Robert Scheer: They Go or Obama Goes
1 hour ago
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Do the Cheneys agree with Alan Keyes that incest awaits kids of gay parents?
Haven't heard the RNC and the Cheneys and the Bush campaign express their outrage yet at this comment from one of their own. Even more fun, Keyes' comments came at one of the national rallies held the big religious right groups to fight marriage rights for gays.
U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes told a rally Saturday that incest was "inevitable" for children raised by gay couples because the children might not know both biological parents.Read More......
"If we do not know who the mother is, who the father is, without knowing all the brothers and sisters, incest becomes inevitable," Keyes told the Marquette Park rally held to oppose same-sex marriages.
"Whether they mean it or not, that is what will happen. If you are masked from your knowing your biological parents, you are in danger of encountering brothers and sisters you have no knowledge of."....
The "United We Stand -- Defending Marriage" rally, staged by the groups Illinois Family Institute and Concerned Women for America, featured a procession of speakers, including religious leaders from various cultures. Among the approximately 150 people present were families huddling to keep warm. The event is part of a 14-city Illinois tour to push for a state constitutional amendment denying recognition and benefits to gay civil unions, moves other states have made or are considering.
"Ex"-gay groups tell Cheneys to join them!
The "ex"-gays are the religious right front groups that say you can pray away the gay. Check out the last paragraph of this open letter they wrote to the Cheneys (I'm on their email list and just got it). Isn't that special? See, this is what Bush-Cheney get for touting out the gay card, they get people like these wackos publicly embracing them. Congrats. You can have the Cheneys.
Contact: Regina Griggs, PFOX Executive Director, 703-360-2225Read More......
News Advisory, October 14
An open letter to Dick and Lynn Cheney from Regina Griggs:
....Senator Kerry deliberately misled the American public as well as people who have unwanted same-sex attractions when he stated that people are born gay. He should know better.... The ex-gays are living proof that change is possible, and they also provided the staffs with educational information on former homosexuality, including a statement from the American Psychiatric Association that there are no "replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality." Ex-gays explained that although no one chooses same sex attractions, many men and women overcome unwanted same sex attractions every year.
Ex-gays also presented the Senators' offices with a Congressional resolution on tolerance for former homosexuals. The resolution calls for Congress to condemn intolerance against ex-gays and to affirm its commitment to a society that respects all people, including former homosexuals. Now who could be opposed to that? Yet both Senators have refused to state whether they support the resolution.
Homosexual activists like those working on the Kerry-Edwards team want "gay marriage" and civil unions in order to gain public affirmation. They think this will make them happy. Happiness requires hope, and real hope is the knowledge that many men and women overcome unwanted same-sex attractions every year, even those who believed at one time that they were born that way and had no choice.
Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, let me conclude by saying that I hope you'll sit down with PFOX someday and find kindred souls and new hope that you might not have known existed.
Zogby's latest
Pollster John Zogby:
"The third debate is now registering among voters and Kerry had a good day, leading by two points today alone. He now is behind by only two overall. He managed today to regain a good lead among 18-29 year olds (especially 18-24 year olds, who he will need on November 2 to win). He also has consolidated his lead among Hispanics and is now only yielding 12 points to Bush among Democrats.Read More......
"Kerry and Bush are tied among Catholics, a fascinating dynamic to watch this year. Kerry must win among Catholics to win this year. Kerry holds solid advantages among Moderates (51%-36%).
"The President is still on the short-end on his job performance and re-elect. Kerry leads among new voters (46%-42%), while the President holds a slight advantage among those who have already voted (46%-42%).
"Among Undecided voters, the President has a 34% positive job rating, 66% negative. And only 18% say he deserves to be re-elected to 39% who say it is time for someone new. Among this latter group, 99% say they are likely to vote.
“Not only has the race closed, but Kerry has opened a gender gap and has expanded his lead also among seniors (65+), single women and union members. Bush is still strong with investors and Born Again Christians. Where is Nader going?"
Thanks, Maureen
I'll confess: Maureen Dowd is not my favorite columnist at the NY Times. (Thomas Freidman is. Yes, I'm a globalization geek, I know.)
But I was raised as a Catholic. That's why this morning's column by Dowd is so important to me. I've been so absoultely disgusted with the so-called leadership at my church I don't go anymore. Those who were raised as I was understand how personally difficult it is to challenge your church leaders. I've long wanted a spiritual outlet, and I've often wanted it to be the church in which I grew up. Now of course, for reasons that make no moral sense to me, I feel excluded.
Catholic leaders tell me that if I support, as Dowd puts it, "the Catholic candidate and one-time Boston altar boy who carries a rosary and a Bible with him on the trail" I'm not a Catholic. If I support the war-mongering liar who supports executing mentally-ill 16-year-olds and guts funding for things like domestic violence prevention and welfare, I'm suddenly a good Catholic again.
It's no secret that the leadership of the Catholic church is still suffering from a credibility gap with many of its followers. I'm sure that some leaders in that church believe they still have an obligation to provide moral and spiritual guidance to their followers, regardless of current events. But when that guidance is so twisted, so obviously hypocritical as it is today, I'm even more convinced that the same arrogance and flawed judgement that allowed them to shield pedophiles and shame victims into silence is at work today, supporting the incumbent.
They've learned nothing.
Read More......
But I was raised as a Catholic. That's why this morning's column by Dowd is so important to me. I've been so absoultely disgusted with the so-called leadership at my church I don't go anymore. Those who were raised as I was understand how personally difficult it is to challenge your church leaders. I've long wanted a spiritual outlet, and I've often wanted it to be the church in which I grew up. Now of course, for reasons that make no moral sense to me, I feel excluded.
Catholic leaders tell me that if I support, as Dowd puts it, "the Catholic candidate and one-time Boston altar boy who carries a rosary and a Bible with him on the trail" I'm not a Catholic. If I support the war-mongering liar who supports executing mentally-ill 16-year-olds and guts funding for things like domestic violence prevention and welfare, I'm suddenly a good Catholic again.
It's no secret that the leadership of the Catholic church is still suffering from a credibility gap with many of its followers. I'm sure that some leaders in that church believe they still have an obligation to provide moral and spiritual guidance to their followers, regardless of current events. But when that guidance is so twisted, so obviously hypocritical as it is today, I'm even more convinced that the same arrogance and flawed judgement that allowed them to shield pedophiles and shame victims into silence is at work today, supporting the incumbent.
They've learned nothing.
Read More......
Jeb Bush KNEW
Associated Presss is reporting that JEB BUSH was told of serious flaws in the "felon voter list" that sought to prevent a list of mostly African-Americans from voting but avoided purging republican-leaning latino voters. Despite this knowledge, Bush himself pushed to purge them anyway. It isn't just Glenda Hood anymore. It goes up to the Governor.
Now, of course, Bush's press person calls this story "irrelevant" since the list isn't being used, thanks to pressure from legal watchdog groups, and yes, the media.
It's irrelevant that the Governor tried to keep African-Americans from voting in Florida? I can't imagine why this doesn't merit a criminal investigation. Perhaps some of those cops Jeb has going out intimidating older African-American voters might want to look into it.
Read More......
Now, of course, Bush's press person calls this story "irrelevant" since the list isn't being used, thanks to pressure from legal watchdog groups, and yes, the media.
It's irrelevant that the Governor tried to keep African-Americans from voting in Florida? I can't imagine why this doesn't merit a criminal investigation. Perhaps some of those cops Jeb has going out intimidating older African-American voters might want to look into it.
Read More......
The SCLM coverage
Did anyone else find it interesting that the US media was obsessed yesterday with the attacks on Christian churches in Iraq? Sure, it was a revolting attack but so were the US-led "precision strikes" that have leveled neighborhoods, killing innocent Iraqi women and children. The failed guns-for-weapons program, where the money men failed to show, has fallen off of the radar and we are now back into pounding neighborhoods into submission. I have to assume that this is the media being led by the nose by the Pentagon or the administration to get the Christian wingnuts excited about the war.
The next time you are watching news coverage of Iraq, look closely at what you see on TV. When was the last time you witnessed a news reporter actually reporting out in the field? It's probably been a while because they don't do it anymore. They're mostly limted to churning out bullshit pumped into them via DoD news briefs. US journalists are afraid to venture outside of the Green Zone and European news sources have pretty much pulled out of Iraq so the only reporters operating in the countryside are either embedded within US troops or they are Arab stations which have been heavily demonized by the administration for "bias" which may or may not be the case.
Since the US SCLM is also pandering to the right, check out some of the UK media outlets and see what some of the hot topics are that somehow have been ignored by the US media. Today it is being reported that Tony Blair is now allowing Star Wars to be installed in the UK. This comes right after the story of Blair being pressured by Bush to send elite UK forces to Baghdad to give the US extra manpower for the military offensive being prepared in Iraq. It also has something to do with Bush forcing Blair to taking some of the pressure off of Bush for the 90% problems in Iraq. Bush the bully, at it's best.
I've also noticed that both the AP and MSNBC (possibly others as well) include a photo of Army Reserve Sgt. Larry O. McCook, an African-American, in their stories about the unit in Iraq who refused a mission. For a liberal media, that looks like race baiting to me. There were nineteen men involved and they only show a photo of an African-American. Curious.
Read More......
The next time you are watching news coverage of Iraq, look closely at what you see on TV. When was the last time you witnessed a news reporter actually reporting out in the field? It's probably been a while because they don't do it anymore. They're mostly limted to churning out bullshit pumped into them via DoD news briefs. US journalists are afraid to venture outside of the Green Zone and European news sources have pretty much pulled out of Iraq so the only reporters operating in the countryside are either embedded within US troops or they are Arab stations which have been heavily demonized by the administration for "bias" which may or may not be the case.
Since the US SCLM is also pandering to the right, check out some of the UK media outlets and see what some of the hot topics are that somehow have been ignored by the US media. Today it is being reported that Tony Blair is now allowing Star Wars to be installed in the UK. This comes right after the story of Blair being pressured by Bush to send elite UK forces to Baghdad to give the US extra manpower for the military offensive being prepared in Iraq. It also has something to do with Bush forcing Blair to taking some of the pressure off of Bush for the 90% problems in Iraq. Bush the bully, at it's best.
I've also noticed that both the AP and MSNBC (possibly others as well) include a photo of Army Reserve Sgt. Larry O. McCook, an African-American, in their stories about the unit in Iraq who refused a mission. For a liberal media, that looks like race baiting to me. There were nineteen men involved and they only show a photo of an African-American. Curious.
Read More......
Election Day Will Be The Beginning Of The Fight, Not The End
The LA Times agrees with the NYT and what I've been saying for weeks, Cassandra that I am:
This election will not be decided on election day. (I'm assuming my quiet dream of a Kerry landslide comes to naught and things really are as close as they seem.)
"Mounting concerns about voter registration snafus, election machine defects and other kinds of problems that might contaminate the presidential election is spurring dozens of U.S. organizations to plan extraordinary efforts to scrutinize the polls on Nov. 2," writes the LA Times.
"More than 25,000 poll watchers, ranging from lawyers to computer experts, are expected outside and inside precincts to report problems and in some cases to intervene if they believe poll workers are violating voter rights or making technical mistakes."
Go to voteprotect.org to check out hundreds of voting irregularities this one group is tracking.
And face it, when lawyers are involved, lawsuits will be filed and the process will become protracted and ugly. But isn't that better than letting activist judges choose your President for you?
Read More......
This election will not be decided on election day. (I'm assuming my quiet dream of a Kerry landslide comes to naught and things really are as close as they seem.)
"Mounting concerns about voter registration snafus, election machine defects and other kinds of problems that might contaminate the presidential election is spurring dozens of U.S. organizations to plan extraordinary efforts to scrutinize the polls on Nov. 2," writes the LA Times.
"More than 25,000 poll watchers, ranging from lawyers to computer experts, are expected outside and inside precincts to report problems and in some cases to intervene if they believe poll workers are violating voter rights or making technical mistakes."
Go to voteprotect.org to check out hundreds of voting irregularities this one group is tracking.
And face it, when lawyers are involved, lawsuits will be filed and the process will become protracted and ugly. But isn't that better than letting activist judges choose your President for you?
Read More......
Even Military Families Agree More Troops Needed in Iraq
Duh, you say, since top military and civilian officials have all said we needed -- and need -- more troops to win the peace in Iraq. But it's good to know even the staunch pro-war, pro-Bush families of the military recognize reality.
The fascinating LA Times poll has a lot more interesting nuggets.
"While members of the military and their families strongly support the war in Iraq, a strong majority say the Administration underestimated the number of troops needed to win, according to a national poll of service men and women and their families.Sixty-two percent of a military sample polled by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey said the Bush administration had too few troops to Iraq. And respondents said the war has placed too much of a burden on inadequately trained and equipped National Guard and Reserve forces, who make up almost 50% of soldiers currently fighting in Iraq," reports the LA Times.
On hiding the coffins of fallen soldiers from the American people:
"The respondents also overwhelmingly disagreed with the Pentagon policy of barring photographs of flag-draped coffins being returned to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Fifty-one percent of the military sample said allowing photographs would increase respect for the sacrifices made by the military. Only 8% said it would reduce respect."
On whether Bush is taking care of ill veterans:
"Only 30% said they thought veterans were getting the health care they had been promised. And while 57% said that Pentagon-ordered extensions of service beyond enlistment dates were proper, 39%, a significant minority, said they were not."
On gays in the military:
"The poll's findings on attitudes toward gays in the military also showed striking differences by rank. Commissioned officers and their families opposed their inclusion by 53% to 39%. Noncommissioned officers and their families were also clearly opposed, by a 57% to 35% margin. But 50% of junior enlisted personnel said gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly, while 43% said they should not."
On women in the military:
"Once divisive, the military sample overwhelmingly approved of the work of women in the armed forces. Seventy-four percent said they performed as well as the men they served with, 10% said they did worse than men, and 7% said they did better than men."
Read More......
The fascinating LA Times poll has a lot more interesting nuggets.
"While members of the military and their families strongly support the war in Iraq, a strong majority say the Administration underestimated the number of troops needed to win, according to a national poll of service men and women and their families.Sixty-two percent of a military sample polled by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey said the Bush administration had too few troops to Iraq. And respondents said the war has placed too much of a burden on inadequately trained and equipped National Guard and Reserve forces, who make up almost 50% of soldiers currently fighting in Iraq," reports the LA Times.
On hiding the coffins of fallen soldiers from the American people:
"The respondents also overwhelmingly disagreed with the Pentagon policy of barring photographs of flag-draped coffins being returned to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Fifty-one percent of the military sample said allowing photographs would increase respect for the sacrifices made by the military. Only 8% said it would reduce respect."
On whether Bush is taking care of ill veterans:
"Only 30% said they thought veterans were getting the health care they had been promised. And while 57% said that Pentagon-ordered extensions of service beyond enlistment dates were proper, 39%, a significant minority, said they were not."
On gays in the military:
"The poll's findings on attitudes toward gays in the military also showed striking differences by rank. Commissioned officers and their families opposed their inclusion by 53% to 39%. Noncommissioned officers and their families were also clearly opposed, by a 57% to 35% margin. But 50% of junior enlisted personnel said gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly, while 43% said they should not."
On women in the military:
"Once divisive, the military sample overwhelmingly approved of the work of women in the armed forces. Seventy-four percent said they performed as well as the men they served with, 10% said they did worse than men, and 7% said they did better than men."
Read More......
The Everlasting Gob-Stopper
Willie Wonka invented a candy -- the Everlasting Gob-Stopper -- that kids could suck and suck and would never wear out, keeping them forever sated. Bush has invented the Never-Ending Terror Alerts.
Harper's Index (in the October issue) reminds us that Bush placed our country under an "elevated terror alert" more than two years ago. How many days -- not weeks or months, but days -- has the terror alert been relaxed back to regular levels? Not one. Not one day. Surely if we are always at an elevated terror alert, then that elevation is meaningless. It is simply the way of the world. We can't go back to sliding onto planes without being metal-detected or walking into the New york Stock Exchange without passing serious security.
But the only purpose of flashing lights that "raise" the terror alert whenever Bush's poll numbers fall is to terrorize the populace. (The recent school "scare" was especially evil.) When will someone call Bush on this fear-mongering?
Read More......
Harper's Index (in the October issue) reminds us that Bush placed our country under an "elevated terror alert" more than two years ago. How many days -- not weeks or months, but days -- has the terror alert been relaxed back to regular levels? Not one. Not one day. Surely if we are always at an elevated terror alert, then that elevation is meaningless. It is simply the way of the world. We can't go back to sliding onto planes without being metal-detected or walking into the New york Stock Exchange without passing serious security.
But the only purpose of flashing lights that "raise" the terror alert whenever Bush's poll numbers fall is to terrorize the populace. (The recent school "scare" was especially evil.) When will someone call Bush on this fear-mongering?
Read More......
Sometimes You Gotta Pay
Not everything is available for free on the Internet. (Or, if you prefer, the Internets.)
Harper's Oct. issue has a cover story/essay on the 9/11 Commission Report that runs counter to most other opinions. It's well worth reading. Writer Benjamin DeMott argues convincingly that the Commission's report is a whitewash -- they decided that everyone would share blame and therefore no one must shoulder the blame, no tough questions are asked and no one is taken to task by them.
Specifically, he says that Bush lied to the commission and the nation. And they let him.
Bush lied when he said the August 6 Daily brief was "historical in nature" when in fact it detailed current, active threats. Bush lied when no one told him there were Al Quaeda cells in the US. The August 6 report says so specifically; the acting deputy director of the CIA, John McLaughlin, and deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, Ben Bonk told Bush in September of 2000 BEFORE HE WON THE ELECTION that Americans would die in an attack by or inspired by Bin Laden; and the Bush/Cheney transition team was told that Al Quaeda had sleeper cells in more than 40 countries, including the U.S. There is more, of course.
DeMott feels that the Commission felt the country couldn't handle a direct grilling of Bush, of watching the President called on his lies -- they feared being seen as partisan and perhaps having their suggestions which could make a difference being dismissed as partisan. And so they let Bush go unchallenged and let his lies stand.
Read More......
Harper's Oct. issue has a cover story/essay on the 9/11 Commission Report that runs counter to most other opinions. It's well worth reading. Writer Benjamin DeMott argues convincingly that the Commission's report is a whitewash -- they decided that everyone would share blame and therefore no one must shoulder the blame, no tough questions are asked and no one is taken to task by them.
Specifically, he says that Bush lied to the commission and the nation. And they let him.
Bush lied when he said the August 6 Daily brief was "historical in nature" when in fact it detailed current, active threats. Bush lied when no one told him there were Al Quaeda cells in the US. The August 6 report says so specifically; the acting deputy director of the CIA, John McLaughlin, and deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, Ben Bonk told Bush in September of 2000 BEFORE HE WON THE ELECTION that Americans would die in an attack by or inspired by Bin Laden; and the Bush/Cheney transition team was told that Al Quaeda had sleeper cells in more than 40 countries, including the U.S. There is more, of course.
DeMott feels that the Commission felt the country couldn't handle a direct grilling of Bush, of watching the President called on his lies -- they feared being seen as partisan and perhaps having their suggestions which could make a difference being dismissed as partisan. And so they let Bush go unchallenged and let his lies stand.
Read More......
Abu Ghraib II
Yep, the first inklings of mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are surfacing. Ultimately, just as problematic for the military and Bush people involved will be the lies to cover it up.
"Many detainees at Guantánamo Bay were regularly subjected to harsh and coercive treatment, several people who worked in the prison said in recent interviews, despite longstanding assertions by military officials that such treatment had not occurred except in some isolated cases," writes the NYT.
And they'll pay because they didn't just lie to the media, they lied to Congress and Congress don't like that.
"In guided tours of Guantánamo provided to the news media and members of Congress, the military authorities contended that the system of rewards and punishments affected only issues like whether the inmates could be deprived of books, blankets and toilet articles. The interrogation sessions themselves, the officials consistently said, did not employ any harsh treatment but were devised only to build a trusting relationship between the interrogator and the detainee."
Obviously they don't know much about building trust.
Read More......
"Many detainees at Guantánamo Bay were regularly subjected to harsh and coercive treatment, several people who worked in the prison said in recent interviews, despite longstanding assertions by military officials that such treatment had not occurred except in some isolated cases," writes the NYT.
And they'll pay because they didn't just lie to the media, they lied to Congress and Congress don't like that.
"In guided tours of Guantánamo provided to the news media and members of Congress, the military authorities contended that the system of rewards and punishments affected only issues like whether the inmates could be deprived of books, blankets and toilet articles. The interrogation sessions themselves, the officials consistently said, did not employ any harsh treatment but were devised only to build a trusting relationship between the interrogator and the detainee."
Obviously they don't know much about building trust.
Read More......
New York Times endorses Kerry? Shocking!
Yes, but their thoughtful editorial both praises Kerry and effectively damns Bush with a catalog of ills. I would have been proud to write it myself. They remind us Bush came in with a promise - indeed a need -- to lead from the center since his presidency began "nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency," as they so cuttingly put it.
"The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.
"He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq."
It's well worth reading in full and sending to any undecideds (whoever they might be).
Read More......
"The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.
"He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq."
It's well worth reading in full and sending to any undecideds (whoever they might be).
Read More......
If he only had a brain...
Bush decided to take the offensive today on the military draft issue and, of course, totally fucked it up.
He first came out against the draft, then for it, then against it. He finally concluded his speech by saying a vote for him was the best way to AVOID a draft, which was simply a bizarre assertion to make - and more importantly, it was damn stupid. Bizarre in that how is a vote for Bush the best way to avoid a draft? Because if we vote for him we'll all die and that will mean we won't get drafted?
But even better, Bush has now put into play whether a vote for him will or won't help or hinder a draft. So now it's not only fair, but downright demanded, of journalists to investigate the facts and see whether a vote for Bush would truly make a draft less likely. Read More......
He first came out against the draft, then for it, then against it. He finally concluded his speech by saying a vote for him was the best way to AVOID a draft, which was simply a bizarre assertion to make - and more importantly, it was damn stupid. Bizarre in that how is a vote for Bush the best way to avoid a draft? Because if we vote for him we'll all die and that will mean we won't get drafted?
But even better, Bush has now put into play whether a vote for him will or won't help or hinder a draft. So now it's not only fair, but downright demanded, of journalists to investigate the facts and see whether a vote for Bush would truly make a draft less likely. Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Recent Archives
