Fear and Loathing on Television

Oh, the national American media.

Can’t investigate massive electoral fraud.

Can’t investigate the big corporations and their rape of the environment.

But oh, can they air a sensational video made by a mass murderer–thus victimizing the survivors of his massacre and the families of the victims all over again.

No, I won’t post the disgraceful video Cho Seung-Hui made and the mailed while in the middle of his killing spree…but I guess my natural reticence to air something so disgusting and gruesome disqualifies me to be a member of the esteemed Fourth Estate.

The hypocrites are out in force, of course–including Curmudgette on MyLeftWing, whose sensitivity to online threats and real world violence against women apparently doesn’t extend to the pain of the survivors and families of the victims.

(CNN) — Angry students, faculty and loved ones urged the media to focus on the 32 victims of Monday’s shootings on the Virginia Tech campus, not the twisted words and images of the man who gunned them down.

Peter Read, father of victim Mary Read, pleaded for media outlets to stop broadcasting the images that Cho Seung-Hui mailed on the day of the shooting.

“It’s a second assault on us,” he said. “It’s a second assault on our children. Please put the focus back where it belongs: on these wonderful, vibrant, young human beings who were bringing so much to this world.”

“It’s made victims out of many of us a second time,” Virginia Tech professor Richard Shyrock said on CNN amid a plea for the network to reconsider its decision to air the photographs and rambling, angry videos.

The package was mailed after two people were killed at a dormitory early Monday and before Cho entered the university’s Norris Hall and exacted the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman in U.S. history.

NBC broadcast some of the angry images and video clips from the package and other media outlets — including CNN — quickly followed suit.

Doctoral student Ken Stanton, 29, said he resented that Cho was getting airtime while many of the victims, such as his friend, Jeremy Herbstritt, remained anonymous.
“I’m sick of it,” he said. “It’s like you can’t get away from it — every time I walk by a TV, there it is.”

CNN Story

A list of Cho’s victims can be found here.

Please visit my revived blog at The Blogging Curmudgeon

Democrats Boldly Respond to Virginia Tech Massacre, Supreme Court Step to Ban Abortion

Just kidding.

The Democrats are doing no such thing.

But I had you fooled there for a second, didn’t I?

But remember, no matter how bad the Democrats are, no matter how many of your fundamental human rights they surrender (never to be reclaimed),the Republicans are always worse.

So, uh, vote Democratic…so you can have bold, decisive leadership from Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., took no position on two of the hottest social issues in America today — guns and abortion — in a week when those subjects were brought before the public in quite compelling ways.

Took no position.  Uh…

Asked about this morning’s historic and unprecedented decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a state ban on an abortion procedure, Pelosi — longtime backer of abortion rights — said, “This is an issue I need to review.” Reid immediately changed the subject to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. “That’s what it brings to my mind,” Reid said.

Well, maybe they need time to…you know…review it.  But surely Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, has a position on gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre?  Right?  Right?

Two days after the slaughter of 32 innocents on the campus of Virginia Tech by a shooter with two handguns, Pelosi demurred on whether Congress was in any mood to examine gun control laws.

“The mood in Congress is one of mourning, sadness and the inadequacy of our words” to help the bereaved, Pelosi said.

Thanks, Nancy.  You’re a real tiger.

ABC News by Jake Tapper

Visit The Blogging Curmudgeon for more curmudgeonliness.

The Fox Democrats: "Scary liberals, losers or enablers"?

Promoted by Steven D

Cross-posted from MyLeftWing
.

The quotes in the headline are from “The Real Fox News Democrats”, the top feature story in today’s Salon, by Alex Koppelman–and while I don’t agree with everything he wrote, Koppelman  got me thinking.

Koppelman has attacked many of the Democrats who appear on Fox–the paid commentators, the “regulars”–as belonging to one of three types:

It sounds harsh, but think of most of the Fox Democrats, at least those who appear on the opinion shows, which take up half the network’s airtime, as one of three types. They are either scary liberals, losers or enablers.

Harsh, but fair and balanced.

Koppelman continues:

…Fox also has a stable of regular commentators, some under contract to the network, who pop up frequently as representatives of the Democratic or progressive viewpoint. They do not appear to know what they have gotten into. Though these Democrats tell Salon they are doing their best to reach out and sway potential voters, they often seem to be used to further a conservative political agenda, fulfilling one of several roles that ultimately just helps the network’s right-of-center hosts make their arguments against liberals.

Oh, let’s just say it: Alan Colmes is a wimp, and Sean Hannity beats the guy to a pulp on a regular basis.  I’m surprised Fox doesn’t make Colmes wear a “Dukakis ’88” t-shirt and fake devil horns.

Koppelman is not arguing that Democrats should not appear on Fox; he is only pointing out that those people Fox News has chosen to represent the Democratic point of view, such as Alan Colmes, Patrick Caddell, Susan Estrich, and Bob Beckel, are simply not effective in doing so.

Gee, you’d think that was deliberate on the part of Fox or something.

What I find most interesting about Koppelman’s article in today’s Salon is that Fox News hires Democrats who are “enablers” of the Republicans.  For example, Fox recently hired two failed senate candidates, Harold Ford, a Tennessee Democrat, and former Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

“Fair and balanced”, right?

But as Koppelman points out:

this case is actually just another example of how Fox’s choices of Democrats help to skew the very terms of discourse in favor of conservatives; Ford’s politics are just left of George Will’s, while Santorum lists slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.”

In other words, the person “on the left” would comfortably fit into Reagan’s Republican Party, circa 1988, and the person “on the right” would fit in with–well, best not think about Rick “Man On Dog” Santorum any more than you have to (especially if you haven’t had your breakfast yet).

Democratic and liberal bloggers have already successfully lobbied for Democrats to boycott Fox for a presidential candidate debate that was to have taken place in Nevada this August, and MLWer Field Negro has written a passionate diary denouncing the efforts of the Congressional Black Caucus to have Fox sponsor Democratic presidential debates Oh No They Didn’t!  Our own Maryscott O’Connor has appeared on Fox television and radio programmes.

And now the question:  Is it time for Democrats in particular, and for liberals and progressives in general,  to boycott Fox altogether?  Is it hopeless to try and get the progressive point of view across on a network that is so obviously, deliberately skewed?

I take the point of view of Matt Stoller of MyDD.com:

“As long as you’re willing to treat Fox News as a political adversary, and you think you can use Fox News to further your arguments, you should do it, says Matt Stoller, a blogger at MyDD.com and a leader of the charge against the debates. “But don’t go on there assuming that Fox News is a neutral news outlet.”

Damn right.  Show up on Fox with your sword and shield, ready to fight for progressive and liberal causes.  Show no mercy and ask for none, because, as Scott Norvell, the Fox London Bureau chief reminds us:

“Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally,” wrote Norvell, “and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly.”

Now on to the poll….

When Winning is Losing: Why the GOP is Scared of Winning the Abortion Battle

Newsweek reports that the GOP isn’t all that thrilled with its recent “success” in getting abortion outlawed in the state of South Dakota:

Why such reticence to embrace glad tidings? After all, the abortion issue has been good to the Republican Party. It has energized Roman Catholic and evangelical grass-roots activists and allowed the GOP to paint pro-choice Democrats as cultural extremists, out of step with Main Street and the heartland. But a recent flurry of activity on abortion is making Republican politicians nervous. With states moving to restrict abortion and the Supreme Court drawing closer to the day when it might actually reverse Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing a woman’s right to an abortion, GOP leaders see big political risks.

They may be in the awkward position of getting more than they asked for. The South Dakota law, for instance, would allow abortions only to save the life of the mother, not in cases of rape or incest. That is further than most Americans want to go. By a roughly two-to-one margin, polls show, people want to uphold the basic abortion right enshrined in Roe v. Wade, even if they approve of some restrictions, like parental notification. “I’m pro-life, but you can’t wear the thing out,” says Clarke Reed, the legendary architect of the GOP in Mississippi. “I’m worried about it.” With reason: his own state legislature is moving in a direction similar to South Dakota’s.

Oh, so opposing abortion was just a political tactic for the GOP, a manouevre to rouse the rabble…and a tool that would be forever useful because they knew they’d never actually win it…but this is an example of when winning is losing and always losing on an issue is always winning.

The GOP really want to keep abortion legal so they can use it as a fundraising tool and a way to stir up their nutso Christofascist core supporters…but NO WAY IN HELL do they want to give those whack jobs an actual legislative victory!

So NOW is the time for Democrats to strike on this issue, right…I mean, since public sentiment is firmly behind the traditional Democratic position of keeping abortion universally legal and safe, and the Republicans are obviously out-of-touch extremists?

Nope–once again, our beloved Democratic “strategerists” are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory AND deny women their fundmental human rights–what Washington insiders call a “twofer”.

“Republicans are going to be the ones who look like extremists,” says former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his seat in 2004 after being beaten up on the abortion issue for years. That does not mean, however, that Democrats are rushing to call attention to the Republicans’ dilemma. In the upcoming midterm elections, the Democrats don’t plan to spend a dime on ads highlighting the abortion issue, according to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the savvy Chicago pol who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

That word, “savvy”? Stop using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Wait, it gets better…not only are the Democratic “strategerists” not planning on sounding the advance when the enemy have an exposed flank, but they are busy sounding the retreat!

Indeed, the Democrats are going through some soul-searching of their own over abortion.

Translation: They’re trying to figure out a graceful way to tell the women who’ve given their support more to Democrats than to Republicans that, sorry, honey, but you’re just going to have to be a second-class citizen and give up control over your body so we can win the Bubba vote .

…a prominent pro-lifer, Bob Casey, is running for the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. The Democrats’ rising star, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, prefers to cast abortion in terms of parental responsibility. “Even as we defend this right,” he says, “it’s important for us to acknowledge the moral dimension to the choice that’s made.”

Translation: Democrats are competing to see who can win the 2008 Republican Sound-A-Like contest. They’ll win the love of those wild-eyed Christian fundies yet!

Message to Republicans from Senator Obama and Representative Emanuel and Senator-to-Be Casey: DON’T WORRY. We’ve got your backs! We’ll make sure you NEVER have to worry about being called any nasty names over the abortion issue, nor pay a political price for your foolish encouragement of the fundamentalist Christian nutjobs who didn’t realise you were just using them to grab political power.

You know, watching the Democratic “leadership” like Rahm Emanuel in action is like watching a man who is getting mugged…the robber drops the gun…and the victim politely says, “Oh, let me get that for you”, leans down, picks it up…and hands it back to the robber.

There’s a reason I don’t write fiction–because I could never, ever make up stuff as amazing as this.

Cross-Posted at The Blogging Curmudgeon

F Is For Fascist

There’s a new film out entitled “V for Vendetta”, and it has right-wing (i.e., pro-fascist) film critics like Michael Medved frothing at the mouth.

The whole theme of the film, V says that blowing up buildings can change the world. Is that really a message that we should welcome right now? We`re engaged in a war on terror. There are people who are exposing their bodies and their lives to terrorists every day to try to make us safer. Hollywood has yet to make a film about the heroic role of American counterterrorist activities. And yet they`ve made several films that express sympathy and in this case treat as heroic terrorist activity.

This actually could lead young people to vandalism at best and some real terrorist incidents at worst.

…V is for venal, vicious, vapid and verminous.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11857813/ (Interview with Medved by Tucker Carlson)

What’s the plot of this dastardly film? Why, it stars Hugo Weaving as V, a masked freedom fighter/terrorist (remember, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter) who blows up buildings (with people in them) as a way of fighting a fascist government that has seized control of a future Great Britian. V rescues a young woman (Natalie Portman) from the torture chambers of the fascists and enlists her aid in his ultimate plot: blowing up the British Houses of Parliament, which have become the centres of evil.

Well, the French Resistance used acts of terror to fight the Nazi occupation during World War Two. The Zionists used acts of terror (including blowing up the King David Hotel in Tel Aviv on July 22nd, 1946, killing 92 people and wounding 58) to drive out the British occupying authorities from Palestine so the Zionists could establish the modern State of Israel. And the Founders of the American Republic organised an army that killed British troops (and Hessian mercenary soldiers) by the thousands. And of course the Iraqi terrorists who are killing American and British soldiers, as well as their own countrymen in Iraq today, are called “freedom fighters” by some. The September 11, 2001 attack on the United States, which claimed nearly 3,000 lives, was condemned as an act of terrorism

Quite simply, what would you do if a fascist government seized control of your country? Would you fight “by any means necessary”?

Anyway, “V for Vendetta” is, at the end of the day, just a movie–and one that brings up an important question: when is violence an acceptable means to fight for freedom? Who defines and decides what is “freedom” and what means are moral?

My own answer would be: a freedom fighter targets the leaders of an oppressive government or occupying authority and uniformed soldiers–not innocent men, women, and children. When you start killing non-combatants, you cross the line from “freedom fighter” to “terrorist”. That’s why it’s state-sponsored terrorism when the US drops bombs on a city like Fallujah, knowing that those bombs will kill civilians…and why directing those two jet liners into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, was terrorism.

What’s YOUR answer?

Why MaryScott O’Connor Is Wrong on Darfur

Recently, MaryScott O’Connor, the founder and proprietor of “MyLeftWing”, has exhorted the blogosphere to “wake the fuck up” about the ongoing slaughter of civilians in Darfur, a region in southern Sudan.  MSOC cited with approval a recent New York Times article by the neocon author Nicolas Kristof, calling for more extensive American/European intervention in Sudan’s internal political situation.

Quite frankly, and with all due respect to MSOC and her obvious desire to take action in the face of a human tragedy that has claimed the lives of between 30,000 and 300,000 people and displaced perhaps two million more as refugees, I am appalled at MSOC’s uncritical acceptance of Kristof’s proposals, and have undertaken to rebut Kristof’s proposals one by one (or rather, MSOC’s summarisation of them).

ON EDIT: I CORRECTED THE FIGURES ON THE NUMBER OF DEAD IN DARFUR TO REFLECT VARYING ASSERTIONS, WITH THE LOWEST PUBLISHED FIGURE BEING 30,000 AND THE HIGHEST BEING 300,000.

In case it’s just too painful to read Kristof’s entire article, let me summarise his MOST excellent observations about what needs to happen – and how WE can help MAKE it happen

MSOC’s “Wake the Fuck Up!” Diary

First: Financial support for the African Union peacekeeping

Already done.  The AU needs more troops, not more money, but the African countries don’t want to get more deeply involved.

Second: Expanded U.N. security force in Sudan

Sudan’s government said that it adamantly opposes this expanded force and that it will make Sudan a “graveyard” for these troops.  Oh, and there’s also that little issue of international sovereignty (the UN can only send in troops when it’s invited), plus the issue of where the troops will be drawn.  The US?  None to spare in the numbers that are needed.  What would it take, anyway, to stabilise the situation?  10,000 troops?  30,000?  More?  Who will contribute these troops, if not the Americans.  The Brits?  Sorry, none to spare–too busy propping up the US in Afghanistan.  The Germans?  I was based in Germany, had lots of NATO joint exercises with the Germans, field trained with their officers, and they are HOPELESS–the battle-hardened Sudanese would chew a German force into itty little bits.  Well, the French are better, but the French aren’t going to send 10,000 troops into Sudan–unless they’re promised lots and lots of oil.  There are no “UN troops”–the UN takes its troops from contributions from the armies of nation-states.  No government has volunteered, or will volunteer, to send ten thousand of its best-trained troops into Darfur for this ill-defined mission (stop everybody fighting…and then what?).

Sudan threatens to pull out of AU
Friday 03 March 2006 5:22 PM GMT

A Sudanese minister has said his country might pull out of the African Union if the AU’s Peace and Security Council approves replacement of the AU force in Darfur with a UN force, Aljazeera reports.

Alsammani al-Wasilla, Sudan’s minister of state for foreign affairs, has reiterated Khartoum’s rejection of the proposal for deployment of international troops in Darfur, Aljazeera’s correspondent in Khartoum said on Friday

AU foreign ministers are to meet on 10 March in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to decide on the transition, agreed upon earlier in principle.

Earlier, Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, warned Darfur would become a “graveyard” for any foreign military contingent entering the region against Khartoum’s will.

AP has quoted the top UN envoy in Sudan as saying that the Sudanese government has launched a campaign to stop a UN force from taking over peace-keeping duties from AU troops.
On Tuesday, Jan Pronk said an anti-UN climate is heating up strongly in the Sudanese capital, with threats and warnings, and fear that handing over to a UN force would put Sudan “in the same situation as Iraq a couple of years ago”.

On 12 January, ambassadors on the AU’s Peace and Security Council agreed in principle to hand over peace-keeping to the UN but left a final decision to a ministerial meeting scheduled for Friday.

Al-Jazeera Story

Third: Create no fly zone. Sudan is bombing its own people. Make it a no fly zone and tell them if they violate it we’ll bomb the everloving SHIT out of their airplanes. Their AIR FORCE.

Um, again–who is “we”?  The UN hasn’t got an air force.  Who has one?  NATO?  Ok, so that’s the French, the Brits, or the Americans.  So MSOC is endorsing Kristof’s proposal that NATO, or an individual nation-state like the US (maybe that’s “we”) conduct a unilateral attack on Sudan in violation of the UN charter and in violation of the national sovereignty of Sudan.  Attacking Sudan’s air force would be an act of war.  And this is exactly what the United States did in Iraq.  The UN is not going to pass a resolution endorsing a “no fly zone”, anyway, so this would have to be done outside the UN.  Not only that, but “we” will need the cooperation and goodwill of the Sudanese government to  broker and  maintain  peace within the borders of Sudan–and that’s going to be  impossible to do once we “bomb the shit” out of  their air force.  Governments tend to  hold grudges against nations  who destroy their air force.

Fourth: The House should pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which would impose sanctions and pressure on Sudan to stop the violence.

The United States has had total sanctions against Sudan since 1997.  The violence has escalated since then.  You can’t threaten somebody with a cessation of trade if you don’t trade with them.

The United States has imposed economic sanctions against Sudan since 1997, prohibiting trade and investment by U.S. businesses in Sudan. In April 2004, as part of a strategy to encourage the Sudanese peace process, the U.S. did not impose additional sanctions under the 2002 Sudan Peace Act.

Department of Energy Report on Sudan

Fifth, Mr. Bush should use the bully pulpit. He should talk about Darfur in his speeches and invite survivors to the Oval Office. He should wear a green ”Save Darfur” bracelet — or how about getting a Darfur lawn sign for the White House? (Both are available, along with ideas for action, from www.savedarfur.org.) He can call Hosni Mubarak and other Arab and African leaders and ask them to visit Darfur. He can call on China to stop underwriting this genocide.

Sudan harbours five suspects in a 1995 assassination attempt on Mubarak that nearly succeeded.  I rather doubt he’s going to be making a jaunt to Sudan any time soon.  And Bush has absolutely no leverage whatsoever with the Chinese.  What if the Chinese tell Bush to get bent? What then?  Does Bush threaten to cut off US trade with China?  Threaten to intervene militarily in Sudan?  Attack Chinese shipping and industries in Sudan’s ports?  Sounds a bit risky to me.

Sixth, President Bush and Kofi Annan should jointly appoint a special envoy to negotiate with tribal sheiks. Colin Powell or James Baker III would be ideal in working with the sheiks and other parties to hammer out a peace deal. The envoy would choose a Sudanese chief of staff like Dr. Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, a leading Sudanese human rights activist who has been pushing just such a plan with the help of Human Rights First.

The Sudanese sheikhs don’t trust Westerners.  They look back on decades and even centuries of exploitation at the hands of Europeans and Americans and remember it all.  The Sudanese sheikhs might trust an African–might–but what would the African envoy have to offer them?  Not only that, but unless the Sudanese government is brought into the process (and it’s NOT interested), the sheikhs are going to (correctly) conclude that the envoy has no power to enforce the brokered agreement.  I suspect Kristof has only proposed this last bit to help interject American influence into oil-rich southern Sudan:

Sudan contains proven reserves of 563 million barrels of oil, more than twice the 262 million barrels estimated in 2001. Because much of Sudanese oil exploration has been limited to the central and south-central regions, Sudanese Energy Ministry representatives estimate proven reserves at 700 million barrels and total reserves at five billion barrels, including potential reserves in northwest Sudan , the Blue Nile Basin , and the Red Sea area in eastern Sudan . Oil production has risen steadily since the completion of an export pipeline in July 1999. Crude oil production averaged 343,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2004, up from 270,000 bbl/d during 2003. In December 2004, Sudanese Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz announced that oil production will likely increase to 500,000 bbl/d in 2005. Sudanese production may reach 750,000 bbl/d by late 2006 if increases in output progress as planned.

Exploration and development of Sudan ‘s oil resources has been highly controversial. International human rights organizations have accused the Sudanese government of financing human rights abuses with oil revenues, including the mass displacement of civilians near the oil fields. Factional fighting in the South and rebel attacks on oil infrastructure have kept oil production and exploration from reaching full potential to date. In October 2004, for example, the Sudanese government prevented a militia attempt to sabotage the country’s main oil export pipeline.

The recent peace agreement between the government and the SPLA will likely lead to substantial investment in both production facilities and new exploration initiatives in the country. In January 2005, after the official signing of the CPA, Total SA, Marathon Oil Corporation, and the Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Company renewed their exploration rights in southern Sudan .
Department of Energy Report on Sudan

Cross-posted at MyLeftWing and The Blogging Curmudgeon

ON EDIT: I CORRECTED THE FIGURES ON THE NUMBER OF DEAD IN DARFUR TO REFLECT VARYING ASSERTIONS, WITH THE LOWEST PUBLISHED FIGURE BEING 30,000 AND THE HIGHEST BEING 300,000.

Domino’s Pizza Founder Seeks to Build New City Governed by "God’s Will"

The American Taliban are climbing out from underneath their rocks these past few weeks:  First,they sought to outlaw abortions in South Dakota and Mississippi, and now uberwealthy American Taliban mullah Thomas Monaghan is seeking to build an entire town based on “Catholic principles”.

The town, as Monaghan describes it, would be virtually indistinguishable from a village governed by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Cross-posted at MyLeftWing (http://www.boomantribune.com) and The Blogging Curmudgeon (http://thebloggingcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/)

Or more properly, indistinguishable from the Republic of Gilead (formerly the United States) in Margaret Atwood’s novel “The Handmaid’s Tale”. Atwood intended “The Handmaid’s Tale” as a caution against religious fundamentalists–in Atwood’s 1985 novel, Handmaids are women entirely stripped of human rights, reduced to walking wombs whose only purpose is to bear children.

Who knew that the American Taliban–religious fundamentalists who want to take the United States out of the 21st century and back to a pre-Enlightenment vision of society ruled by “Christian” principles–would read “The Handmaid’s Tale” and think it was an instruction manual?

Pizza Magnate Seeks Catholic-Governed Town

By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writer
Wed Mar 1, 2:08 PM ET
If Domino’s Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan has his way, a new town being built in Florida will be governed according to strict Roman Catholic principles, with no place to get an abortion, pornography or birth control.

The pizza magnate is bankrolling the project with at least $250 million and calls it “God’s will.”

Civil libertarians say the plan is unconstitutional and are threatening to sue.

The town of Ave Maria is being constructed around Ave Maria University, the first Catholic university to be built in the United States in about 40 years. Both are set to open next year about 25 miles east of Naples in southwestern Florida.

The town and the university, developed in partnership with the Barron Collier Co., an agricultural and real estate business, will be set on 5,000 acres with a European-inspired town center, a massive church and what planners call the largest crucifix in the nation, at nearly 65 feet tall. Monaghan envisions 11,000 homes and 20,000 residents.

During a speech last year at a Catholic men’s gathering in Boston, Monaghan said that in his community, stores will not sell pornographic magazines, pharmacies will not carry condoms or birth control pills, and cable television will have no X-rated channels.

Homebuyers in Ave Maria will own their property outright. But Monaghan and Barron Collier will control all commercial real estate in the town, meaning they could insert provisions in leases to restrict the sale of certain items.

“I believe all of history is just one big battle between good and evil. I don’t want to be on the sidelines,” Monaghan, who sold Domino’s Pizza in 1998 to devote himself to doing good works, said in a recent Newsweek interview.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060301/ap_on_re_us/catholic_town

Whether or not Monaghan’s looney scheme will succeed remains unclear, of course–certainly there will be a battle royal (at least we hope there will be) to prevent this. But this latest incident is just further proof that the American Taliban IS ON THE OFFENSIVE–and they mean to bring their fanatical vision into cruel reality.

Perhaps some people will think it is ENTIRELY coincidental that all of this happened only AFTER wimpy Senate Democrats allowed both Roberts and Alito to be elevated to the Supreme Court by that puppet of the Taliban, “President” Bush–but I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all. When Democrats waved the white flag before a single shot had been fired in the battle over the Roberts and Alito nominations, they emboldened the enemy.

And now the enemy–fanatical, relentless, funded by multinational corporations and fundamentalist billionaires–is on the move.

And of course a member of the Bush family is involved

Gov. Jeb Bush, at the site’s groundbreaking earlier this month, lauded the development as a new kind of town where faith and freedom will merge to create a community of like-minded citizens. Bush, a convert to Catholicism, did not speak specifically to the proposed restrictions.

Do you want to fight against the American Taliban?

Good. Then please contribute to the American Civil Liberties Union today if you’re not already a member! My wife and I are “Guardians of Liberty” who make regular monthly contributions to the ACLU, and in 2005 we celebrated our 20th anniversary as ACLU members.

The ACLU IS going to fight this un-American, un-Constitutional scheme–but they need YOUR help.

Here are our warriors in this battle:

http://www.aclu.org

The ACLU will fight for you–but you need to give them ammunition (i.e., money).

I Sold My Soul to Wal-Mart (But Not at a Low, Low Price…)

Andrew Young continues to disgrace himself. The former champion of social justice, who has been hobnobbing with Republicans in the past decade (because hey, our Andy wants to play for the winning team, and country club memberships and chauffeured limos cost money), has now run a sale on the remnants of his soul to Wal-Mart.

Cross-posted at Booman Tribune (http://www.boomantribune.com) and The Blogging Curmudgeon (http://thebloggingcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/).

Civil rights icon tapped to defend Wal-Mart

Civil rights leader and former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young will become the public face of a Wal-Mart-backed group whose aim is to combat criticism of the world’s largest retailer, the group said on Monday.

Young, who was an aide to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights protests of the 1960s and served as ambassador to the United Nations under President Jimmy Carter, will serve as chairman of Working Families for Wal-Mart’s national steering committee, the group said in a statement.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was among the financial backers of Working Families for Wal-Mart, a group of people “who understand and appreciate Wal-Mart’s positive impact on the working families of America,” according to its Web site.

“The critics have it wrong,” Young said in a statement. “For those who care about the poor it is time to step up, speak out and join this national discussion.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060227/bs_nm/retail_walmart_young_dc

Is there anything that money can’t buy in America? Well, at least Andy and Wal-Mart didn’t announce this devil’s bargain at Coretta Scott King’s funeral.

Nobody who read Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed or watched the documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price will be convinced by this garbage. But Young trades on his past to make a buck for himself and in the process, sells what’s left of his damaged soul.

Only in America can a former civil rights hero earn top dollar for convincing “working families” that what they need is not a living wage or decent health benefits. It’s access to cheap crap at “low low prices every day”.

If you want to know what Wal-Mart’s really about, try visiting WalMart Watch (http://www.walmartwatch.com), which linked to this story from the Columbus Dispatch:

A day after Wal-Mart pledged to spend more on workers’ health care, Ohio said the state’s largest employer had the most workers on goverment health insurance rolls.

In a report released today, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services said the state spent millions last year providing health care, food stamps and in some cases, cash assistance, to tens and thousands of workers of the state’s largest businesses and their dependents.
http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=168675

But actually, Andy Young sold out his principles a long time ago. Here’s his officially approved biography from the Operation Hope website:

Ambassador Young has served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations and as Co-Chair of the Atlanta Committee for the Centennial Olympic Games. He served two terms as Mayor of Atlanta, one of the fastest growing cities in the world, was elected Congressman three times, and is a leading figure in the civil rights movement. He currently serves on the boards of several Fortune 500 companies and was appointed by President Bill Clinton to Chair the $100-million Southern Africa Enterprise Development Fund. Ambassador Young is on the National Security Council Advisory Board, and remains active in numerous charitable activities and organizations.

http://www.operationhope.org/smdev/lf4.php?id=56

Here’s the thing–most people hear the name “Andy Young” and they think of the fellow who marched with Dr. King, was the American ambassador to the UN, a congressman, and mayor of Atlanta. But what they don’t realise is that at some point, Andy Young decided that the most important person in the world was…Andy Young. One doesn’t fight corporations by sitting on their board–I know that Andy portrays himself as working to change the system from the inside…which means that Dr. King should have run for the city council of Birmingham, Gandhi should have stuck with his legal career, and Henry David Thoreau should have run for Congress to work to get the poll tax changed instead of going to prison to protest it. Once you get inside the System, you don’t change it, it changes you…and it’s a bit hard to be a revolutionary when you’re wearing tailored suits and golfing with white Republicans who explain to you how they’d really, really like to provide health care to their workers but they just can’t afford it.

Dr. King himself wrote about the importance of fighting the System from the outside and not from the inside in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail (16 April 1963):

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored… The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.

http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

Wait, that’s not all Andy Young has been up to: He’s also helping disenfranchise poor blacks in Georgia by endorsing the voter ID requirements signed into law by Georgia’s Republican governor, Sonny Perdue:

Andrew Young is among those corrupt Democrats in sheep’s clothing. The vote thieves always say, “Andrew Young, who marched with Dr. King, sees nothing wrong with identification requirements.” Carter insulates himself from criticism by quoting Young. “It was very encouraging to us that Andy Young, for instance, says this will help minority voting instead of deterring it.”

http://www.blackcommentator.com/152/152_freedom_rider_vote_theft.html

Yes, that’s Jimmy Carter, the former President, who co-chaired the Commission on Election Reform with…no, this is not a joke, JAMES BAKER…yes, the same James Baker who is the consigliere to the Bush Family Mafia and who was instrumental in shutting down the Florida vote recount in 2000. And Andy Young is lending his iconic status as a civil rights hero to the wholesale disenfranchisement of black voters.

The Commission’s report proves that Conyers had every reason to be concerned. The commission addresses problems that don’t even exist. Their worst recommendation would make photo identification a requirement for voting. The commission rationale for promoting such nonsense is insulting and bizarre.

“Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.” (from the Commission Report)

No, voting is not as important as check cashing or traveling. It is more important. We don’t have the constitutional right to board a plane and no one fought and died to get the right to fly. It should be easier to enter a voting booth than it is to enter an airport.

It is obvious that poor black people would be hardest hit by this requirement. There are thousands of American citizens eligible to vote who do not have identification and are unable to get it. That is precisely why Republicans and co-opted Democrats think it is such a good idea.

It is immaterial that Young marched with Dr. King. In fact, his early history makes his support of disenfranchisement all the more shocking. Young is not just being used to cover Carter’s and Baker’s backsides, he is now praised by the Wall Street Journal, proof of wrongdoing if it ever existed.

“I accept the recounts that show George Bush won” – and says it’s time for fresh thinking. “[Let’s] ask what we do about low voter turnout and whether it’s the result of racial discrimination or not,” he told me. “I don’t think it is, since everyone is equally inconvenienced by how we vote.”

No, Rev. Mr. Young, everyone is not equally inconvenienced by the way we vote. White Ohioans had enough voting machines in their polling places and black Ohioans didn’t. White Floridians did not have to fear being labeled felons when they went to the polls, black Floridians did.

If Young’s history is being used to shut us up, we must ask very critical questions about him. Why did Andrew Young work with King in the first place? Was he a righteous man who wanted to end injustice, or did he only want a seat at the table for himself?

http://www.blackcommentator.com/152/152_freedom_rider_vote_theft.html

Opponents of Georgia’s voter ID law include Greg Mathis (famous as a television court judge), Representatives Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney, and John Conyers. Supporters include US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Wall Street Journal, and the Republican Party of Georgia.

And let’s not forget Andy’s trip to the Nike factories in Southeast Asia, where he proceeded to horrify labor rights groups by proclaiming the working conditions there “good”:

In an inspection report that was prepared in January for the company’s internal use only, Ernst & Young wrote that workers at the factory near Ho Chi Minh City were exposed to carcinogens that exceeded local legal standards by 177 times in parts of the plant and that 77 percent of the employees suffered from respiratory problems.

The report also said that employees at the site, which is owned and operated by a Korean subcontractor, were forced to work 65 hours a week, far more than Vietnamese law allows, for $10 a week.

Only five months ago, the company had taken out full page newspaper ads excerpting Andrew Young, the civil rights advocate and former United Nations representative, who had inspected 15 Nike factories last spring at Nike’s behest. After completing his two-week tour covering three countries, he informed Nike it was doing a “good job” in treating its workers, though he allowed it “should do better.” Young was widely criticized by human rights groups and labor groups for not taking his own translators and for doing slipshod inspections, an assertion he repeatedly denied.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/poli/nike/nike101-9.htm

I wonder if anybody has checked the Reverend Mister Young’s voter registration lately–has he formally changed to Republican, or does remaining a registered Democrat help his “street cred”? Certainly this is not the Andrew Young who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.–this is a different man who instead of speaking truth to power, sits on the boards of corporations with people who are the adversaries and exploiters of the poor. This is not the same idealistic young man who marched for civil rights, but a highly paid corporate shill.

A moment of silence, please, while we remember Andrew Young as he once was.

Dick Cheney Is My Wife’s Hero

Dick Cheney is my wife’s hero.

It all started with my wife’s car accident last week, just a couple of days before a drunken Vice President Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington on a hunting trip in Texas.

Annie (who is NOT a good driver) knocked over one of our neighbour’s flower planters. This is how I told her to break the news:

“Ultimately, I’m the woman who was holding the steering wheel of the car that rolled its wheel over the flower planter.”

Because taking responsibility is the ADULT thing to do.

Well, she wasn’t going to actually tell the neighbour directly–she was going to wait a few days and then take out a small classified advertisement on page sixteen and hope that the neighbour would eventually read about it.
Now, despite being a bad driver, Annie is a good person, and destroying the neighbour’s flower planter bothered her. Or rather, holding the steering wheel of the car that pushed the wheel over the flower bed, thus destroying it, bothered Annie. My wife couldn’t feel she was somehow responsible.

But then my wife’s hero, Dick Cheney, freed her from all that nagging guilt by shifting responsibility where it belonged for the accident–onto our neighbour!

    Shooting Victim Apologizes to Vice President

    Harry Whittington said Friday he was sorry for what Dick Cheney and his family have “had to go through” after the vice president shot him in a weekend hunting accident.

    The 78-year-old Bush-Cheney campaign donor spoke briefly to reporters upon his release from a Corpus Christi hospital, but he took no questions.

    Cheney sprayed Whittington with birdshot on his face and upper torso in Saturday’s hunting accident. Whittington suffered a mild heart attack Tuesday, doctors said, after a piece of birdshot in his body migrated to a heart muscle.

    Whittington, wearing a suit and tie, appeared with several bruises on his face and neck. His discharge from the hospital came earlier than expected.

    “My family and I are deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through this week,” Whittington said.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/17/cheney/index.html

In light of Mr. Whittington’s recent abject apology to Dick Cheney for being the victim of his shooting, Annie has decided to march over to the neighbor’s house and demand that she apologise to Annie for all the worry Annie’s been through since Annie ran over the neighbor’s flower planter. I mean, that woman has put my wife through HELL. Why did she put her planter on the kerb, anyway?

And yes, we’re thinking of suing the neighbour for emotional distress.

Cross-posted at my humble blog, http://thebloggingcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

When Dick Shot Harry

I know, the “Dick Cheney’s got a gun” story has been done to death (pardon the pun, and I wish Mr. Harry Whittington a full and speedy recovery), but the only way to eliminate temptation is to surrender to it.

I’m a teacher and I seek out “teachable moments”–and I found in Mr. Cheney’s recent Elmer Fuddian misadventures a VERY teachable moment.

More below the fold.
“Ultimately I’m the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry.”

This is Vice President Dick Cheney’s “mea culpa” during his “interview” on the Fox “news network”–assuming responsibility (sort of) for shooting his hunting companion, 78-year-old Harry Whittington, during a hunting trip in Texas. Cheney had refused public comment for several days after the interview, but “ultimately” bowed to public pressure and gave his half-hearted confession on the Republican Party’s official propaganda channel.

(The entire sordid story is here: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=59986)

My students and I parsed Cheney’s sentence today to see how it provides psychological distance from responsibility for the act. The comparison/contrast sentence was–

“I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy.” (That Bob Marley was a mensch!)

Oh, by the way, my lovely wife (who is an excellent physician but NOT a good driver) knocked over one of our neighbour’s flower planters. This is how I told her to break the news:

“Ultimately, I’m the woman who was holding the steering wheel of the car that rolled its wheel over the flower planter.”

Because taking responsibility is the ADULT thing to do.

Well, she’s not actually going to tell the neighbour directly–she’s going to wait a few days and then tell the publisher of a small local newspaper, who will publish a tiny classified advertisement on page sixteen which my wife hopes our neighbour will read.

Cross-posted at http://thebloggingcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/