woman the custom
of Borough-English arose, the youngest son becoming the heir4: The original signification of the word
borough, being to make secure, the peasant through Borough-English made
secure the right of his own son to what inheritance he might leave, thus
cuttingp. 154
off his property from the possible son of his hated
lord. France, Germany, Prussia, England, Scotland, and all christian
countries in which feudalism existed, held to the enforcement of marquette, The
lord deemed this right his, as fully as be did his claim to half the crops of
the land, or half the wool shorn from the sheep. More than one reign of terror
arose in France from the enforcement of this law, and the uprisings of the
peasants over Europe during the twelfth century and the
fierce Jacquerie, or Peasants War, of the fourteenth
century in France,
owed their origin among other causes to the enforcement of these claims by the
lords upon the newly married wife. The Edicts of Marley securing the seigneural tenure in Lower Canada
transplanted that claim to America
when Canada was
under the control of France.5
During the feudal period when chivalry held highest
rank in the duties of the knight, women of the lower classes were absolutely
unprotected. Both Church and State were their most bitter enemies; the lords
even if in holy orders did not lessen their claims upon the bride. Most of the
bishops and chanonies were also temporal
lords. The Bishop of Amiens possessed this right against the women of his
vassals and the peasants of his fiefs, of which he was dispossessed at the
commencement of the fifteenth century, by an arreet,
rendered at the solicitation of husbands.6 Although the clergy, largely drawn from
the nobility,23 whose portionless younger sons were thus easily provided for,
sustained the corruptions of the lords temporalp. 155 yet having
connected themselves with the church, they did not fall to preserve their own
power even over the nobility.
The canons of the
Cathedral of Lyons, bore title of Counts of Lyons;
sixteen quarters of nobility, eight on side of the father; eight on side of the
mother. The marchetta or cuissage
was still practiced by them in the fourteenth century at the time Lyons was reunited to the crown of France. It was but slowly, after a great number of
complaints and arrests of judgment that the canons of Lyons consented to forego this custom. In several cantons
of Piccardy, the cures imitated the bishops and
anciently took the right of cuissage, but ultimately
the peasants of this region refused to marry, and the priests gave up this
practice which they had usurped when the bishop had become too old to take his
right.7 The
resolution not to marry, surprised and confounded the lord
"suzerains," who perceived it would cause the depopulation of their feifs. During the feudal period, bearing children was the
duty pre-eminently taught women. Serf children increased the power and
possessions of the lord, they also added to the power of the church, and the
strangest sermons in regard to woman's duty in this respect fell from the lips
if celibate monks and priests. She was taught that sensual submission to man,
and the bearing of children, were the two reasons for her having been created,
and that the woman who failed in either had no excuse for longer encumbering
the earth. The language used from the Pulpit for the enforcement of these
duties, will not bear reproduction.8 The villeins were not entirelyp. 156 submissive under such
great wrongs, frequently protesting against this right of their suzerains. At
one time a number of Piedmont villages rose in united revolt, compelling the
lords to relinquish some of their powers. Although9 the
concessions gained were but small, not putting an end to the lord's claim to
the bride but merely lessening the time of his spoliation, the results were
great in establishing the principle of serf rights.
Marquette began to be abolished in France towards the end of the sixteenth century.10 But an
authority upon this question says that without doubt the usage still continued
in certain countries, farther asserting that even in this century it existed in
the county of Auvergene, and several vassals plead to their lords against
the continuance of this custom because of the great unhappiness it caused them.
The lower orders of the clergy were very unwilling to relinquish this usage,
vigorously protesting to their archbishops against the deprivation of the
right, declaring they could not be dispossessed.11 Bœms states that he was present at a spiritual council of
the metropolitane of Bourges, and heard a priest claim the right upon ground of
immemorial usage.12
Although feudalism
is generally considered the parent of this most infamous custom, some writers
attribute its origin to an evangelical council, or to precepts directly
inculcated by the church," whosep. 157 very highest
dignitaries did not hesitate to avail themselves of the usage. In 1471, quite
the latter part of the fifteenth century, Pope Sixtus
IV14 sought
admission to the very illustrious Piedmont family, Della Rovere,
which possessed the right of cuissage, allowing the
lord absolute control of his vassals newly wedded bride for three days and
nights; a cardinal of the family having secured the patent by which this
outrageous and abominable right was granted them. The rights of the Lords
spiritual in the jus prima noctis , at first,
perchance, confined to those temporal lords who holding this right entered the
church, at last extended to the common priesthood, and the confessional became
the great fount of debauchery. Woman herself was powerless; the church, the
state, the family, all possessed authority over her as against herself.
Although eventually redemption through the payment of money, or property, was
possible, yet a husband too poor or penurious to save her, aided in this
debasement of his wife.15 This
inexpressible abuse and degradation of woman went under the name of pastime,
nor were the courts to be depended upon for defense.16 Their
sympathies and decisions were with the lord. Few except manorial courts
existed. Even when freedom had been purchased for the bride, all feudal customs
rendered it imperative upon her to bear the "wedding dish" to the
castle. Accompanied by her husband, this ceremony everp. 158 drew upon the
newly married couple a profusion of jeers and ribald jests from which they were
powerless to protect themselves. While in ancient Babylon woman secured immunity by one service and payment
to the temple, the claim of the lord to the peasant wife was not always
confined to the marriage day, and refusal of the loan of his wife at later date
brought most severe punishment upon the husband.17
Blessing the
nuptial bed by the priest, often late at night, was also common, and
accompanied by many abuses, until advancing civilization overpowered the
darkness of the church and brought it to an end. When too poor to purchase the
freedom of his bride, the husband was in one breath assailed by the most
opprobrious names,18 and in
the next he was congratulated upon the honor to be done him in that perchance
his oldest child would be the son of a baron.19 So
great finally became the reproach and infamy connected with the droit de cuissage,
as this right was generally called in France20 and so
recalcitrant became the peasants over its nefarious exactions, that ultimately
both lords spiritual and lords temporal fearing for their own safety, commenced
to lessen their demands.21 This
custom had its origin at the time thep. 159 great body of the
people were slaves bound either to the person or land of some lord. At this
period personal rights no more existed for the lower classes than for the
blacks of our own country during the time of slavery. Under feudalism, the
property, family ties, and even the lives of the serfs were under control of
the suzerain, It was a system of slavery without the name; the right of the lord
to all first fruits was universally admitted;22 the
best in possession of the serf, by feudal custom belonged to the lord. The
feudal period was especially notable for the wrongs of women. War, the pastime
of nobles and kings, brought an immense number of men into enforced idleness.
Its rapine and carnage were regarded as occupations superior to the tillage of
the soil or the arts of peace. Large numbers of men, retainers of every kind,
hung about the castle dependent upon its lord, obedient to his commands.23 At an age when books were few and reading
an accomplishment of still greater rarity, these men, apart from their
families, or totally unbound by marriage, were in readiness for the grossestp. 160
amusement. At an age when human life was value,
less, and suffering of every kind was disregarded, We
call readily surmise the fate likely to overtake unprotected peasant women.
They were constantly ridiculed and insulted; deeds of violence were common and
passed unreproved. For a woman of this class to be
self-respecting was to become a target for the vilest abuse. Morality was
scoffed at; to drag the wives and daughters of villeins and serfs into the mire of lechery was
deemed a proper retribution for their attempted pure lives; they possessed no
rights of person or morality against the feudal lord and his wild retainers.
All christian Europe
was plunged into the grossest immorality.24 A mistress was looked upon as a necessary
part of a monarch's state.25 Popes, cardinals, and priests of lesser
degrees, down to the present century, still continued the unsavory reputation
of their predecessors;"26 "nephews," "nieces,"
and "sacrilegious" children are yet supported by the revenues of the
Church, or left to poverty, starvation and crime. It was long the custom of christian municipalities to welcome visiting kings by
deputations of naked women,27 and as late as the eighteenth century, a
mistress whosep. 161
support was drawn from the revenues of the kingdom,
was recognized as part of the pageantry of the kingdom.
The heads of the Greek and Protestant
Churches, no less than of the Catholic,
appear before the world as men of scandalous lives. The history of the popes is
familiar to all students. No less is that of the English Eighth Henry, the real
father of the Reformation, in England,
and founder of the Anglican Church, whose adulteries and murders make him a
historic Blue Beard. The heads of the Greek Church figure in a double sense as
fathers of their people. The renowned Peter the Great amused himself by
numberless liaisons, filling Russia
with descendants whose inherited tendencies are those of discontent and
turmoil. When he visited the Court of Prussia, 1717, he was accompanied by his
czarina, son, daughter, and four hundred ladies in waiting, women of low
condition, each of whom carried an elegantly dressed infant upon her arms. If
asked in regard to the paternity of the child they invariably replied "my
lord has done me the honor to make me its mother."28
In no country has a temporal monarch under guise of
a spiritual ruler been more revered than in Russia.
Even amidst nihilism a belief that the czar can do no wrong is the prevailing
conviction among the Slavic peoples. This is both a great cause of, and a
result of Russian degradation, If we except the
proportionately few liberal thinkers, that conviction is as strong as it was in
the time of Ivan the Terrible. In no civilized or half-civilized nation is
ignorance as dense as among the peasantry of that vast empire embracing
one-sixth of the habitable globe. Nor to thep. 162
czar alone was such disregard of woman's right of
person confined. The system of serfdom which existed until within the last half
of the present century, was a system of feudalism in its oppression of women,
although if possible even more gross. The sale of young peasant girls regularly
took place, and the blood of the nobility of that country runs in the veins of
its most degraded and ignorant population.29 Although Italy
the seat of the papal power is noted for the ignorance, squalor, and
superstition of its people, we no less find such a condition of affairs
existing in Russia.
Amid the starvation of its people, accompanied by "hunger-typhus"
that form of disease which in the Irish famine of 1848 was known as
"ship-fever," the peasants will not accept aid from Count Tolstoi, whom they have been taught to regard as
Anti-Christ, fearing that by so doing they will condemn themselves to eternal
torment.30 While the peasantry are
thus suffering wrongs of every nature, the priesthood and churches are as
thriving as before.
Having shown the results of power in the hands of a
controlling class, upon women of low degree in both the Catholic and Greek
divisions of christendom, we
have but to look at our own country to find like conditionp. 163
under Protestantism. The state of the slave women
of the South was that of serfs of the body under feudalism, or of the serf
peasant women of Russia.
Nor is other proof of this statement required than the hue of this race, no
longer spoken of as the blacks, but as colored people. Let the condition of
woman as to her rights of person, under the three great divisions of
Christianity, be answer to all who without examination of history, or the
customs of ancient and modern times, and with eyes closed to these most patent
facts, so falsely assert that woman has been elevated by christianity,
and is now holding a position never before in the world accorded her. But what
has already been shown of her degradation under christian teachings and laws is but a small portion
of the wrongs woman has suffered during the christian
centuries.
Under theory of the divine rights of man, society
has everywhere been permeated with disregard for woman's rights of person. Monarchs not posing as spiritual heads of their people have yet
equally made use of their place and power for woman's degradation, and an
indefinite fatherhood outside of marriage. Augustus of Saxony, King of
Poland, is chiefly renowned in history as the father of three hundred
illegitimate children.31 Of Charles II. not
alone King of England, but also head of the Anglican Church, one of his
subjects declared him to be the father of many of his people in the literal as
well as in the spiritual sense. Four English dukes of the present day trace
their lineage to this monarch., who left no legitimate
descendants.32p. 164
H. R. H. the present heir-apparent to the English
throne bears an equally unsavory record.33 To him and his aristocratic companions in
guilt is due the support and protection of England's
notorious and infamous purchase and sale, outrage, and exploitation of helpless
young girls. An English clergyman writing the "New York Sun," at the
time of the disclosures made by the "Pall Mall Gazette," declared he
had in his possession a list of the names of the royal princes, dukes, nobles,
and leading men who had been the principal patrons and supporters of the
"gilded hells" devoted to the ruin of the merest children, girls from
the ages of nine to thirteen.34 The reputation of the male members of the
Hanoverian dynasty has ever been bad. Trace as you will the path of either
ecclesiastical or temporal rulers claiming authority by "divine
right," and you will find the way marked with the remains of women and
children whose life has been wrecked by man under plea of created superiority.
While Italy
within the last forty years has escaped from the temporal control of the pope,
its kings have no less copied the immorality of the "Vicar of God";
the predecessor of the late king of Italy
having left thirty-three illegitimate children. An instance of the survival of
the feudal idea as to the right of the lord to the person of his vassal women
occurred in Ireland within the past few years, graphically described in a
letter upon landlords, from Mr. D. R. Locke (Nasby),
December, 1891, in which he says;
One was shot a few years ago and a great ado was
made about it. In this case as in most of the others it was not a question of
rent. My Lord had visitedp. 165
his estates to see how much more money could be taken out of his tenants and
his lecherous eye happened to rest upon a very beautiful girl, the eldest
daughter of a widow with seven children. Now this beautiful
girl was betrothed to a nice sort of a boy, who, having been in America,
knew a thing or two. My Lord, through his agent, who is always a pimp as
well as a brigand, ordered Kitty to come to the castle. Kitty knowing very well
what that meant, refused.
"Very well," says the agent, "yer mother is in arrears for rent, and you had better see
My Lord, or I shall be compelled to evict her."
Kitty knew what that meant also. It meant that her
gray haired mother, her six helpless brothers and sisters would be pitched out
by the roadside to die of starvation and exposure, and so Kitty without saying
a word to her mother or any one else, went to the castle and was kept there
three days, till My Lord was tired of her, when she was permitted to go.
She went to her lover, like an honest girl as she
was, and told him she would not marry him, but refused to give any reason.
Finally the truth was wrenched out of her, and Mike
went and found a shot gun that had escaped the eye of the royal constabulary,
and he got powder and shot and old nails, and he lay behind a hedge under a
tree for several days. Finally one day My Lord came riding by all so gay and
that gun went off, and 'subsequent proceedings interested him no more.' There
was a hole, a blessed hole, clear through him, and he never was so good a man
as before because there was less of him.
Then Mike went and told Kitty to be of good cheer
and not be cast down, that the little difference between him and My Lord had
been happily settled, and that they would be married as soon as possible. And
they were married, and I had the pleasure of taking in my hand the very hand
that fired the blessed shot and of seeing the wife, to avenge whose cruel
wrongs the shot was fired.
Nor is this the only instance in modern Ireland.
Ap. 166
certain lord Leitram was
noted a few years since for his attempts to dishonor the wives and daughters of
the peasantry upon his vast estate comprising 90,000 acres. His character was
that of the worst feudal barons, and like those he used his power as magistrate
and noble, in addition to that of landlord, to accomplish his purpose. After an
assault upon a beautiful and intelligent girl, by a brutal retainer of his
lordship, her character assailed, his tenantry
finally declared it necessary to resort to the last means in their power to
preserve the honor of their wives and daughters. Six men were chosen as the
instruments of their rude justice, and among them the brother of this girl,
upon whom the leadership fell. They took oath to be true to the end, in life or
death, raised a sum of money, purchased arms, and seeking a convenient
opportunity shot him to death. Nor were the perpetrators ever discovered; yet
it is now known that two of them died in Australia,
two in the Boer war in South Africa,
and the leader who came to the United States,
changing his name, passed away in the summer of 1892 in the State of Pennsylvania.
Under head of "A Story of to-day," another
tale is related of woman's oppression in Ireland
aided by the Petty Sessions Bench in 1880.
Recently, a young girl named Catherine Cafferby, of Belmullet, in County
Mayo--the pink of her father's family--fled from the "domestic service"
of a landlord as absolute as Lord Leitrim, the moment
the poor creature discovered what that "service" customarily
involved. The great man had the audacity to invoke the law to compel her to
return, as she had not given statutable notice of her
flight. She clung to the door-post of her father's cabin; shep. 167
told aloud the story of her terror, and called on
God and man to save her. Her tears, her shrieks, her piteous pleadings were all
in vain. The Petty Sessions Bench ordered her back to the landlord's
"service," or else to pay five pounds, or two weeks in jail. This is
not a story of Bulgaria
under Murad IV. but of Ireland
in the reign of the present sovereign. That peasant girl went to jail to save
her chastity. If she did not spend a fortnight in the cells, it was only
because friends of outraged virtue, justice, and humanity paid the fine when
the story reached the outer world.
These iniquities have taken place in Christian lands35 and these nefarious outrages upon women
have been enforced by the Christian laws of both church and state. The
degradation and unhappiness of the husband at the infringement of the lord's
spiritual and temporal upon his marital rights, has been depicted by many
writers but history has been quite silent upon the despair and shame of the
wife.36 No hope appeared for woman anywhere. The
Church which should have been the great conserver of morals dragged her to the
lowest depths through the vileness of its teachings and its priestly customs.
The State which should have defended her civil rights followed the example of
the church in crushing her to the earth. Christian laws were detrimental to
woman in every relation of life.p. 168
The brilliant French author, Legouvé,
gives from among the popular songs of Brittany
during the fourteenth century, a pathetic ballad, "The
baron of Jauioz," which vividly depicts the
condition of the peasant women of France
at that date. In the power of the male members of her family over her, we also
find an exact parallel in the condition of English women of the same era. The
moral disease thus represented being due to the same religious teaching, the
change of country and language but more fully serves to depict the condition of
woman every where in christendom at this period.
*****
 
12 November 2004
They deployed two TANKS
to counter an anti-war protest in LA
by John in DC - 11/10/2004 10:49:42 PM
http://americablog.blogspot.com/
FURTHER UPDATE: This is
for real. I just called the protesters out in LA and confirmed it by phone. And
I also just read a NEW excuse the military is now offering. The tanks "got
stuck at a traffic light," and that's why they just happened to stop in
front of an anti-war protest in the middle of a major US city. Uh huh.

UPDATE:
I've just read in the comments to the IndyMedia site
that someone spoke to some military folks who claim the tanks were
"lost" and simply stopping in front of the anti-war protesters to
"ask directions." Yeah, right. They were intentionally using deadly
force to intimidate peaceful protesters in violation of their First Amendment
rights. This is a big story.
Thanks to MyDD
for finding this. This is beyond outrageous. A tank (two in fact). Sent to
disrupt an anti-war protest in LA, which by all accounts was acting quite
peaceably. You
can watch the video , a handful of people chanting, big deal. But then what
happens next? Two big fat tank - TANKS people -
confront the protesters. They're sending God damn tanks into the streets of Los Angeles. Anyone has a problem with that?
What is this, fucking Tiananmen Square?
I am absolutely speechless. We look like China. We look like the Soviet Union. They just sent two tanks to
counter a peaceful protest in the second largest city of America. Good God. And where is the media
coverage? They just sent TANKS to counter peaceful protesters. That kind of an
outrageous challenge to the protesters could have easily sparked violence.
People, please, contact your local media, call any reporters you know, tell
them about this. This is a huge story. This is absolutely scary shit. Sending
tanks to confront peaceful protesters in an American city in 2004. Who are we
anymore?
| Permanent Link |
*****
Mission
accomplished. Tell those wolves to scat, and let that eagle soar, baby.
Maureen Dowd refers to John Asscroft’s song in a Thursday column that review the reality that we remarked on yesterday that all of
a sudden we in the U.S.
are safe. Terror levels have been lowered, barricades are coming down and Americas
is coming home. And it is all because Georgie Boy won
(?) the election. This new found safety reminds of the disappearing WMD and
Nuclear programs in Iraq.
She goes on to say: The president is
putting his own counsel, Alberto Gonzales, who wrote the famous memo defending
torture, in charge of our civil liberties. Torture Guy, who blithely threw off
75 years of international law and set the stage for the grotesque abuses at Abu
Ghraib and dubious detentions at Guantánamo,
seems to have a good grasp of what's just. No doubt we'll soon learn what other
protections, besides the Geneva
Conventions and the Constitution, Mr. Gonzales finds "quaint'' and
"obsolete.''
With the F.B.I. investigating
Halliburton and the second-term scandal curse looming, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney
want a dependable ally - and former Enron attorney - at Justice. But since the
country is controlled by one party and the press has tended toward the pusillanimous,
cowed by the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald as he tries to throw
reporters in jail, the White House may be able to suppress any second-term
problems.
*****
From http://www.bobharris.com/index.php
Bush
announces his choice for Attorney General
Wednesday, 10 November 2004 Ladies and gentlemen... Alberto Gonzales:
The President has known for more than two years that his
Administration has been pursuing policies that could qualify as war crimes
under federal and international law.
In a January 25, 2002,
memo, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised the President of "the
threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," a
federal statute. He advised Bush to invent a legal technicality--declaring
detainees in the "war on terror" to be outside the Geneva
Conventions--which, he said, "substantially reduces" the chance of
prosecution. Gonzales went further, telling the President that the war on
terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's
strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners"; he pooh-poohed
concerns that abandoning the Geneva
standards might endanger US troops.
Let's be clear about what this means: Gonzales was urging--and the President
adopted as policy--an end run around federal laws. The War Crimes Act, passed
by Congress in 1996, allows criminal prosecution of Americans for actions that
violate the rights granted prisoners and civilians by the Geneva Conventions
and for "outrages upon personal dignity." It is backed by the full
range of federal penalties, up to and including the death penalty. And all
treaties, including the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention, are
likewise the binding law of the land.
From the Gonzales memo, it is clear that the Administration always envisioned
taking coercive interrogation beyond Afghanistan.
Gonzales repeatedly refers to the broader "war on terrorism"--the
phrase Bush uses to cover the war on Iraq.
Gonzales specifically advises the President to hold open "options for
future conflicts." Thus the scandal is not what George W. Bush referred to
as the "failures of character" of a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib. The scandal is that the White House wanted to
torture prisoners and get away with it.
*****
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/arts/14rich.html?oref=login&oref=login&th
FRANK RICH
On 'Moral Values,' It's Blue in a Landslide
Published: November 14, 2004
FAREWELL to Swift boats and "Shove
it!," to Osama's tape and Saddam's missing
weapons, to "security moms" and outsourced dads. They've all been
sent to history's dustbin faster than Ralph Nader memorabilia was dumped on
eBay. In their stead stands a single ambiguous phrase coined by an anonymous
exit pollster: "Moral values." By near universal agreement the
morning after, these two words tell the entire story of the election: it's the
culture, stupid.
"It really is Michael Moore versus Mel Gibson," said Newt
Gingrich. To Jon Stewart, Nov. 2 was the red states' revenge on "Will
& Grace." William Safire, speaking on "Meet the Press,"
called the Janet Jackson fracas "the social-political event of the past
year." Karl Rove was of the same mind: "I think it's
people who are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they
see on the television sets, what they see in the movies ..."
And let's not even get started on the two most dreaded words in American
comedy, regardless of your party affiliation: Whoopi
Goldberg.
There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country
swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. Like so many other narratives
that immediately calcify into our 24/7 media's conventional wisdom, it is fiction.
Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself -
confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America,
not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry
voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a
vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and
smell the Chardonnay.
The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among
Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes
like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and
the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they
turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las
Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears.
Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in
a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out.
If anyone is laughing all the way to the bank this election year, it must be
the undisputed king of the red cultural elite, Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is a
rising profit center within his News Corporation, and each red-state dollar
that it makes can be plowed back into the rest of Fox's very blue entertainment
portfolio. The Murdoch cultural stable includes recent books like Jenna
Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and the Vivid Girls'
"How to Have a XXX Sex Life," which have both been synergistically, even
joyously, promoted on Fox News by willing hosts like Rita Cosby and, needless
to say, Mr. O'Reilly. There are "real fun parts and exciting parts,"
said Ms. Cosby to Ms. Jameson on Fox News's "Big Story Weekend," an
encounter broadcast on Saturday at 9 p.m.,
assuring its maximum exposure to unsupervised kids.
Almost unnoticed in the final weeks of the campaign was the record
government indecency fine levied against another prime-time Fox television
product, "Married by America."
The $1.2 million bill, a mere bagatelle to Murdoch stockholders, was more than
twice the punishment inflicted on Viacom for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe
malfunction." According to the F.C.C. complaint, one episode in this
heterosexual marriage-promoting reality show included scenes in which "partygoers
lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies," and two female strippers
"playfully spank" a man on all fours in his underwear. "Married
by America"
is gone now, but Fox remains the go-to network for Paris Hilton ("The
Simple Life") and wife-swapping ("Trading Spouses: Meet Your New
Mommy").
None of this has prompted an uprising from the red-state Fox News loyalists
supposedly so preoccupied with "moral values." They all gladly
contribute fungible dollars to Fox culture by boosting their fair-and-balanced
channel's rise in the ratings. Some of these red staters
may want to make love like porn stars besides. (Not that there's anything wrong
with that.) An ABC News poll two weeks before the election found that more
Republicans than Democrats enjoy sex "a great deal." The Democrats'
new hero, Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama, was assured victory once his original,
ostentatiously pious Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race
rather than defend his taste for "avant-garde" sex clubs.
The 22 percent of voters who told pollsters that "moral values"
were their top election issue - 79 percent of whom voted for Bush-Cheney -
corresponds almost exactly to the number of voters (23 percent) who describe
themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians. They are entitled to their
culture, too, and their own entertainment industry. And their
own show-biz scandals. The Los Angeles Times reported this summer that
Paul Crouch, the evangelist who founded the largest Christian network, Trinity
Broadcasting Network, vehemently denied a former employee's accusation that the
two had had a homosexual encounter - though not before paying the employee a
$425,000 settlement. Not so incidentally, Trinity joined Gary Bauer and Fox
News as prime movers in "Redeem the Vote," the Christian-rock
alternative to MTV's "Rock the Vote."
But the distance between this hard-core red culture and the majority blue
culture is perhaps best captured by Tom Coburn, the newly elected Republican
senator from Oklahoma, lately famous for discovering "rampant"
lesbianism in that state's schools. As a congressman in 1997, Mr. Coburn
attacked NBC for encouraging "irresponsible sexual behavior" and
taking "network TV to an all-time low with full frontal nudity, violence
and profanity being shown in our homes." The broadcast that prompted his
outrage on behalf of "parents and decent-minded individuals
everywhere" was the network's prime-time showing of Steven Spielberg's
"Schindler's List."
It's in the G.O.P.'s interest to pander to this
far-right constituency - votes are votes - but you can be certain that a party
joined at the hip to much of corporate America,
Mr. Murdoch included, will take no action to curtail the blue culture these
voters deplore. As Marshall Wittman, an
independent-minded former associate of both Ralph Reed and John McCain, wrote before the election, "The only things the
religious conservatives get are largely symbolic votes on proposals guaranteed
to fail, such as the gay marriage constitutional amendment." That
amendment has never had a prayer of rounding up the two-thirds majority needed
for passage and still doesn't.
Mr. Wittman echoes Thomas Frank, the author of
"What's the Matter With Kansas?," by common
consent the year's most prescient political book. "Values," Mr. Frank
writes, "always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections
are won." Under this perennial "trick," as he calls it,
Republican politicians promise to stop abortion and force the culture industry
"to clean up its act" - until the votes are counted. Then they return
to their higher priorities, like cutting capital gains and estate taxes. Mr.
Murdoch and his fellow cultural barons - from Sumner Redstone, the
Bush-endorsing C.E.O. of Viacom, to Richard Parsons, the Republican C.E.O. of
Time Warner, to Jeffrey Immelt, the Bush-contributing
C.E.O. of G.E. (NBC Universal) - are about to be rewarded not just with more
tax breaks but also with deregulatory goodies increasing their power to market
salacious entertainment. It's they, not Susan Sarandon and Bruce Springsteen,
who actually set the cultural agenda Gary Bauer and company say they despise.
But it's not only the G.O.P.'s fealty to its
financial backers that is predictive of how little cultural bang the
"values" voters will get for their Bush-Cheney votes. At 78 percent,
the nonvalues voters have far more votes than they
do, and both parties will cater to that overwhelming majority's blue tastes
first and last. Their mandate is clear: The same poll that clocked "moral
values" partisans at 22 percent of the electorate found that nearly three
times as many Americans approve of some form of legal status for gay couples,
whether civil unions (35 percent) or marriage (27 percent). Do the math and
you'll find that the poll also shows that for all the G.O.P.'s
efforts to court Jews, the total number of Jewish Republican voters in 2004,
while up from 2000, was still some 200,000 less than the number of gay
Republican voters.
When Robert Novak writes after the election that "the anti-abortion,
anti-gay marriage, socially conservative agenda is ascendant, and the G.O.P.
will not abandon it anytime soon," you have to wonder what drug he is on.
The abandonment began at the convention. Sam Brownback, the Kansas
senator who champions the religious right, was locked away in an off-camera
rally across town from Madison Square
Garden. Prime time was bestowed
|