Pssssst ... check this out!

Tengrain was correct in saying, if you are going to read another post tonight, make it this one by fairlane.



o

Senator Larry Craig to resign Saturday

The Associated Press is reporting:

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig will resign from the Senate amid a furor over his arrest and guilty plea in a police sex sting in an airport men's room, Republican officials said Friday.

Craig will announce at a news conference in Boise Saturday morning that he will resign effective Sept. 30, four state GOP officials told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Word of the resignation came four days after the disclosure that Craig had pleaded guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge arising out of his June 11 arrest during a lewd-conduct investigation at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

The three-term Republican senator had maintained that he did nothing wrong except for making the guilty plea without consulting a lawyer. But he found almost no support among Republicans in his home state or Washington.

Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter appeared Friday to have already settled on a successor: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, according to several Republicans familiar with internal deliberations.

So there you have it! Too bad the 'Bush problem' can't be resolved as quickly.

Bush wants $50 billion more for failed Iraq war

If this doesn't make your blood boil, nothing will. The WaPo reports:

President Bush plans to ask Congress next month for up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq, a White House official said yesterday, a move that appears to reflect increasing administration confidence that it can fend off congressional calls for a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces.

WTF??

Why should George Bush have "confidence" that he can push through another spending increase? Because so far, the spineless Congress HAS LET HIM!

JUST SAY NO!

The request -- which would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- is expected to be announced after congressional hearings scheduled for mid-September featuring the two top U.S. officials in Iraq. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker will assess the state of the war and the effect of the new strategy the U.S. military has pursued this year.

The request is being prepared now in the belief that Congress will be unlikely to balk so soon after hearing the two officials argue that there are promising developments in Iraq but that they need more time to solidify the progress they have made, a congressional aide said.

Call your members of Congress on Tuesday and DEMAND that they say NO to this out of control administration. The Congressional switchboard number is 202-224-3121. They can connect you to your Representative or Senators office. If you don't know who your Congress members are, go here and type in your zip code in the box on the left.

Let them know you have read the GAO report that finds little progress on Iraq goals.

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.

The draft provides a stark assessment of the tactical effects of the current U.S.-led counteroffensive to secure Baghdad. "While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."

We already know the commanders are not going to present a negative report to Congress. They know Bush would find a way to punish them if they dare tell the truth. Congress has got to stand up to this lunatic president.

Free Speech

Quaker Dave is back with a thought provoking post about free speech. While reading it I was reminded of the following clip from "The American President."

We've not getting older, we're getting faster

A New York Times feature points out something that once I read it seemed obvious. That as women age, their running speeds increase. For male runners the stats are just the opposite. Younger men run, on average, faster than do older men. So why isn't the same true for women?

Gina Kolata writes, "... now that I’ve grown more committed [to running], I am starting to notice something odd about women and running.

Men, as might be expected, get slower as they age. At a recent five-kilometer race in Pine Beach, N.J., which drew nearly 1,000 runners, the fastest man was 24 years old and the men’s times increased with each five-year age group.

But the women were different — their times were all over the place with older women beating younger women in almost every age category. The fastest woman was 37 years old; the fastest woman in the 45 to 49 age group beat the fastest woman in the 20 to 24 and the 40 to 44 age groups.

The same thing happened in another five-kilometer local race, the Eden Family Run, in Princeton, N.J.

There, the top female runner in the 50 to 54 age group beat the top females in the 20 to 24, 25 to 29, and 40 to 44 age groups.

And it’s not just a New Jersey effect. Others have noticed it elsewhere and when I did a random check of race results in California, I saw it there too. On Aug. 8, in a 10-kilometer race in Alameda, the 53-year-old woman who won in the 50 to 54 age group was faster than the woman who won in the 25 to 29 group. A 38-year-old woman beat every other woman in the race.

Results like those made me wonder, Are women really trying in these races and, if they are, why are older women beating younger women?

The answer seems to be that as women age we care less what others think.

Mary Wittenberg, president of New York Road Runners, thinks part of the answer is that most female runners shortchange themselves. Look at them before races she said. Men warm up and do strides, short runs to prepare to take off at the starting line. A lot of women hang back, often because they are embarrassed to be out there with the men, acting like determined athletes, Ms. Wittenberg said.

“They are too inhibited to put their full passion out there,” she said. “They are almost afraid to be serious about a sport. They think that if they’re not the best, they shouldn’t care so much.”

As women age they may be less interested in catching a man, than in staying two steps ahead of him!

Ralph Vernacchia, who directs the Center for Performance Excellence at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash., says:

"... with average runners, older women may be faster because, oddly enough, they are trying harder than younger women and discovering for the first time what they are capable of.

Most middle-aged women grew up when track and cross-country teams were for men only. Some of those women, who had no opportunity to race when they were young, are just learning to be athletes and are running faster than younger women who may not care as much.

He described the experience for women as “a kind of wakening, an epiphany.”

So there you have it ... we're not getting older, we're getting faster!

Judge strikes down Iowa ban on same-sex marriage

The same-sex marriage train has left the station, it's time to get on board! Iowa is now the latest, in an ever growing number of states, to proved approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples.

The New York Times reports:

Less than two hours after a judge struck down Iowa's decade-old gay marriage ban, two Des Moines men applied for a marriage license as bride and groom, and county officials said they expected to see more same-sex couples doing the same on Friday. [...]

Polk County Judge Robert Hanson cleared the way for the two men on Thursday when he ruled that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and woman violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

The judge ordered local officials to process marriage licenses for the six gay couples who sued. With the ruling, gay couples across the state can now apply for a marriage license in the central-Iowa county.

Same-sex couples in Massachusetts have been allowed to legally marry for a couple of years now, with no noticeable change in the divorce rate of heterosexual couples. The idea that same-sex marriage would somehow destroy the "sanctity of marriage" is preposterous.

Republicans like Iowa House Minority Leader Christopher Rants need to just get over themselves. Responding to the ruling, Rants said:

''I can't believe this is happening in Iowa,'' Rants said. ''I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January,'' when the Legislature convenes.

The lawyer for the six gay couples argued that Iowa had a long history of protecting civil rights based on race and gender. He also commented that the Defense of Marriage Act (which should be abolished) passed in 1998 declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman is simply ''mean spirited.''

Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue is not for a judge to decide.

Is he kidding? Our Constitution was written to protect minority interests over the tyranny of the majority. Civil rights should NEVER be decided by popular vote.

The frightening aspect of all this is that should a state challenge reach the current U.S. Supreme Court there is no guarantee the Justices will do the right thing. Personal bias has replaced sound jurisprudence.

General Discontent

Wyoming is moving its GOP primary to January 5. Florida moved their Democratic primary to January 29. For Iowa and New Hampshire to retain their traditional "first in the nation" status, will they need to move their respective caucus and primary voting to December 2007!

Since everyone is SO unhappy -- and clearly ready for a new administration -- why not just end our collective misery and move the general election to THIS November?

Why should we care about a little thing like the Constitution, or Bill of Rights -- the current administration clearly doesn't.

Presidential campaigning has been underway for months now. We've already seen as many televised presidential debates as are generally held during a more "traditional" election cycle. You remember the tradition, don't you ... the one where presidential candidates don't even START campaigning until Labor Day!

August is supposed to be a quite time, Congress is in recess, the president is on vacation (again) and families are enjoying that last bit of vacation time before packing the kids off to school. But noooooooooooooooo ... not this August.

Rove and Gonzo jumped ship, and Larry Craig's political career seems to be in the toilet.

And you know it's bad when Republicans are turning on (and not in the fun way) Republicans. Can Armageddon be far behind?


You've all seen the bumper stickers ... let's end this madness now!

A Presidential Snub of Wiccan War Widow

A picture of Patrick and Roberta Stewart on their wedding day, along with memories of her loving husband, help Roberta get through each day.

On September 25, 2005, with honor, Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart, 113th Aviation, D company, Mustangs, of the Nevada National Guard, gave his life for his country. He was killed in action in Operation Enduring Freedom. Mustang 22, the Chinook helicopter he was in was shot down in Afghanistan by Al Quada terrorists.

Determined to honor her husband, Roberta spent years fighting the US Department of Veterans Affairs for the right of her husband to have the symbol of their faith, the Wiccan symbol, on his grave marker.

Wicca is a nature-based religion grounded in pre-Christian beliefs. Circle Sanctuary says the Wiccan religion honors the Divine as both Mother and Father, encompasses love and respect of Nature, celebrates the cycles of Sun and Moon, and encourages adherents to live in harmony with other humans and the greater Circle of Life.

Patrick and Roberta practice the Wiccan faith, they were married in a Wiccan ceremony, and Patrick had "Wiccan" placed on his dog-tags to designate his faith tradition.

With help from Americans United for Separation of Church and State's legal department, last April the Department of Veterans Affairs settled the lawsuit brought by Stewart (and others).

One might think that would be the end of the story. Think again.

Following an address to the American Legion’s national convention in Reno on Tuesday, President Bush met with northern Nevada family members of soldiers who have perished in combat. Everyone, that is, EXCEPT Roberta Stewart.

Stewart wasn't invited, even though other relatives of Sgt. Stewart were.

A press release issued by Americans United says:

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sgt. Stewart’s parents and brother were invited to the brief, private meeting with the president. So was the widow of one of the other National Guardsmen killed with Sgt. Stewart when their Chinook helicopter was shot down.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, condemned Bush’s snub of Stewart.

“The president should issue an apology to Roberta Stewart,” Lynn said. “She stood courageously for religious freedom for all soldiers, and the president was wrong to treat her so shabbily.” [...]

During the litigation, AU attorneys unearthed evidence that the VA’s refusal to recognize the pentacle may have been motivated by bias toward the Wiccan faith. It appeared that the VA did not want to recognize the faith, which President Bush has publicly derided in the past.

Lynn said the president’s snub of Roberta Stewart smacked of retaliation for her public and successful stand against the administration policy.

“President Bush seems to be continuing a pattern of hostility toward the Wiccan faith,” he said. “That’s an outrage. America is a nation of great religious diversity, and all public officials, especially the president, have an obligation to serve all of the people. Our Constitution mandates equal treatment of all faiths.”

Is there no end to this president's shameful behavior?

_____________________________________

UPDATE

from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

President Says Deceased Veteran's Wife Should Have Been Included In Meeting With Families Of Fallen Service Personnel

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today commended President George W. Bush for his apology to a Wiccan war widow who was excluded from a private meeting with veterans and their deceased family members in Nevada earlier this week. (more)

Michele Malkin: With Cronies Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

H/t to Tennessee Guerilla Women

Evolution vs Creationism

The truth comes out at last!

TRIVA QUESTION: The song comes from what movie?

Okay, the LAST on Sen Larry Craig

UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has "1999 Video: Republican Larry Craig Calls Bill Clinton “A Nasty, Bad Naughty Boy”

Tennessee Guerilla Women has a great video of "Rep. Barney Frank on Sen. Larry Craig & Other GOP Hypocrites (Real Time Video)"

Facing a draft, Ted Nugent bravely wet his pants

By now I'm sure many have heard about singer Ted Nugent's rant against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein. Leave it to John Amato at Crooks and Liars to point us to the real story!

Richard Roeper, of the Chicago Sun-Times, writes:

So Ted Nugent roams a concert stage while toting automatic weapons, calls Barack Obama “a piece of —–” and says he told Obama to suck on one of his machine-guns. He also calls Hillary Clinton a “worthless bitch” and Dianne Feinstein a “worthless whore.”

That Nugent, he’s a man’s man. He talks the talk and walks the walk, right?

Except when it was time to register for the draft during the Vietnam era. By his own admission, Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene for a month and showed up for his draft board physical in pants caked with his own urine and feces, winning a deferment. Creative!…read on

Roeper then reveals (as if we didn't know) the bias of FOX News personality Sean Hannity, all in one short report! Brilliant!

The final word on Sen. Craig

Well, maybe the final word ... unless something else as funny as this surfaces. From Jesus' General we get the following message:

Larry Craig wants to punish nasty, bad, naughty boys

For the rest of the story, visit Jesus' General.

UPDATE: NBC News4 in DC is reporting that a DC man has come forward claiming that he had sex with the Senator in a men's room in Union Station. The report also aired tape of a younger Craig talking about a 1982 charge that he was involved in a gay sex scandal with Congressional Pages. Yikes! Senator Craig says he's not gay, but it sure looks like his boyfriend is!

More on Larry Craig ...

from Susie Bright's Journal:

The GOP Narcissists aren't the exception to the rule— they ARE the rule. They personify the very sexuality they campaign against. If they vote against gays, we know they're queer. If they're hopped up about "child porn," we can guess their internet habits. If they hold up monogamous marriage as a Christian ideal, we know they're adulterous, blasphemous fools.

Here's what they all have in common; They pretend it didn't happen. They try to buy people off to shut them up. They cry that they've been victimized. And then they continue to persecute everyone else by:

Voting YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
Voting NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Voting NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
Voting YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Voting NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

For more on Republican hypocrisy check this out! You gotta love the tubes, and their ability to bring people the truth.

Sen Craig BUSTED for Lewd Behavior

Someone needs to tell Sen. Larry Craig, (R-ID) that National Coming Out day is in October! It seems the Senator was arrested in an airport restroom for "lewd" behavior. The Senator says it was all a misunderstanding. Right.

Roll Call's web site, the DC newspaper that broke the story, must be overloaded with visitors -- so here is the story from USAToday:

Roll Call is reporting that Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, was arrested earlier this summer in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport by an undercover officer investigating complaints about sexual activity. The Capitol Hill newspaper says it obtained the arrest report.

On Aug. 8 Craig pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. A 10-day sentence was stayed, but he received a year probation and paid more than $500 in fines and fees, Roll Call writes.

[From the police report:]
After he was arrested, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, “What do you think about that?” the report states.

"What do you think about that?" Is it appropriate to include LOL in a blog post?

[Sgt. Dave] Karsnia entered the bathroom at noon that day and about 13 minutes after taking a seat in a stall, he stated he could see “an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall.”

The man, who lingered in front of the stall for two minutes, was later identified as Craig.

“I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes,” the report states.

Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia’s ... “At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot.

Craig pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge and paid more than $500 in fines. A ten-day jail sentence was stayed, but the Senator received a year probation.

Craig is up for reelection in 2008. Wonder how this is going to go over with voters.

Happy Birthday Bella!

The newest member of our family is one-year old today!

Older sister Braco (11 years-old), and

big brother Bart (6 years-old) join in the celebration.

Gonzales OUT!

Controversial Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned, according to the New York Times and the Associated Press. Gonzales submitted his resignation to the President on Friday, and an official announcement is expected later today.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.

Possible replacements include head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Senator Orrin Hatch.

So there you have it, another rat is leaving a sinking ship!

Sunday Bloody Sunday

Stolen from Blue Gal, cause she told me not to say borrowed.

Celebrate

Sunday Funnies

Where will you be September 15?

from Blue Gal

Military Injustice?

from The Pfc. LaVena Johnson Petition web site:

Dr. Johnson spoke ... at the Veterans for Peace speakout on sexual assault in the military outside the Robert A. Young Federal Building in downtown St. Louis. This was just one of many events and workshops comprising the 22nd annual national convention of VFP.

In the video embedded here, Dr. Johnson talks about learning of LaVena's death, his suspicions about how she died, and the family's attempts to get the Army to reopen its investigation. He is introduced by antiwar activist and retired Army colonel Ann Wright.

Help compel the Army to reopen the investigation of a young soldier's death in Iraq.

Pfc. LaVena Johnson's death was ruled a suicide by military officials. The Johnson family believes she was murdered. Given the other stories that have come out of Iraq about violence against women in the military, I would absolutely agree with them. The family has pursued this matter for months. Please take a few minutes to visit their site and sign the petition.

As Logan Murphy, at Crooks and Liars, noted:

We know that George Bush and the military are still covering up the truth about the murder of Pat Tillman and lied about Jessica Lynch’s story so why should we trust we’re getting the truth about LaVena’s death?

h/t to Murphy at Crooks and Liars

Why August 26th matters

Women's Equality Day is coming up on Sunday, August 26. Instituted by Rep. Bella Abzug and first established in 1971, the date commemorates the passage of the 19th Amendment, the Woman Suffrage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gave U.S. women full voting rights in 1920.

Unless your name is Ann Coulter, the day is cause for celebration! It's also a time when religious right fanatics take to the streets in protest -- usually of abortion rights. 2007 is no different, as the protests have already started in some parts of the country.

The next election is MONTHS away, but it's never too early to remind women in particular, and everyone, how important it is to VOTE. I know it seems as though our votes don't always count -- and sometimes they aren't counted properly, but the bottom line is we have a civic responsibility to show up and vote!

The young women, and men, who will vote for the first time in 2008 were born in 1990. YIKES! They have not lived in a world where birth control and abortion were illegal -- even for married couples. They never saw employment ads that were listed as "Help Wanted Male" and "Help Wanted Female." And they have no memory of the first Gulf war.

We are close to losing reproductive rights. The Bush administration's 'faith-based' initiatives have created government funded employment discrimination (based on religion) and far too many young people are dying in a war based on lies.

The slogan "we won't go back" works for someone my age, but is meaningless to new voters. The New York Times reports that young voters are leaning to the left. So I suggest to them that unless they want to find out first hand what we are all chanting about (at various protests and rallies) they -- and ALL progressives -- need to get our butts to the polls and vote!

Show me the money

With the presidential campaigns already in full swing, television and radio station owners across the country can already hear their cash registeres ringing! Visions of dollar signs are dancing in their heads -- and why not? Reuters is reporting:

The presidential election is 14 months away and with as many as 17 candidates now running, U.S. television and radio broadcasters are elated at the prospect of billions more in advertising dollars. [...]

Wall Street analysts predict television stations alone could bring in a record $2 billion to $3 billion from the 2008 election cycle, up from $1.6 billion in 2006 and $900 million in 2004.

Yikes!

With that in mind, here is a sample of what you may, or may not, see in the coming months!

Is it Sunday yet?

It's been a hectic week ... I really like this guy's voice ... so Cas Haley, take me away!

Two years today

It's been two years now since the launch of Yikes! The first post was actually a little difficult, because I couldn't settle on what to write. So I decided that less was more:

Aug 22, 2005 -- Time

Politics has been a passion of mine since the Kennedy-Nixon presidential race. Somehow my Republican parents managed to raise a little Democrat. And even though my mother volunteered for the local Republican party, she was very supportive of my interest in politics. So much so that she made a special trip to the local Democratic party headquarters just to get me a "Kennedy for President" campaign button.

Fast forward to 1968, and the night Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed. I was at home in Indiana, and I remember watching the speech delivered by Robert Kennedy that night in Indianapolis on the news. He was in the city for a campaign appearance, but when news of the tragedy broke -- against the wishes of his campaign staff -- he went into the predominately Black neighborhood where he was scheduled to speak. He didn't deliver his prepared remarks, choosing instead to speak from the heart -- and it was incredible:

April 25, 2006 -- Is it too late to get the passion back in politics?

It was so frustrating watching Kenneth Lay walk around a free man, while thousands of people were in despair over the loss of their financial security. I had to say something, and this post proved to be my most popular! The Houston Chronicle linked to it, and at a time when I would normally get 10 to 15 hits per day I got almost 400 hits in one day! All I could say was YIKES!:

Mar 22, 2006 -- Why isn't Kenneth Lay in jail?

Writing the next three posts broke my heart. Violence and poverty, when will it end?

June 11, 2006 -- Senate 'hate-speech' gives license for violence

Feb 3, 2007 -- A tragic ending for two Rachel's

Mar 2, 2007 -- 12 year old boy died of a toothache

Regular visitors to Yikes! know that I try to post a Sunday Funnies each week. This was one of my favorites:

April 1, 2007 -- Sunday Funnies

I am in awe of Tengrain at Mock, Paper, Scissors and Dr. Zaius at Zaius Nation for the wonderful snark they post. I only wish I had a fraction of their talent. So I'd like to close with one of my favorite posts, which also happens to be my attempt to emulate them -- here it is:

July 1, 2007 -- Dogs United for Seamus

See - Know - Evil

Strange billboards are popping up all over the country during the August Congressional Recess. Is their purpose to influence the American public ... or members of Congress who see them while touring their districts?

Tagged

I would like to thank Republic of Sestakastan, who tagged me for this award. Before I share with you my choices, here is the criteria for receiving the award -- but first, a word from our sponsor.

This is from the award’s creator, Divided We Stand.

I am, of course, a hack, a flamer, a rock thrower, and it isn’t something I’m uncomfortable with. Look at what happens every time you try to take the “high road” with people that include among their operatives Karl Rove, Michelle Malkin, Maggie Gallagher, Sean “Slanthead” Hannity, Rush “Oxy-Moron” Limbaugh, and my personal favorite, Ann Cuntler. What do you get for being nice to them (and their brain-dead fans?) You get dumped on, and you walk away stinking. The hell with that. Let somebody more virtuous than me take the high road; I’m quite comfortable in the gutter.

Here is the Revised Description of the Award courtesy of Central Insanity:

“1. The award recipients are pissants – i.e., they’re not the biggest bloggers in the ’sphere, they’re not Kos or Hewitt or Sullivan, but they make up in attitude what they lack in size/readership.

2. They are provocateurs – i.e., they provoke other people into thinking about and responding to subjects they might not otherwise think about and respond to.

3. By virtue of the first two traits, they advance the intrinsic value of a government that is closely, evenly divided between partisans, so no one party has outright control of the outcomes, recognizing that (a) divided government honors the check-and-balance intent of the founding fathers; and (b) divided government tends to work better; reference the Reagan and Clinton years versus the Carter and Bush #43 years.”

Now it's my turn to pick five Recipients. Here are my choices in no particular order:

PoliTits

NEWSCOMA

Howling Latina

I was just wondering

Tennessee Guerilla Women

Yeah, I know ... it's a gurrl thang!

Rachel Maddow on Karl Rove's spin tour

I love this woman ... love her!

Hey, 35%ers ... go get 'em

There is a small, but growing band of 35 %ers who unabashedly support Dennis Kucinich. They have not managed to bring me over to their side, but I must say that following Sunday's "debate" I certainly do hope they take George Stephanopoulos to task.

During the hour and a half debate, George managed to call on Dennis maybe twice -- and usually only when he was asking for the opinion of all the candidates on a particular topic.

The shut out was so clearly obvious that Kucinich used it to get a laugh line.

A viewer asked: "My question is to understand each candidate's view of a personal God. Do they believe that through the power of prayer disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?" [Note: I have a question as to why this question was even asked, but that's another post.] All the candidates were asked to respond.

When the question got to Kucinich, who was last in line, he said: "George, I've been standing here for the last 45 minutes praying to God that you were going to call on me." [laughter]

Kucinich then looked toward the heavens and smiled. He was the only candidate to actually quote from the Bible in his response, but then he went on to say: "Now the founders meant to have separation of church and state, but they never meant America to be separate from spiritual values."

To put this in perspective, here are how the candidates currently stack up in Iowa:

Obama - 27%
Clinton - 26%
Edwards - 26%
Richardson - 11%
Biden - 2 %
Kucinich - 2%
Dodd - 1%
Gravel - 0%

Candidates with less support (Dodd and Gravel), and similar support (Biden), were tossed a lot more questions -- so the 35%ers need to ask George, "what have you got against Kucinich?"

Sunday Funnies

Borrowed

from Blue Gal

'America's Mayor' or Myth America?

It's getting close ...

My how time flies when you're having fun! On Wednesday, August 22, Yikes! celebrates its second anniversary. It's been a fun two years!


I'd like to thank my five loyal readers. You are the best! And you must have stopped by a lot, because I just realized Yikes! is getting close to 15,000 visitors.


This has been a wonderful learning experience for me, and I've made some great new friends.

Thanks for stopping by!

What a tragedy when the question becomes 'Who Would Jesus Kill?'

What is it about Texans and dragging people behind a vehicle? The tragic death of James Byrd, Jr., an African American, who was dragged to death by two white men made national headlines a few years ago. Byrd was targeted by the men because of his race.

Recently, a Texas pastor was arrested and charged with dragging a girl at a Christian camp. Reuters reports:

A Texas pastor and a colleague have been charged with tying a 15-year-old girl to a van and dragging her along the ground after she refused to continue an exercise run at a Christian "boot camp," police said on Sunday.

Charles Flowers, senior pastor at the Faith Outreach Center, an evangelical church in the San Antonio suburb of Schertz, was arrested on Friday along with the camp counselor, Stephanie Bassitt, the Nueces County Sheriff's department said in a statement.

The alleged incident took place in June and was reported to police by the mother of the girl, who was hospitalized for unspecified injuries.

WTF is wrong with these people?

The camp claims to strive to "prepare young men and women to positively impact their world with the principles of Christ as their foundation" and is "designed to build character and instill discipline, integrity, unity, and morality back into their lives."

So these morons think that dragging a young girl will instill integrity and bring morality into her life?

In California, another pastor has asked his followers to pray for his critics to die. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Wiley S. Drake, a Buena Park pastor and a former national leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, called on his followers to pray for the deaths of two leaders of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The request was in response to the liberal group's urging the IRS on Tuesday to investigate Drake's church's nonprofit status because Drake endorsed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for president on church letterhead and during a church-affiliated Internet radio show.

Drake said Wednesday he was "simply doing what God told me to do" by targeting Americans United officials Joe Conn and Jeremy Leaming, whom he calls the "enemies of God."

"God says to pray imprecatory prayer against people who attack God's church," he said. "The Bible says that if anybody attacks God's people, David said this is what will happen to them. . . . Children will become orphans and wives will become widows."

Imprecatory prayers are alternately defined as praying for someone's misfortune, or an appeal to God for justice.

Again, WTF is wrong with these people? They clearly break the rules, and when called on their actions respond by praying for their "enemies" to die?

Notice that Drake didn't respond to the claim of violating federal tax law. I wonder how he will respond when the IRS decides to yank his tax-exempt status, which could clearly happen.

Do these two pastors have ANY understanding of what it means to be "Christian?" I seriously doubt it.

Jose Padilla - when punishment precedes conviction

On Thursday, jurors in the Jose Padilla trial found him guilty of conspiracy to support Islamic terrorism overseas. On December 5 he will learn his fate -- or does he need to wait?

The Padilla case may be a first -- where a now convicted criminal actually received his punishment before the trial.

On her Democracy NOW site, Amy Goodman writes:

Jose Padilla has been found guilty in court and faces possible life in prison, but forensic psychiatrist Dr. Angela Hegarty explains after interviewing him that Padilla already paid the ultimate price through torture -- he's lost his mind.

Never mind that his conviction was for a crime different from the reason for his arrest. This is George Bush's America, where Constitutional rights and rule of law are meaningless.

In 2002 Padilla was arrested in Chicago as he exited an airplane. The charge, by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, was that Padilla was at the center of a plot by al-Qaeda to set off nuclear dirty bombs inside the United States.

President Bush then classified Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant, stripping him of all his rights. He was transferred to a Navy brig in South Carolina where he was held in extreme isolation for forty three months.

The Christian Science Monitor reported: "Padilla's cell measured nine feet by seven feet. The windows were covered over… He had no pillow. No sheet. No clock. No calendar. No radio. No television. No telephone calls. No visitors. Even Padilla's lawyer was prevented from seeing him for nearly two years."

According to his attorneys, Padilla was routinely tortured in ways designed to cause pain, anguish, depression and ultimately the loss of will to live.

Keep in mind that Jose Padilla is an American citizen.

Up until last year the Bush administration maintained it had the legal right to hold Padilla without charge forever. But when faced with a Supreme Court challenge, President Bush transferred Padilla out of military custody to face criminal conspiracy charges.

Dr. Angela Hegarty, assistant profession of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, has spent time with Padilla. She concluded that he lacked the capacity to assist with his own defense. When asked if Padilla had been tortured her response was:

Well, "torture," of course, is a legal term. However, as a clinician, I have worked with torture victims and, of course, abuse victims for a few decades now, actually. I think, from a clinical point of view, he was tortured.

Hegarty was only able to do limited testing on Padilla, but concluded that his results were consistent with someone had suffered brain damage. When asked what happened to Padilla while in the brig, Hegarty responded:

What happened at the brig was essentially the destruction of a human being's mind.

So there you have it. A person is imprisoned for possibly committing a crime, but before having an opportunity to meet with a lawyer, go through a trial, or even have a final judgment, the punishment is inflicted.

The New York Times report called the decision "significant victory for the Bush administration." But the real question to ask is whether this "significant victory" is on the war on terrorism or the war on the Constitution?

Hutchison ponders career change

The August Congressional Recess is always a fun time to learn new things about our elected officials. For example, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is floating the possibility that she will run for governor of Texas in 2010.

At 64, Hutchinson is also thinking about her financial security, and the security for her two adopted children who are both 6.

"Before I retire, I need to have financial stability," said Hutchison, 64, raising the option of leaving public service after being asked about the always-swirling speculation about her political plans. "I could certainly see another career in the private sector. ... I certainly would like to make money. I think I've given up a lot of earning potential being in public service."

In an interview with the Houston Chronicle, Hutchison said she loves public service but she also likes business. She has a law degree, was a television reporter, worked in banking and owned a candy company, besides serving in the state House and then state treasurer before the Senate.

Hutchison is also seen as a potential vice presidential candidate, should Republicans decide they need diversity on their ticket to counter Sen. Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential candidate.

"Say it's Hillary and (Sen. Barack) Obama," said political scientist Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville. "I doubt the Republicans would want to put forward two white males."

He said Hutchison is the only Republican woman in a high office who is well-positioned for the vice presidential spot.

GOP consultant Royal Masset said, "She's probably the most credible female we have in the nation."

It doesn't do for officeholders to look like they're campaigning to be vice president. But Hutchison sounds sincere about not wanting it.

"No. Nooooo," she said. "I do not want to be on the ticket for vice president ... I'm not interested in it. I don't want to be asked.

"There was a time when I thought maybe I would be interested in running for president but not now," she said. One factor: "I could never run for president with two 6-year-olds."

So there you have it. Hutchison 1) may run for governor, 2) won't run for vice-president, and 3) who knew she had two 6 year-old children?

Lame Duck or the Wedding Planner?

Guess we know what the Prez is going to be doing for the balance of his time in the White House ... now that Jenna is getting married!

President Bush, who has been the sole male in his nuclear family with the exception, perhaps, of his dog Barney, will finally have a son-in-law.

Laura Bush’s office announced today that Jenna Bush is now engaged to Henry Hager, a former aide to Mr. Bush’s political strategist, Karl Rove. Mr. Hager is the son of a prominent Virginia Republican, John H. Hager, an assistant secretary of education in Mr. Bush’s administration and the former Virginia lieutenant governor.

In a statement the first lady’s office said that Mr. Hager and Miss Bush became engaged on Wednesday.

Who knows, maybe Karl Rove will be coming back as Howard Weinstein!

Army Suicides Highest in 26 Years

Is anyone surprised? You can't extend the tour of duty indefinitely, ask people to return again and again, and not think there will be consequences.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of a new military report to be released tomorrow that indicates the suicide rate for Army soldiers is at a 26 year high. According to the report, more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its scheduled release Thursday, found there were 99 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers during 2006, up from 88 the previous year and the highest since the 102 suicides in 1991 at the time of the Persian Gulf War. [...]

Last year, "Iraq was the most common deployment location for both (suicides) and attempts," the report said. [...]

There also "was limited evidence to support the view that multiple ... deployments are a risk factor for suicide behaviors," it said.

The report also indicates that almost twice as many women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide as did women not sent to war.

Again, it's not surprising when you consider a report from last year indicating women were reducing their water intake, and consequently suffering from dehydration. Their reason why? So they would not have to leave their tent during the night to use the restroom. A number of women reported being assaulted by their fellow soldiers while on the way to the latrine.

For a whole host of reasons we need to get out of Iraq.




Note: My only problem with this video is that is shows an image of George W. Bush under the lyric "a brave man once requested me ..." Bush is NOT a brave man.

It's back to school, kids -- don't forget your bulletproof backpacks

It's time for parents to make the annual trek to get back-to-school items, which usually includes jeans, jerseys and a few notebooks.

Boston television station WCVB reported Thursday that a couple of Boston men want parents to consider something else -- a bulletproof backpack

How sad is this?

It started with the Columbine shooting in 1999. [Joe] Curran and Mike Pelonzi said that they watched and worried for their own children. They had the idea to hide bulletproof material inside a backpack. They call it defensive action.

"If the kid has a backpack next to them, or under the desk, they can pick it up, the straps act as a handle and it becomes a shield," Curran said.

My first reaction to this was, "you've got to be kidding," but these dads are dead serious.

"I want to keep my kid safe," Curran said. "I don't care what you do -- if you want to fight the good fight or fix the world's hurts, I can't help you, but my kids are going to be safe because of these backpacks."

The backpacks, which sell for $175, will stop an assortment of bullets, including 9-millimeter hollow point bullets. When the vast majority of schools are safe, is this really necessary?

What do you think.

Judge tries (again) to take cleaners to the cleaners

The NBC station in Washington reports that Judge Roy Pearson, who lost his $54 million legal battle with Custom Cleaners, has decided to appeal.

The owners of a dry cleaner who were sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants have raised enough money to pay most of their legal fees, according to a court motion filed Monday.

Jin Nam Chung and Soo Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners, had sought $82,772 from Roy Pearson to recover the costs of successfully defending themselves from the 2005 lawsuit, which they considered frivolous.

Pearson responded Friday with a motion that said the Chungs failed "to provide factual or legal support for their motion," and that his lawsuit had merit.

The Chungs would simply like to put this matter behind them, but Pearson is determined to make an even bigger ass of himself.

Pearson, a local administrative law judge, had claimed that the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that once hung in the Chungs' shop was misleading and violated the District of Columbia's consumer protection act. A pair of his pants went missing, but a week later, the store owners said they were found.

What a jerk.

Women In Film

I thought this was fun.

Here are the various women: Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish, Gloria Swanson, Marlene Dietrich, Norma Shearer, Ruth Chatterton, Jean Harlow, Katharine Hepburn, Carole Lombard, Bette Davis, Greta Garbo, Barbara Stanwyck, Vivien Leigh, Greer Garson, Hedy Lamarr, Rita Hayworth, Gene Tierney, Olivia de Havilland, Ingrid Bergman, Joan Crawford, Ginger Rogers, Loretta Young, Deborah Kerr, Judy Garland, Anne Baxter, Lauren Bacall, Susan Hayward, Ava Gardner, Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly, Lana Turner, Elizabeth Taylor, Kim Novak, Audrey Hepburn, Dorothy Dandridge, Shirley MacLaine, Natalie Wood, Rita Moreno, Janet Leigh, Brigitte Bardot, Sophia Loren, Ann Margret, Julie Andrews, Raquel Welch, Tuesday Weld, Jane Fonda, Julie Christie, Faye Dunaway, Catherine Deneuve, Jacqueline Bisset, Candice Bergen, Isabella Rossellini, Diane Keaton, Goldie Hawn, Meryl Streep, Susan Sarandon, Jessica Lange, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sigourney Weaver, Kathleen Turner, Holly Hunter, Jodie Foster, Angela Bassett, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Meg Ryan, Julia Roberts, Salma Hayek, Sandra Bullock, Julianne Moore, Diane Lane, Nicole Kidman, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, Reese Witherspoon, Halle Berry

Karl Rove Moving on Down the Road? NOT

Don't be fooled by the latest "I'm leaving to spend more time with my family" talk from Karl Rove. Who knew this guy even HAD a family? And with his son away in college, what could possibly be the motivation for leaving now?

I'll tell you in six words -- the Republican Party is in trouble. My money is on Karl Rove going behind the scenes to bail them out. Call me an inside the beltway cynic, but I simply don't believe for a minute that Rove is going quietly off into the night.

There is nothing more he can do for Bush, but he can try to protect the Bush legacy by working behind the scenes to help elect another Bush-like candidate -- meaning, someone with a folksy facade, who has the religious right in their pocket.

It might be a little more difficult this time around, however, since Rove's cover was blown by David Kuo in "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction." But I've often questioned why Religious Right followers seem to be so gullible.

The questions to ask are "has Rove already selected his next candidate?" "Will he surface in the 2008 election (I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does)?" Or, "is he laying the ground work for the NEXT presidential election in 2012?" Whatever the case may be, I don't believe for a minute that Karl Rove is going to sit quietly in his Texas home and write a book.

Take the science challenge!

from Jesus' General

"It’s a science song weekend at the General’s (with a helmet tip to freereed). We’re looking for songs about science… Let’s begin with a little Thomas Dolby followed by a lecture on (de)evolution by Devo."

"Creation Science 101" by Roy Zimmerman

In Memoriam - Merv Griffin

TV Legend Merv Griffin Dies at 82

For her fans in Detroit

The Associated Press reports:

The Queen of Soul is cooling her heels. Aretha Franklin announced she has canceled her hometown concert Sunday night at an outdoor amphitheater in suburban Detroit, citing heat exhaustion. With temperatures forecast to climb above the 90 degrees, Franklin decided to call off the show at DTE Energy Music Theatre and hopes to reschedule it at a later date.

Franklin, 65, said in a statement Friday that the heat at recent East Coast shows has been "sweltering and all but overwhelming ... I am exhausted from the heat and cannot tolerate heat in these extremely high numbers and being in concert simultaneously."

Take it easy Aretha, your fans will wait.

Sunday Funnies

H/t to BobGeiger.com for these.

Saturday Night Funnies

Blogger Roundup

The following are posts I hope everyone will take the time to read.

from Crooks and Liars
Mega Church Cancels Memorial Service For Navy Vet Because He Was Gay

Max Blumenthal: Kill Or Convert, Brought To You By the Pentagon

FRC Claims Others Can’t Be Christian, Have Values


from firedoglake
Woman Enough To Be President


from Mock, Paper, Scissors
Orthodoxy


from Tennessee Guerilla Women
Will Tennessee's Ban of Women's Underwear Extend to State Employees?


from The Carpetbagger Report
‘They preach love, but they don’t act it out’

Limbaugh’s demographic

The Visible Vote '08 -- Hillary Clinton

The final candidate to take the stage at the LOGO-HRC Forum is Sen. Hillary Clinton. There is notable applause as she enters the studio. Clearly, before being asked a single question, it's obvious she is the audience favorite.

Margaret Carlson began by saying: "I don't know if Sen. Edwards is still here, but for the record I like the coral jacket."

The first question is from Joe Solomonese and it's about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Clinton has said she would repeal DADT, but sits on the Armed Services Committee and has not introduced legislation to do so. Why?

Clinton response is: "The very simple answer is that we didn't have a chance with a Republican Congress, and George Bush as president, and I want to get it done when I'm president. I want to do it, and have it be successful. I don't want to try in a Republican Congress and a very negative president, and have it defeated.

"We are talking now that we have a Democratic Congress what steps we can take to sort of lay the ground work, so that when we do have a change in the White House -- which can't happen too soon to suit me -- we will be able to move on that. But I want to put it in a broader context, because it's one of my highest priorities. I came out against DADT in 1999. It was a transitional action that was taken back at the beginning of my husband's administration, because at the time there was such a witch hunt going on. And we've got some veterans over here, Staff Sergeant Eric Alva [applause] ... if you don't know Staff Sergeant Alva's history, he was the first Marine wounded in Iraq, the recipient of a Purple Heart, and 15 years ago he could have both been refused the opportunity to serve -- but if he had gotten into the military under the rules that existed at the time, and the attitudes that were prevalent he could have been court marshaled. Or accused and threatened with criminal action if he didn't reveal names of those with whom he might have had relationships who were serving in the military.

"We have moved a long way on this, and other issues, but I think it's important to recall how much of an advance DADT was at the time. However, it was not implemented appropriately. It was still used to discharge a lot of patriotic men and women who were serving our country. Often at great cost, in the middle of a war -- where people were being told we don't need your services anymore. Including linguists and translators and other speciality services. But in 1999 it just struck me that it wasn't working, and that what we needed to do is try to move us toward using the code of military justice. And judge people on conduct, not status. It should be even handed across the services."

Solomonese had the next question, which was "what is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?"

Clinton's response is: "I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. It's a personal position for me ... we have made it very clear in our country that we believe in equality. How we get to full equality is the debate we are having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions will full equality of benefits, rights and privileges. And I've also been a very strong supporter of letting the states maintain their jurisdiction over marriage, and I believe that was the right decision for a lot of reasons ... it's easy again to forget that just two and a half years ago we were facing all of these referendum that were enshrining discrimination in state constitutions. And a lot of people tried very hard to fight against them, prevent them from being passed, but unfortunately they were. Now, two and a half years later we are beginning to see other states take different approaches ... Stopping the Federal Marriage Amendment gave the states the breathing room to make different decisions.

"I want to proceed with equalizing federal benefits, I want to repeal section three of DOMA, which stands in the way of the extension of benefits to people in committed same-sex relationships. And I will be very strongly in favor of doing that as president."

Carlson asked if the Senator thought the federal marriage amendment would come up again in 2008, and Clinton responded that she hasn't heard anyone talking about it. That not even the Republicans, in their various forums, are talking about it.

Melissa Etheridge spoke from the heart about feeling like lesbians and gays had been "thrown under the bus" by Bill Clinton's administration. That promises were made, and then broken. She acknowledged that it's a new day, and asked Sen. Clinton "what are you going to do to be different than that? A year from now are we going to be left behind like we were before?"

Clinton responded: "Obviously, Melissa, I don't see it quite the way you describe, but I respect your feeling about it. You know, from the moment Bob Hattoy spoke at the Democratic Convention, through the appointments that were made, both to positions in Cabinet Agencies, as well as in the White House, to the on-going struggle against [Newt] Gingrich and the Republican majority. I think we certainly didn't get as much done as I would have liked, but I believe there was a lot of honest effort going on by the president and the vice president, and the rest of us who were trying to keep the momentum going.

"I remember when I was running for the Senate, marching in the gay pride parade in NYC, and to a lot of people that was an unbelievable act.

"We are doing a lot to talk about laws, as important as they are, but to really try to change attitudes and persuade people that they should be more open, more respectful, more accepting.

"If I were sitting where you are sitting, with all you have gone through in the last 14 years, I'm sure I would feel exactly the same way. Because not only did you bravely come out, but you've had health challenges and so much else, and so time can't go by slowly. You want things to move as quickly as possible, which I understand and wish could happen as well.

"But as president, I think I have an opportunity both to reverse the concerted assault on people -- it wasn't just on people's rights, it was on people -- it was pointing fingers. It was demeaning. It was degrading, it was mean-spirited. And that will end. That is going to be over."

Jonathan Capehart asked about comments made by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace, who said homosexuality is immoral. When you were first asked about it you said "I'm going to leave that to others to conclude." The next day, after much criticism, you finally said that you did not think homosexuality was immoral. Why didn't you say that the first time?

Clinton responded: "It was a mistake, Jonathan, because what I went on to say after what you quoted was to launch an attack on DADT. Because my view was as a chairman of the Joint Chiefs he had absolutely no right to say what he said. I disagree with him profoundly, but what was really offensive is that he was in a position of responsibility that had a direct impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of these young people in the military. So I went right at him on DADT."

Capehart quickly asked: "Would you put someone on the bench that is known to be anti-gay?"

Clinton's response was "no."

Carlson said, "on Tuesday night you told the AFL-CIO 'I'm your girl' ... do you want to express those same sentiments here?"

Clinton: "I am your girl! Absolutely!"

The Visible Vote '08 -- Bill Richardson

Bill Richardson began by apologizing for his vote in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. He said he would repeal it now, and would work for civil union. He would also work to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Richardson is still on an apology tour, apologizing for using a term while appearing on the Don Imus program that is a Latino term for "faggot."

He then talked about his accomplishments. He is the only governor to call a special session to expand domestic partnerships. He has appointed cabinet members who are gay and lesbian, all through his administration. He has fully funded HIV/AIDS initiatives in his state.

Margaret Carlson said everyone gets "one mistake on Imus."

As governor, Richardson kept DOMA from passing. He killed it.

Joe Solomonese asked the Governor, "if the New Mexico legislature passed marriage equality legislation, would you sign it?"

Richardson replied that he is pushing the New Mexico legislature very hard to expand domestic partnerships, saying "it's the same thing ... It's a question of going through a path that is achievable."

Joe asked again, if Richardson thinks the issue should be dealt with in the states, and his state passed marriage equality, would he sign it. Richardson basically said "no." That he is "not there yet," and that "the nation's not there yet."

Melissa Etheridge asked Richardson if homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological.

Richardson responded that he thinks it's "a choice."

Etheridge then said, "I don't know if you understand the question" -- and repeated it.

Richardson, looking quite confused, said: "I'm not a scientist ... I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people, as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship, and people loving each other. I don't like to categorize people. I don't to answer definitions like that, that are perhaps grounded in science or something else that I don't understand."

Richardson is really struggling with his response to these issues. He seems very uncomfortable. I guess he should be commended for coming, when he is clearly not comfortable in this setting.

The Visible Vote '08 -- Mike Gravel

Sen. Mike Gravel began the night by thanking the Harvey Milk Club, and gay groups in NYC and San Francisco for putting pressure on HRC to include him in the Forum. Gravel had not initially been invited to participate by the Human Rights Campaign, and Gravel thank HRC's Joe Solomonese for his change of heart.

The first question to Sen. Gravel came from Melissa Etheridge, who began by saying "you are unusual for your generation of straight, white men. You actually support same sex marriage. How do you speak to men of your generation, about your issues, to convince them?

Gravel responded: "About my generation, most of them are wrong. Dead wrong." He went on to say, "when I was a kid there was a lot of homophobia around. I can recall when the gay issue was what, 55% opposed 40 % for, and low and behold now if you are talking about the gay issue general it's probably 55% almost 59% for, and the rest are in the dust bin of history. The same thing is going to happen with the marriage issue ... I'll make you a promise, five years from now the marriage issue will be a non-issue in the next presidential campaign. It's that simple."

Etheridge ask if there were any gay people in Alaska, and Gravel said "of course."

Margaret Carlson asked if popular culture had changed enough that you put marriage equality up for a popular vote and it would win?

Gravel responded: "I think so. The American people basically have got an underlying sense of values and fairness. What happens is we have a leadership that demagogues the issue -- who can't quite get their arms around the issue, and will give you an argument that their morality doesn't permit it, or it's a political argument.

"I want to share some advise with the gay community, and that is when people like myself or Dennis move the ball down the court a little bit that benefits the gay community. And it's sort of ironic that we see the gay community be supporting people like Hillary, Obama, or Edwards who for some reason can't get their arms around marriage. I stop to think, what is marriage? And I resent religion saying that it's a religious term, it's not. Marriage preceded all forms of religion in civilization. Marriage is a commitment between two human beings in love ... and understand me, they can be heterosexual, they can be two lesbians, they can be transgender, they two gays. It's a commitment of two human beings in love and if there's anything we need in this world it's more love."

Jonathan Capehart asked why does the gay community support Hillary, Obama or Edwards, and why are they ahead of you?

Gravel replied that he thought it was because they were "playing it safe." That they are not going to lose any votes for not being for same-sex marriage, no matter what their excuses are, they will get away with it. This is costing votes for us (he and Kucinich), but "I don't care. I don't want those votes."

"You want to know the difference? It's plain as the nose on your face ... what you are experiencing is politics as usual. And a gifted politician can tell you this -- and I don't mean this humorously, I mean this very accurately -- a good politician can tell you to go to hell, and make you look forward to the trip."

Joe Solomonese asked "what are you the most proud of in your career?"

Gravel talked about the first piece of legislation he got through as a freshman state legislator, and it was a human rights commission of Alaska that helped the black and gay community. He then talked about what it means to be a leader. That you stand up for what you believe in, even when people call you crazy. And, if you live long enough they look back and say "my God, was he a courageous leader."

Twice Gravel said "when you use your capital [to get something you believe in accomplished] you get more. When you win, more capital comes to you."

Gravel closed by saying: "I have worked all my life on this issue. I've advocated for gays to come out of the closet, please. Some people can't pay the price, but there's one thing that counts -- you've got to assert your rights. Nobody is going to give you anything from on high, it just does not happen that way in a system of representative government. So you have to step forward, and I'll be happy to step forward with you as I have all of my life. And I promise you one thing, if you stand up for me -- and I need your support -- I want it, I'm begging for it, because I will do more for your cause than any other human being that walks the earth as your president.

The Visible Vote '08 -- Dennis Kucinich

Rep. Dennis Kucinich is up next, and moderator Margaret Carlson said "they really like you here on the left coast." Kucinich replied, "actually I represent mainstream America here."

Jonathan Capehart began the questioning by saying: "Rep. Kucinich it seems that you are for everything the gay community wants. I took a look at the HRC questionnaire and [it said] support, support, support, support ... so is there anything that the LGBT community wants that you are against?" [long pause] ... "there's got to be something."

Kucinich responded by saying: "All I can say is keep those contributions coming and you'll have the president that you want."

Capehart: "I'll take that as a no."

Capehart then asked why Kucinich was one of only two candidates who supports same-sex marriage.

Kucinich said that when people love each other they must have a way to express that, that is meaningful. To him, it isn't even a question. "I stand for real equality."

"When you recognize a journey of courage, as so many of you have followed, of course you want to exemplify that."

Melissa Ethridge just said that she was asked not to fawn over Kucinich, but that it was "really, really hard not to." She said, "I hope you always run for president until you are elected. I really, really do."

Kucinich then mentioned that he was elected to Congress on his fifth try.

Carlson said that "it may take you five times to get elected, because you are further out there than most people, I mean most Democrats. I'm wondering, how are you going to get elected president?"

Kucinich: "Let me tell you why I am the candidate right in the center of the aspirations of the American peoples hopes and dreams. I led the effort in the House of Representatives five years ago in challenging the administrations march to war against Iraq. No other candidate in this race can say that, nor can they say that they voted against the war and or voted against funding for the war consistently. The rest of the country has come my direction on that. I took the stand when it was really unpopular to do so. Being president of the United States means that you have to do the right thing the first time. And it means that when you're talking civil liberties, marriage equality, employment non-discrimination ... when you're talking about standing for peoples rights to be who they are, without fear of being attacked ... you're talking about something that is really essentially American. And so I'm in the center of all those discussions.

My candidacy for president is not only transforming the rights, but I want you to understand how it will transform this nation when you have a president who cannot be bought or bossed. Who has the willingness to stand up and speak out, when others would be silent. Who can challenge war. Who can challenge corruption, because my heart is clean. Because I have the ability to see, to pierce that veil of falsehood which covers so much of our country today. I see the world as one ... I see the world as interconnected ... anything that separates any of us needs to be looked at, and we need to find ways of discussing the imperative of human unity. But not just discussing it. It's one thing to talk about it, it's another thing to act from that understanding and awareness. And that's what I'm prepared to do as the next president of the United States -- elected in 2008."

Following a question from the audience regarding HIV/AIDS, Kucinich then talked about his plan for universal heathcare.

The Visible Vote '08 -- John Edwards

John Edwards just took the stage, and is being questioned by Melissa Ethridge on health care, and the importance of everyone having access to quality health care. She mentioned that she and Elizabeth Edwards have much in common, siting their battle against cancer. Her question is about same-sex couples who can’t share each other health care benefits? What are they supposed to do?

Edwards immediately shifted the discussion to his visit to a homeless shelter in Los Angeles, where he met kids who had been kicked out of their homes after telling their families they are gay. "It can't be that in America people think that's okay. They can't believe that that's okay. They need to hear and see what I saw when I was there, because it was moving and touching, and I actually believe that that kind of experience would have a huge impact on the American people ... if they could just see it."

Notice how he didn't really answer her question?

Etheridge then said that she had heard the Edwards had said he felt uncomfortable around gay people, and asked if he felt "okay" now. Edwards began to laugh and said that he was "perfectly comfortable" and when on to say "can I just tell you that that's not true ... someone else said it, and it's not true."

Edwards said it came from a political consultant and he's "just wrong." Etheridge then apologized for ever putting it out there.

She then talked about her two children, and how kids can sometimes ask "how can you have two mommies?" -- and then asked if public schools should teach about this.

Edwards responded "sure we should" ... that the kids need to understand that these are American families are just like every American family. It's one of the reasons we have thousands of kids in foster homes who need loving parents, and why same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children.

He closed out by saying that "we as adults need to make sure that our children know this is a good thing. And this is something that we as Americans believe in and embrace."

Jonathan Capehart asked Edwards about the 2004 race, and about how the Republicans used LGBT issues to divide the nation -- and that the Democrats didn't seem to really address it head on.

Edwards then talked about how Elizabeth took Ann Coulter on, and how proud he was that she had done that. We went on to say that it's bad for anyone to use these issues to try and divide us, and that it's important for our leaders to denounce it, and to speak out strongly.

On Ann Coulter, Edwards said that she appeals to the lowest common denominator among us, that that if people of good will don't stand up to this it "gets a foothold" in our society. "And when hatred gets a foothold, it's much harder to unseat" ... and that you can't let this go by quietly, you must speak out as Elizabeth did.

Joe Solomonese just asked a question about employment discrimination, siting the case of Susan Stanton of Largo, Florida, who lost her job when it was revealed that she is transgender.

Edward's response is that this is the reason we need a powerful non-discrimination law in this country -- so that people cannot be fired.

Solomonese then asked Edwards a question about his opposition to same-sex marriage, and asked what in his religion led him to have this position.

Edwards replied: "I shouldn't have said that. First of all, I believe to my core in equality. My campaign for the presidency is about equality across the board, and I listened to your discussion with Senator Obama a few minutes ago ... and it makes perfect sense to me that you would say 'civil unions, great' ... '1100 federal benefits, great' ... 'give us these rights, we deserve these rights' and they are absolutely right about that, but it stops short of real equality. It makes perfect sense to me that people would feel that way. I can understand it, it makes sense, and the only thing I would say about the faith question is I think from my perspective it is wrong. We have seen a president in the last six plus years who tries to impose his beliefs on the American people, and I think it's a mistake and I will not impose my faith on the American people. I don't think any American president should do that, I believe in the separation of church and state, and these things that we have talked about -- all these substantive issues of equality, which is really what the discussion has been about, these are part of my heart and soul and core ... they are things that I will fight for every day.

Edwards didn't really answer the question, so Solomonese asked again.

Edwards said that he does support civil unions, he would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and he would push for a non-discrimination employment law.

On Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Edwards said that he thinks the president can get rid of it, and that as president he would eliminate it.

Overall, Edwards is good on LGBT issues ... with the one exception of not supporting "marriage."

The Visible Vote '08 on LOGO

LOGO, the LGBT cable network, and the Human Rights Campaign is hosting a Presidential Forum with leading Democratic candidates tonight. Candidates will appear in the order in which they replied to the invitation.

The conversation is being moderated by Margaret Carlson. The panelists are Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post), Melissa Etheridge (Artist) and Joe Solomonese (Human Rights Campaign).

The first question was asked by Joe Solomonese: "What place does the church have in government sanctioned civil marriages?"

Obama: "The government has to treat all citizens equally" ... "I don't think that the church should be making these determinations when it comes to legal rights confirmed by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same-sex couples. My denomination, United Church of Christ, does. Other denominations may make a different decision. Obviously part of keeping a separation of churches and state is making sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion. But when it comes to federal rights, the over 1100 rights that right now are not being given to same-sex couples I think is unacceptable, and as president of the United States I'm going to fight hard to make sure those rights are available."

Solomonese: "But on the grounds of civil marriage, can you see to our community where that comes across as sounding like separate but equal?"

Obama then talked about how when his parents got married in 1961, their marriage would not have been recognized in a number of states. He thinks, however, that there are other "laws" more important than whether or not same-sex couples can be legally married.

The moderator then interjected that it seems as though Obama is letting religion have the word "marriage" -- saying that "you got to get married, and I got to be married, but Joe doesn't get to be married, and that really does mean that it's a lesser thing."

Obama replied that as he proposed it, it wouldn't be a lesser thing from his perspective. He would insure that those rights were available to people.

Melissa Etheridge is asking Obama how he will bring together a "very divided" America.

Obama replied: "One of the reasons LGBT issues are important to me is because I got into politics in part because I don't like people looking down on other people ... the calls that all of you are involved is what prompted me to get into politics, but part of what prompts me is also this hopefulness. This belief that there is a core decency to most people, and certainly most Americans, and our founding documents have a set of universal truths that are important ... the key question for the next president is can we tap back into that core decency. Can we appeal to what Lincoln called the better angles of our nature."

Jonathan Capehart asks how Obama will deal with homophobia within the Black community. Obama's response is basically to say that he has started addressing it, questioning African Americans to ask if same-sex marriage has any impact on their ability to get a job, and education, etc. He will work to help African Americans see the issue for what it is -- a diversion from real problems.

Obama closed by saying that he includes a discussion of LGBT issues in all his stump speeches, because he understands the importance.

John Edwards is coming out next.

Straight, White Males Shrinking

Women are more than 51 percent of the population, Wapo reports the percentage of people of color is on the rise, and lesbians and gay men are around 10 percent of the population. So what does this mean for straight, white men? They are on the decline ... but some of us have known that for years!

Don't expect them to fade completely away, however. As author Mariah Burton Nelson wrote in her book The Stronger Women Get, The More Men Love Football, as women assert themselves some men take refuge in the ultra-masculine world of football.

And while they might be the minority population, they still control a majority of the resources in this country -- as CEO's and elected officials at all levels of government.

It could be argued that English only resolutions are symptoms of while male paranoia.

Culpeper County in Virginia recently passed an "English only" resolution.

"We just wanted to clarify that this was an English-speaking county and make sure we reflected that," said Supervisor Bill Chase.

"I think we all came from foreign countries and turned into English-speaking Americans," he said. "But I don't feel a willingness of this particular group to do that. I don't see the willingness to blend into society."

It will be fascinating to see how this plays out, should a major party candidate for president in 2008 be either a woman or a Black man.

2007 Presidential Primaries?

Is there anyone besides me who hates to see Christmas decorations displayed in department stores before Halloween?

When I was a kid there seemed to be a natural order to things ... you celebrated Halloween, Thanksgiving, and THEN the decorations went up for Christmas.

And likewise, presidential campaigns always kicked off around Labor Day -- celebrated on the first Monday in September in the US. Not so in 2007, where the race for the White House has been in full swing for MONTHS now.

The Wapo reports that South Carolina is about to move their presidential primary up.

South Carolina's Republican Party will move its 2008 presidential primary forward to Jan. 19, sources said yesterday, a decision almost certain to spark a cascade of calendar changes that could push the start of voting to New Year's Day or even to before Christmas.

The move, set to be announced today, is likely to cause the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses to be shifted at least to early January, and other states are actively angling to stake out spots earlier in the process. The maneuvering has injected a new note of uncertainty into what is already the earliest-starting presidential campaign in history, and top strategists for the candidates said it would force them to revise their carefully worked out plans.

If this trend continues, the next president may have to start campaigning on January 21, 2009. Yikes!

In Sickness or In Health

"I, Brett take thee, Patrick to be my lawfully wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish, 'til death do us part."

The recitation of this simple pledge, sanctioned by the state, can make all the difference in the world when the person you love becomes ill. If you have any doubts, simply ask Brett Conrad -- who has spent more than half his life as Patrick Atkins' partner.

The two men were in their 20's when they met at college and fell in love. When Atkins, 47, suffered a serious illness in 2005, their world fell apart. Conrad, 47, has spent much of the past two years fighting for guardianship of Atkins from Atkins parents Thomas and Jeanne.

Jeanne Atkins is quoted in court documents as saying she believes homosexuality is a sin and that she disapproves of the men's relationship. The parents have barred Conrad from visiting their now-disabled son in their home where he lives.

In June, Conrad won visitation rights from the Indiana Court of Appeals, but the court upheld an earlier Hamilton County ruling that left control of Atkins' care to his parents. ( Read the appeals court decision.)

Gay-rights activists say the men's story illustrates the discrimination embedded in Indiana law and underscores why gay marriage should be allowed.

What never ceases to amaze me is how the love these two men have shared for the majority of their lives is a threat to anyone?

According to the case file, Atkins and Conrad met in 1978 while attending Wabash College in Crawfordsville.

Atkins came from a deeply religious family that disapproved of the relationship. In 2000, he begged for acceptance from his family through a letter.

"Trust me," he wrote, "God loves us all so very much, and I know he approves of the love that Brett and I have shared for over 20 years."

Court records indicate that Atkins mother told Conrad that if her son was going to return to life with his partner after recovering from his stroke, she would prefer he "not recover at all." How "Christian" of her.

Reading this I was reminded of the case involving Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski. I met Karen in the early 1990's, when she was still battling for custody of Sharon. It seems incredible to me that nearly 20 years later, this is still a problem.

Yes there are legal steps Brett and Patrick could have taken, but at 47 I would image they thought they had all the time in the world.

It's past time to legalize same-sex marriage. For more information on the subject visit the Freedom to Marry web site.

Hat tip to Pam's House Blend.

A legitimate accommodation — or unconstitutional government support for religion?

Students are awash in controversy at the University of Michigan-Dearborn over the installation of footbaths on campus.

The university claims it is merely accommodating the needs of Muslim students who, as part of their religious practice, are required to wash their feet before their five-times-a-day prayers. Students were washing their feet in the sinks, which the university claimed caused a safety hazard when water spilled onto the floor. The New York Times reports:

The solution seemed straightforward. After discussions with the Muslim Students’ Association, the university announced that it would install $25,000 foot-washing stations in several restrooms.

Church-state separationists are concerned that by permanently altering buildings on the campus, the university is forcing all students to support, with their student fees, one religious belief.

And conservative lawyer/blogger Debbie Schlussel posted: “Forget about the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state ... at least when it comes to mosque and state.”

It's amazing to me how conservatives never support church-state separation, except as a cover for perceived discrimination against Christians.

So what do you think? I'd really like to hear your thoughts as to whether or not this is religious accommodation, or an unconstitutional government support of religion.

Oh, no ... not the Weekly World News?

No, it wasn't purchased by Rupert Murdoch -- even though it's news is more credible than FOX. The Weekly World News is, sadly, no more.

Signing statements

It seems appropriate, in light of today's PDB blogswarm, to also talk about signing statements -- and how different our world might be if Bush had simply been paying attention.

The data here is old, but the message is very current. On April 30, 2006, the Boston Globe ran a story entitled "Examples of the president's signing statements."

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws.

I don't have a link for this, but the person who sent me this article says that on an annual basis, Bush has claimed the authority to disobey laws 8.5 times more than President Clinton did, and 2.6 times more than his father did.

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Kinda makes your skin crawl just thinking about all this. Welcome to Bush World View.

"Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US"

That was the headline of the President's Daily Briefing given to Bush on August 6, 2001 (see photo above). The declassified memo reads:

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Youse! and "bring the fighting to America." [...]

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (text blacked out) service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar "Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists. [...]

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Keep in mind that in the months leading up to the September 11 attack the Washington Post had calculated that Bush had spent 42% of his first eight months as president ON VACATION. When Harriet Miers handed Bush the August 6th PDB, he was on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

How different might our world be today if Bush had taken the time to have our national security team fully investigate this memo, instead of spending his time clearing away brush on the ranch.

How many people would still be alive -- the nearly 3,000 killed on September 11, the thousands of US soldiers killed in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed for no reason -- had Bush simply been on the job?

We must never forget.

Darcy Burner on FISA

Darcy Burner was one of the first people I met at YearlyKos. She came into the Women's Netroots Caucus, and sat down right in front of me. She is running again for Congress (for the 8th District in Washington) and if we are lucky, she will win!



To contribute to her campaign go to: Darcy Burner for Congress

More on the YK Presidential Forum

Here are a couple of good links about the presidential forum from Taylor Marsh and Feministe.

Lobbyists, Boos and the Presidential Forum reporting from YearlyKos

Liveblogging the YK Presidential Forum

Enjoy!

Yearly Kos - The Great Debate

BlogHer spoiled me! I haven't posted as much as I had hoped to during this conference for a couple of reasons. The session rooms weren't set up well for live blogging -- no power source, no tables to work from -- as was the case at BlogHer. They made it very convenient for bloggers. Also, the connection at the hotel seems really slow.

The leadership forum today was excellent. Great exchange between the candidates, moderators and the audience. It was overall a respectful crowd, with only a couple of hisses -- the first for a comment Richardson made about supporting line-item veto.

The mood was upbeat, and there was definitely a lot of excitement in the room. It was as if the audience knew that one of the individuals they were listening to WOULD be the next president.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel were there. All of the candidates, with the exception of Kucinich, met with their supporters in private sessions to answer their questions.

The moderator opened the session by wishing Obama a Happy Birthday, followed by the audience breaking out in song!

The only real contentious moment came when John Edwards and Barack Obama double teamed Hillary Clinton over the issue of accepting money from Washington Lobbyists. When asked directly about whether or not she would accept contributions from DC Lobbyists, Clinton didn't try and duck the question. She answered straightforwardly that she would accept money from them saying "they represent nurses" and other professionals that deserve representation.

The attack seemed to focus on heath care, to which Clinton added that her position has not changed on health care, and that she would not be pressured into changing her position by the groups giving her money.

I attended the Clinton break out session, and I will say that her answers to the questions poised by the group were excellent. The first question focused on education, and she outlined very precisely what needs to be done and how she would address the issue.

I will share with you that after the session I happened to overhear a conversation by a couple of women who had not entered the room as Hillary supporters, but who were very impressed with her message. One of the women said she would definitely be able to support Hillary if she were to win the nomination.

I've had the opportunity to hear the Senator in person on a number of occasions, and I will say that I think much of the criticism of her is unfounded. She is very engaging.

I honestly do think the 2008 election is the Dems to lose. The country is clearly fed up with Bush & Company, and the Republicans seem to be imploding. Should Rudy or Mitt win the nomination, does anyone honestly think the religious right will turn out for them?

It's way too early to absolutely predict what will happen, but listening to these candidates today made me very hopeful!

Is Somebody Watching You?

Would someone please explain to me what the Democrats who voted to expand the ability of the Bush administration to spy on us were thinking?

The New York Times reports:

The White House and Congressional Republicans hailed the Senate vote as critical to plugging what they saw as dangerous gaps in the intelligence agencies’ ability to detect terrorist threats.

"I can sleep a little safer tonight," Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who co-sponsored the measure, declared after the Senate vote.

The measure approved by the Senate expires in six months and would have to be re-authorized. The White House’s grudging agreement to make it temporary helped to attract the votes of some moderate Democrats who said they thought it was important for Congress to approve some version of the wiretapping bill before its recess.

The White House and Republican leaders pressed the point throughout the day that a vote against the measure would put the nation at greater risk of attack.

The following Democrats voted for the bill:

Evan Bayh (Indiana) 2011

Tom Carper (Delaware) 2013

Bob Casey (Pennsylvania) 2013

Kent Conrad (North Dakota) 2013

Dianne Feinstein (California) 2013

Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) 2011

Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota) 2013

Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) 2009

Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) 2011

Claire McCaskill (Missouri) 2013

Barbara Mikulski (Maryland) 2011

Bill Nelson (Florida) 2013

Ben Nelson (Nebraska) 2013

Mark Pryor (Arkansas) 2009

Ken Salazar (Colorado) 2011

Jim Webb (Virginia) 2013

Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama all opposed the bill, as did 23 other Democrats and Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont. Do I even have to tell you how Joe Lieberman voted? I didn't think so!

Crossover voting like this usually takes place during an election year, when an elected official is feeling particularly vulnerable. We are still a long way off from the election, but with all the attention being given to the presidential election, I thought that possibly some of the others were already feeling the pressure of a re-election campaign. So I decided to take a look at when their terms ended, thinking that maybe these folks were just nervous about appearing "soft" on "terror" before the election.

Well, as you can see by the year posted next to their names, only two face re-election in 2008. This reality makes their votes even more puzzling to me. Why have these Dems decided to cave? I think it's a question we all need to be asking them.

Some Democrats and civil rights advocates accused the Senate of capitulating to White House demands by broadening the ability to eavesdrop without warrants on communications that are primarily “foreign” in nature, even if they may touch on
Americans’ phone calls and e-mail.

The measure “goes far, far beyond” the National Security Agency program that the president secretly approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

Caroline Frederickson, head of the American Civil Liberties Union office here, said: “The Democrats caved in to the politics of fear we’re seeing from this administration. They didn’t want to be depicted as soft on terrorism. But this measure removes any court oversight from surveillance on Americans in a large number of cases.”

If one of the Dems listed above is YOUR Senator, give them a call while they are home for the August Recess and ask them "what's up?". You deserve an answer to this very important question.

Yearly Kos - "No Pandering, Please"

One of the workshops I attended today was "Is the Religious Right Really Dead?" The panelists were Chip Berlet, Frederick Clarkson and Susan Thistlethwaite. Chip gave some background on the Religious Right, and how it became such a powerful force within the Republican party. But more than the background, I really liked what he had to say about the current state of the Democratic party -- and his perception that it is "pandering" to evangelicals. I think he has a valid point.

Do we want the Democratic party to become "Republican Lite?" OR, do we want the Democrats to reach out to progressive people of faith, and redefine the word "values."

Had someone asked me in an exit poll whether or not I cast my vote in the last election based on "values" I probably would have said yes. But MY definition of the word is vastly different from the definition presented by political pundits and Sunday morning talking heads.

I think poverty is a "values" issue, as is universal health care, and ending the war in Iraq.

The Religious Right is clearly not dead, but I do think they are in the process of re framing themselves. The new leaders are less likely to make comments as over the top as Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. (No more Tinky Winky stories!) And I think part of their challenge is that they don't have a clearly defined candidate on the Republican side they can support. They are certainly not going to support Rudy!

Here is a portion of Chip's comments that addresses the fear some of us have about the current state of the Democratic party:



Chip Berlet is senior analyst at Political Research Associates, near Boston. He has studied the Religious Right for more than 25 years. Chip is a journalist by trade, and his byline has appeared in the New York Times and the Boston Globe.

One more thing: Chip did point out that YearlyKos didn't invite Mara Vanderslice to present, but he and Frederick had three workshops at the conference. Hopefully Howard Dean and the Dems are paying attension.

Yearly Kos - Day One

This was taken with my digital camera, of the jumbo screen, since I was more than half way back in the audience. It takes a while to load. I've never tried this before, so will need to figure out how to compress the video so it's not such a large file. If anyone knows how to do this, please share!

If you like Howard Dean, and I do, you would have liked his address tonight. There is definitely a lot more testosterone in this audience, compared with last weekend, but I'll reserve final comments on this until Sunday or Monday.

Personal DNA Test

Found this at Zaius Nation, so decided to give it a try. If you would like to check out your Personal DNA, give it a go ... and let us know!

It's back to Chicago for YearlyKos

This will be my fourth trip to Chicago since May, and I hope the flight is less eventful than my last trip, which took 12 hours to get home.

Last weekend it was BlogHer, this weekend it's YearlyKos. I have a feeling it's going to be a lot different! If you are reading this and planning on being there, stop by the Americans United booth and say hello. Or look for a badge that says "Yikes!"

Check back beginning Thursday afternoon!

It doesn't pay to be a woman

It's been another long day ... I'm really tired ... but I have to comment on a recent report in the Wapo.

Have you heard the old saying, "damned if you do, damned if you don't?" That seems to apply to women who do (or don't) ask to be paid what they are worth. Staff writer Shankar Vedantam's report on "Salary, Gender and the Social Cost of Haggling" tells a story some of us have known for a very long time.

It's acceptable for a man to ask for what he wants -- a better position in the company, a raise, etc. -- but when women ask, if they even do, they are viewed in a negative light.

The traditional explanation for the gender differences that Babcock found is that men are simply more aggressive than women, perhaps because of a combination of genetics and upbringing. The solution to gender disparities, this school of thought suggests, is to train women to be more assertive and to ask for more. However, a new set of experiments by Babcock and Hannah Riley Bowles, who studies the psychology of organizations at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, offers an entirely different explanation.

Their study, which was coauthored by Carnegie Mellon researcher Lei Lai, found that men and women get very different responses when they initiate negotiations. Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women's reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more -- the perception was that women who asked for more were "less nice".

My thoughts on this are "no more Ms. Nice" women. It's time for men, and some women, to realize that women pay the same amount at the grocery store, our electric bills are just the same, and we don't get a discount on our rent or mortgage because women -- traditionally -- earn less than men.

Men need to wake up and realize that it's in THEIR best interest to advocate for pay equity for women. When they do, the overall income for their households will go up!

Although differences in starting salaries are usually modest, small differences can have big effects down the road. If a 22-year-old man and a 22-year-old woman are offered $25,000 for their first job, for example, and one of them negotiates the amount up to $30,000, then over the next 28 years, the negotiator would make $361,171 more, assuming they both got 3 percent raises each year. And this is without taking into account the fact that the negotiators don't just get better starting pay; they also win bigger raises over the course of their careers.

Women working full time earn about 77 percent of the salaries of men who hold full time jobs. It is past time for this to change.