Friday Bucket O’ News

17 Comments

1. 

   BooMan on February 24, 2006 at 12:16 pm

   link

   AKRON, Ohio – If an Ohio lawmaker’s proposal becomes state law, Republicans would be barred from being adoptive parents.

   State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to “introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents.” The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship.

   On Thursday, the Youngstown Democrat said he had not yet found a co-sponsor.

   Hagan said his “tongue was planted firmly in cheek” when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.

   Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by state Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.

   “We need to see what we are doing,” said Hagan, who called Hood’s proposed bill blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive. Hagan called Hood and the eight other conservative House Republicans who backed the anti-gay adoption bill “homophobic.”

   Hood’s bill, which does not have support of House leadership, seeks to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender.

   To further lampoon Hood’s bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that “credible research” shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing “emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.”

   However, Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims.

   Just as “Hood had no scientific evidence” to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said.

   • 

     IndyLib on February 24, 2006 at 12:26 pm

     Awesome.

   • 

     maryb2004 on February 24, 2006 at 1:01 pm

     That IS hilarious.

2. 

   growthrate on February 24, 2006 at 12:43 pm

   The internals of the report are even more interesting.  Turns out that the median income (half higher, half lower) is up a little (+1.6%) while the average, or mean, is down -2.3%.  Those numbers are really both pretty close to zero, so as you say, Cali, “Where’s our booming economy?”  But a difference between mean and median usually tells us about what’s going on at the high end, and in this case the high-end earners are declining a little more than the low- and average earners.  Not that this is good news — in the previous three-year period (1998-2001), the median rose +10.3%, while the mean rose +17.3%.  

   If high-end earners are earning a little less, they’ve also been making it up on asset appreciation.  Average household net worth increased +6.3%, which mostly reflects the rich getting richer.

   • 

     maryb2004 on February 24, 2006 at 1:00 pm

     Seems to fit with the long term (repub) goal to eliminate tax on capital gains/investment income and only tax wage income?  

   • 

     Cali Scribe on February 24, 2006 at 2:14 pm

     and in other pieces about the net worth (including the piece I saw on the 10:00pm news last night) is that a contributing factor to the decline of net worth is an increase in debt, especially mortgage and credit card debt. That can be attributed to (a) people using their credit cards to pay for necessities like food and medications because their income doesn’t go far enough, and (b) people taking out mortgages to pay for college or other major expenses.

     There was a study done on “Hunger in America” by Second Harvest (I believe) that found a large percentage of families who use food bank services actually have at least one family member working full-time. I may diary that study…

3. 

   maryb2004 on February 24, 2006 at 12:50 pm

   The repubs in Missouri are pushing a bill to require picture ID’s for voting.  The Dems are against it for all the usual reasons.  

   People in outstate Missouri are predominantly white and (of course) mostly rural.  They hate the cities and they don’t really give a damn about minority rights.

   Our (Democratic) Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, has an editorial in the Southeast Missourian, a newspaper situated in the heart of Rush Limbaugh territory, about why photo ID’s are bad for white people in rural areas.  She never mentions any of the other reasons.  Which is smart.  Just because there are many reasons, doesn’t mean you have to bring them up and distract people from their own self interest.  Here’s  a sample:

   Who would be affected by this new requirement to show a photo ID before voting? Without a doubt, the burden would fall on Missouri seniors and those with disabilities who do not drive or no longer have a valid driver’s license.

   For example, if this bill is passed, it would require an 85-year-old senior citizen who no longer has a valid driver’s license but has voted all her life to: 1. locate her birth certificate and other required proof of citizenship and residency for the new photo ID requirement, 2. get certified copies of those documents, 3. find someone to take her from her home (assuming it is medically safe to leave) and 4. wait in line at a license office (perhaps with her wheelchair and pulling an oxygen tank) just to get a photo ID in order to avoid losing her constitutional right to vote.

   It is wrong to put up unreasonable barriers to our Missouri seniors’ right to vote, and this proposal does just that.

   This proposal could also affect countless Missourians, ranging from farmers coming in from the field to seniors and others who have lived in the same community their entire lives, by removing an often-used clause in our state’s election law that lets a person vote if two election judges personally recognize them. Under this bill, even if a person may have voted at the same local VFW hall or elementary school for 40 years, their friends and neighbors who serve as election judges would be forced to deny them their right to vote merely because they didn’t show up with their driver’s license. And if these election judges don’t deny them their right to vote, the election judges will be breaking the law.

4. 

   Arcturus on February 24, 2006 at 1:06 pm

   Philippines president declares emergency amid coup fears

   President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declared a state of emergency in the Philippines today as she struggled with a reported coup plot and a possible repeat of the popular revolts that ousted two of her predecessors.

   Clashes erupted as police used water cannons to disperse about 5,000 protesters defying a ban on rallying at a shrine to the 1986 “people power” uprising that toppled dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The military barricaded its camps to keep troops from joining the demonstrations and detained an army general allegedly involved in the takeover plot.   {snip}

   She claimed the military had quashed a coup plot by some military officers and their men. The military has played strong roles in the two “people power” revolts and has a recent history of restiveness.

   “There were a few who tried to break from the armed forces chain of command, to fight the civilian government and establish a regime outside the constitution. We crushed this attempt.

   “As commander in chief, I control the situation,” said Arroyo, who held a pre-dawn emergency meeting of her national security council as the crisis threatened to spiral out of control. “My countrymen, I ask all of you to remain calm.”

   She stopped short of declaring martial law, a sensitive issue in a country where Marcos used it to rule by decree. {snip}

   Teodoro Casino, a left-wing leader, called the declaration “draconian” and said it was evidence that the government was headed towards “iron-handed rule”.

   “This could lead to a crackdown … against the opposition forces even if they’re not engaged in any illegal activity,” said Casino, who said anti-Arroyo protests would not end.

5. 

   CabinGirl on February 24, 2006 at 1:13 pm

   Scientific proof that sex with a partner is 400% better than without: newscientist.com

   • 

     ask on February 24, 2006 at 1:15 pm

     Yup, Keith Olbermann had fun with that one last night.

     • 

       CabinGirl on February 24, 2006 at 1:18 pm

       I guess I gotta start watching tv…

   • 

     maryb2004 on February 24, 2006 at 1:23 pm

     400%

     A lot of people are going to have to re-think their sex lives.  

6. 

   ask on February 24, 2006 at 1:17 pm

   Uganda goes to the polls amid claims of rigging

   Ugandans have gone to the polls to vote in the country’s first multi-party presidential and parliamentary elections in more than 25 years.
   Despite campaign violence and intimidation that left at least three people dead, election day passed off peacefully, although the opposition party claimed “multiple irregularities” such as voter intimidation and missing ballot papers.
   Previous elections have been more violent. In 2001, Rukungiri, western Uganda, was the scene of violence and intimidation of opposition supporters but by the close of polling in this small town nestling among banana plantations, there was no sign of a repeat of trouble.

7. 

   ask on February 24, 2006 at 1:21 pm

   New U.N. Rights Panel Is Proposed

   UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. unveiled a proposal for a new human rights panel Thursday aimed at penalizing member countries that violate human rights, but the measure barely satisfied many diplomats and advocacy groups and prompted the United States to demand new negotiations.
   Secretary-General Kofi Annan portrayed the Human Rights Council, which would replace the Human Rights Commission, as the best possible outcome despite its flaws. “Yes, it’s not everything we asked for, but it is a credible basis to move ahead,” he told reporters.
   Annan said he hoped the proposal would be approved by the General Assembly next week so the new panel could begin work in June.

   U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton said the proposal did not include provisions the United States wanted that were intended to keep human rights violators off the council. “The strongest argument in favor of this draft is that it is not as bad as it could be,” he said.

   Human rights groups grudgingly accepted the new body, saying it was a marginal improvement that could be built on, and that more negotiations would not necessarily make it better, and could risk making it worse.
   “It falls short of what we wanted, but it is significantly better than the [current] commission,” said Kenneth Roth, the executive director of New York-based Human Rights Watch.
   He called the negotiation process “death by a thousand cuts,” and warned that the whole text could unravel if talks began anew. “Why would the U.S. think that they can do better now than they have done over the last several months?” he asked.
   (more)

   • 

     ask on February 24, 2006 at 1:23 pm

     U.S. Urged to OK Plan for New U.N. Council

     UNITED NATIONS — The United States came under pressure from key human rights groups to accept a compromise proposal to replace the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission with a new Human Rights Council.
     Ten advocacy groups sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday urging the United States to support the proposal. They called it “a concrete step in the right direction,” even though it wasn’t as strong as they had hoped, and warned that trying to change it “will not lead to a better result.”
     The letter was in response to comments from U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, who questioned whether the draft resolution would keep human rights abusers off the new council _ a key U.S. goal _ and raised the possibility of new negotiations.

8. 

   ask on February 24, 2006 at 1:29 pm

   US drive stalls for quick UN vote on Darfur force

   UNITED NATIONS, Feb 23 (Reuters) – The United States has found no support in the U.N. Security Council for a resolution before the end of this month on a future U.N. force in Sudan’s Darfur region, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said on Thursday.
   The Bush administration has been pushing the 15-nation council to quickly adopt a resolution calling for an international peacekeeping force to help end the violence in Darfur, taking over from some 7,000 African Union troops already there.
   But at a meeting on Thursday, all other council members argued a resolution should come only after African Union foreign ministers make a final decision on a handover, expected in early March, said diplomats present at that meeting.

   Prior to an AU move, everyone but Washington “agreed the council shouldn’t be seen to be prejudging that decision,” said one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting took place behind closed doors.
   “There’s not a lot of enthusiasm about it from anybody else on the council,” acknowledged Bolton, who holds the council’s rotating presidency through the end of this month. “If there is no resolution in February, it won’t be because we didn’t try as hard as we could.”
   “Our view is that the deteriorating security situation in Darfur requires us to move forward,” Bolton said, predicting the Sudanese government in Khartoum as well as the African Union would eventually agree to a shift to a U.N. force.

   The head of the AU mission in Sudan, Baba Gana Kingibe, acknowledged as much on Wednesday saying in a statement the transition to a U.N. mission was inevitable in the long run.
   But Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol, speaking the same day, said his government rejected such a plan.
   The United Nations has already begun contingency planning for a takeover, but the planning process is expected to take a few weeks, and Bolton said he hoped that process, as well, could be sped up.

9. 

   Arcturus on February 24, 2006 at 1:38 pm

   Bush at the cabinet meeting:

   This deal wouldn’t go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.”
   

   See? The man actually can mean what he says on occasion . . .