Gay Anglican U.S. bishop enters into civil union

That ought to get the wackjobs in Nigeria and Virginia all riled up. From Reuters:

The openly gay U.S. Episcopal bishop at the center of the Anglican church's global battle over homosexuality, has entered into a civil union with his longtime partner at a private ceremony.

About 120 guests gathered at St. Paul's Church in New Hampshire for Saturday's ceremony for Bishop Gene Robinson and his partner of more than 19 years, Mark Andrew. The event was kept private out of respect for next month's worldwide Anglican conference, Robinson's spokesman, Mike Barwell, said on Sunday....

The 77 million-member Anglican Communion, a global federation of national churches, has been in upheaval since 2003 when the Episcopal Church consecrated Robinson as the first bishop known to be in an openly homosexual relationship in more than four centuries of church history....

Robinson has in the past received death threats and wore a bulletproof vest under his vestments at his consecration in 2003. Two uniformed police officers stood guard at Saturday's ceremony in the state capital Concord, said Barwell.

Good for him. Read the rest of this post...

Gas hits national average of $4 for the first time

Where's the talk of a national energy strategy? And I mean a real one.

The average price of regular gas crept up to $4 a gallon for the first time over the weekend, passing the once-unthinkable milestone just in time for the peak summer travel season.

Prices at the pump are expected to keep climbing, especially after last week's furious surge in oil prices, which neared $140 a barrel in a record-shattering rally Friday...

Of course, drivers in many parts of the country have already been paying well above that price for some time.

Why is that? I know that they always used to pay 4 times the price for gas in Europe that we pay in the states. But why? And now that US prices have surged, is it still 4x the price in Europe? I don't think so, but would anyone abroad like to weigh in on relative prices? Read the rest of this post...

John McCain is already getting angry

It's widely known that John McCain has a very bad temper. For the GOP, this is going to be a big problem between now and November.

According to Jonathan Martin, who closely monitors the GOP for the Politico, the general election campaign is already getting to McCain -- and it's barely just begun. Martin's article describes McCain's growing frustration with the media (yes, the media which once fawned all over him) and McCain's use of "stinging attacks" on Obama. But, the best line appears under McCain's photo:

It’s not clear that John McCain can contain his temper while battling both Barack Obama and the press.

Yes, the GOP has a big problem with its candidate.

This means only one thing: The Republican attack machine is going to be in overdrive and get more ugly than ever. As Jed reports, the smear attack against Obama have already started on McCain's website. Now, this election should be about the important issues facing our nation. It should be. But, since every issue across the spectrum works against McCain and the Republicans, we better be prepared for a full-scale assault of lies and fear-mongering.

This time, we're prepared to fight back -- hard. There's plenty of material available on John McCain and his not so perfect past that most Americans don't know yet -- but will. (And, yes, that includes Cindy McCain, too.)

In the meantime, it does seem only a matter of time before the American people see for themselves just how nasty and unhinged McCain is. He just can't control himself. Read the rest of this post...

Anti-gay ballot initiative in California could ban all marriages, straight ones included

This isn't uncommon, the religious right offering some anti-gay measure that is so broad it does lots of other damage. In Ohio a few years back, the anti-gay measure there ended up making parts of a state domestic violence law unconstitutional. The Ohio courts found that you can't protect single women from domestic violence, otherwise you'd be treating their domestic situation the same as for married women, and you can't do that under these anti-gay laws - married is not the same as unmarried, per these laws. So in Ohio, women who were beaten up by their boyfriends couldn't fall back on the state's domestic violence laws. Similar thing happening in California, in that the language appears so broad that it's affecting everything. So for all you Californians, when the anti-gays say "oh that's absurd, it would never happen" - tell them about Ohio. More from the LA Times. Read the rest of this post...

Judge orders woman not to use the word 'rape' during her rape trial

What do you all think?

It’s the only way Tory Bowen knows to honestly describe what happened to her.
She was raped.

But a judge prohibited her from uttering the word “rape” in front of a jury. The term “sexual assault” also was taboo, and Bowen could not refer to herself as a victim or use the word “assailant” to describe the man who allegedly raped her.

The defendant’s presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial trumps Bowen’s right of free speech, said the Lincoln, Neb., judge who issued the order.

The article doesn't explain enough of the judge's thinking, but I suspect he doesn't like her using a legal term, "rape," rather than just describing what happened. It would be like me testifying about my house being burned down and calling it arson. The judge thinks this could prejudice the jurors. But, the article notes, the judge has no problem with the accused rapist claiming that the sex was consensual, so why require the woman to put a nicer spin on her side of the story? Shouldn't the defendant and the victim each be permitted to tell their story unencumbered? Read the rest of this post...

Why is McCain getting $58,000 a year in disability income?

First off, I find it fascinating that John McCain, who is refusing to vote for the GI Bill for our troops because "it's too generous," is himself getting $58,000 a year, tax-free, from the US government for his military service. Had McCain been getting that amount every year since Vietnam, that would total $2,000,000 for the man who isn't into overgenerous government. I just find that interesting.

His staff responded with the classic "he was tortured for his country." Yeah, we get it. The torture card. It's to McCain what 9/11 was to Giuliani's candidacy - the never-ending name-drop. Though what McCain's staff actually said was downright, um, we're being nice to Clinton now, so I won't say Clintonian. Here's the quote:

McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. "Tortured for his country -- that is how he acquired his disability," Salter said.

Technically? What does that mean? Usually, it means that under the strict reading of the law, you're covered, but in fact it's kind of a nudge-nudge-wink-wink situation - that's what "technically" means. It's called parsing, which is something you do to "technically" claim something is true, when on its face it really isn't. So is McCain "technically" disabled, and taking $58,000 a year tax free from the government, or is he actually disabled? I would imagine there are other solders who are actually disabled who could use the money. And if he is actually disabled, just how disabled is he?

I think our troops should only get the best, and we've beaten up the administration a lot for leaving our injured troops and vets in the lurch. But I also remember from those articles how hard it is for our current injured troops to get the health care they need (the military is actually refusing to diagnose PTSD in order to save money on benefits!). I'm just not sure that the McCains, who own "eight or nine houses," should be getting $58k a year tax-free from the government for a "technical" disability when others who don't have families worth a gazillion dollars could use that support a lot more. The median household income in the US in 2006 was $48,201. I know vets who have done well for themselves in the workplace and, as a result, refuse to take any federal medical benefits. They feel it would simply be wrong to take what amounts to federal welfare when they're rich.

I mean, the man built his own lake to go fishing at one of his 8 or 9 houses. Yes, he served his country. But something is wrong when we're paying millionaires $58,000 a year, especially when those same millionaires complaine that we were being "overly-generous" to our troops currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the very least, it's terribly hypocritical.

PS Let's not forget that the Republicans decided that the last election should be about whether a Vietnam war hero, who was awarded the Purple Heart, really was injured enough to get those medals. Imagine what the Republicans would have done had the Democratic candidate been profiting to the tune of $58,000 a year from the feds for a "disability" that didn't stop him from staying in the military another eight years, where he took over the command of a training squadron, and which didn't stop him from later getting elected to the US Congress for 26 years. Yes, you can be disabled and do all that, but again, imagine had the Democratic candidate had the vigor of John McCain, while claiming to be disabled to the tune of $58k a year. They'd eviscerate us. And they did, when the candidate was John Kerry.

A Second PS: Imagine had the Democratic candidate served in Vietnam, been captured, and then made propaganda videos for the enemy while claiming all the while to be a hero. That's a story for another day, but just imagine had our candidate run on his war record, and used his captivity to justify $58,000 a year in benefits, when during such captivity he made propaganda videos for the enemy. I have a feeling our guy would be laughed out of the race. Read the rest of this post...

It is a 50-state strategy

Game on.

The Obama campaign is running a 50-state campaign. Today's NY Times takes a look at how the campaign is gearing up -- and staffing up -- for the challenge ahead. This has got to send shivers down the spines of Republicans. Nothing is safe for them this year:

Senator Barack Obama’s general election plan calls for broadening the electoral map by challenging Senator John McCain in typically Republican states — from North Carolina to Missouri to Montana — as Mr. Obama seeks to take advantage of voter turnout operations built in nearly 50 states in the long Democratic nomination battle, aides said.

On Monday, Mr. Obama will travel to North Carolina — a state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 32 years — to start a two-week tour of speeches, town hall forums and other appearances intended to highlight differences with Mr. McCain on the economy. From there, he heads to Missouri, which last voted for a Democrat in 1996. His first campaign swing after securing the Democratic presidential nomination last week was to Virginia, which last voted Democratic in 1964.

With Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton now having formally bowed out of the race and thrown her backing to him, Mr. Obama wants to define the faltering economy as the paramount issue facing the country, a task probably made easier by ever-rising gasoline prices and the sharp rise in unemployment the government reported on Friday. Mr. McCain, by contrast, has been emphasizing national security more than any other issue and has made clear that he would like to fight the election primarily on that ground.

Mr. Obama has moved in recent days to transform his primary organization into a general election machine, hiring staff members, sending organizers into important states and preparing a television advertisement campaign to present his views and his biography to millions of Americans who followed the primaries from a distance.

Since January, it always seemed like the Obama campaign was a couple steps ahead of the Clinton campaign -- and the media. They're going to run circles around McCain's crew. Obama will set the terms of the debate, not McCain. That means, of course, the GOP will have to go aggressively negative -- even more than usual. But, this time, the Democratic nominee will be ready. (And, it's really good to know that Dan Carroll is on board to do oppo research.)

Obama set the tone for the general election campaign on Tuesday night when gave his speech after securing the nomination in the very place where McCain will hold his convention. The message was clear: No place is safe for the GOP in 2008.

Game on. Read the rest of this post...

Sunday Talk Shows Open Thread

Finally, the shows have moved on to the general election -- and, of course, v.p. speculation.

For some reason, Russert doesn't have real guests again. He's just got a panel of smarty pant insider-types. Note to Tim: We're subjected to the journalist-pundit types all day on cable news. Get real guests.

Here's the lineup:

ABC's "This Week" — Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

___

CBS' "Face the Nation" — Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.; Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va.; Howard Wolfson, campaign adviser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

___

NBC's "Meet the Press" — Journalists round table.

___

CNN's "Late Edition" — Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Bob Casey, D-Pa., Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and Feinstein; Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S.; Wolfson.

"Fox News Sunday" _ Govs. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn.

Provide the commentary. Read the rest of this post...

G8 countries warn on high oil prices and global recession

You can always count on politicians in just about every country to be behind the curve. It's obvious they're all afraid of how the economic downturn will impact their own positions in office but it's laughable how slow they all have been to move beyond oil-based economies. Some are more advanced than others but this is a problem that's been out there for decades so to see this last-second panic now is annoying as hell.

"The situation regarding energy prices is becoming extremely challenging," Akira Amari, Japan's trade and energy minister, warned his colleagues Sunday. "If left unaddressed, it may well cause a recession in the global economy."

Five top energy consumers -- the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and India -- urged oil producers on Saturday to boost output to meet growing demand, while pledging to develop clean energy alternatives and increase efficiency.

Read the rest of this post...