Fiat Blog!

Zazzling free speech

2009-10-27T16:43:00.000-07:00

My email to Zazzle.com, where I have some T-shirt designs for sale:

Zazzle said:
Unfortunately, it appears that your product, Replication T-shirt, contains content that is not suitable for printing at Zazzle.com.
• Policy Violations:
o Design contains a trademarked image or text.

How was it unsuitable? If I remember right, the design was only text and read "Caution. Think before you replicate." It was a reference to the environment and the negative impact "baby booms" can have on it. Most likely a pregnant mother ran across my T-shirt design and it offended her, and you deleted the T-shirt at her request. Would you like to see my other product designs that would offend her as well? You could delete them too, but then where would you stop deleting designs that offend people?

You are probably aware that this deletion falls into the area protected by the First Amendment.

In your email, what does this mean? "• Policy Violations: o Design contains a trademarked image or text." What is the "o" for? Did the typist intend to type "0" (zero) but missed that key? Or is the "o" acting as a bullet in the list under "Policy Violations"? The design contained a trademarked image or text?? Do you have a copy of the deleted design in archives or backups? You need to show me what part of the design was trademarked. "Caution. Think before you replicate." What part of that text is copyrighted?

I think it's possible that an employee took it upon him/herself to delete the T-shirt because the message offended him/her. And because the list of reasons for deletion didn't include "It offended me," s/he selected "Design contains a trademarked image or text." Could the reason for deletion be a little more specific? What part of the design was trademarked?

Whenever I see an anti-Obama design on a Zazzle product, it really offends me, mostly because the designer isn't interested in the facts about the Obama Administration. They just want the guy outta there, and they'll say anything to discredit him. Have I complained about any of the anti-Obama products? Of course not. Free speech protects those designers as much as it does me. So why didn't free speech protect me this time? Because my design included child pornography? Of course not. My design simply included a message that offended someone.

Is this becoming a trend at Zazzle? You need to find out.

Of peroxide and mortgages

2009-10-03T20:47:00.000-07:00

As one of the Californians whom DiFi doesn't embarrass but should, I believe it is beyond doubt now that there is a very strong link between conspiracy theories and UFO theories. All the signs indicate that the irregularities detected in legislation affecting financial institutions and terror containment are the result of the influence exerted by a conspiracy composed primarily of alien extra-terrestrials (i.e., extra-terrestrials who are undocumented and residing in the United States illegally). In the six or seven years following 9/11, conspiracy theorists mistakenly believed that the conspiracy was being orchestrated solely by humans, and they thought the UFO theorists were mentally unstable, and vice versa. However, during the past two years or so, these two groups of theorists have realized that they have been examining different aspects of the same phenomenon and that pooling their knowledge would greatly enhance their understanding of the nature and objectives of the conspiracy. We now know, for example, that Donald Rumsfeld was not born on this planet, and thus is a citizen of neither the United States nor Earth, and that his birth certificate was fabricated to conceal his alien origins. It is strongly suspected, but has not been verified, that the Bush dynasty's origins were also extra-terrestrial and that, since their arrival on Earth, Bush scions have been meztalios (half-human and half-alien) or quadralioons (one-quarter alien). We now know that DiFi, while a true citizen of Earth, is being telepathically controlled by extra-terrestrials who are keeping her alive artificially with transfusions of unknown chemical compounds. And this same telepathic control, we have learned, is responsible for anomalous decisions made recently by both Barney Frank and Timothy Geithner.

Although much has been learned recently about the alien conspirators, it is still uncertain what the primary objectives of the conspiracy actually are, what the nature of their intended New World Order will be. Perhaps all will be revealed on 21 December 2012, not long after Sara Palin, also, it has been learned, not a citizen of Earth, is elected illegally to be the American President.

Can you tell me how to get, how to get to C Street?

2009-07-25T11:59:00.000-07:00

Hugo Zoom said: John, how is it this 2009 post ["C Street, the Family and Ivanwald are still around?"] has comments from 2005 and 2007? Me heap confused.

Versen,
I deleted part of the original post from 04/05/05 and published the abridged version as a new post. The comments came along for the ride. No magic was involved. The article by Jeffrey Sharlet was originally from '03, and I was surprised when Rachel Maddow brought up the Family again not long ago—six years later. Apparently some of the guys who were living at C Street back in '03 are still there. Maddow didn't mention Ivanwald as far as I know. And Sharlet's article mentions The Cedars "just down the road from Ivanwald," also not mentioned by Maddow. But they're all the Family's properties. I feel so safe with the Family looking out for our interests. It's sort of like The Waltons for the 21st century.

After Maddow started discussing C Street, and after I saw the clip of Coe, in which he expresses admiration for the Nazi's organizational skills, I sent a message to Maddow suggesting she look into the possibility that Cheney is exhibiting paranoid schizophrenia and that Coe is exhibiting garden-variety schizophrenia and shouldn't we, the public, know a little more about the condition so we can avoid electing those suffering from the condition to public office. The next day, during a story about the Sotomayor hearings on MSNBC, I noticed that the graphic in the lower right of the screen displaying the title of the story showed a picture of Sotomayor and the title "Hearing Voices." Is that totally cool or what? I imagine whichever admin assistant read my message first forwarded it to everybody else and they all had a good chuckle over it. Isn't that great? My brush with fame.

Then the other night, Maddow referred to the general public as "the public, such as it is" when asking Feinman about the effect of Obama's news conference. I know it's paranoid of me, but I was wondering if she had me (among others) in mind when she said that. But, then, she must get the looniest emails all the time. Surely my suggestion that Cheney is paranoid schizophrenic wasn't the first time she'd heard that and didn't catapult my email to the top of the loony pile. Surely not. I'm just being paranoid.

C Street, the Family and Ivanwald are still around?

2009-07-10T21:03:00.000-07:00

This excerpt is from my post of 04/05/05:

When I googled "'republican party' platform," I stumbled onto TheocracyWatch.org, and the horror comedy abruptly started on my computer screen.

Dominionism? Dominionists?

It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.
The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, former Executive Director of Coral Ridge Ministries

I wondered what TheocracyWatch.org was, was it just the angry ramblings of a pot-smoking paleo-hippie sitting cross-legged on a dirty floor somewhere, but TheocracyWatch is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University. Does that make it credible? You decide.

Definitely check out TheocracyWatch.org for the fear factor. You'll read about, for example, the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, an actual bill: H.R. 3799 and S. 2082. John F. Sugg of the Weekly Planet explains that the bill "would acknowledge Christianity's God as the 'sovereign source' of our laws. It would reach back in history and reverse all judicial decisions that have built a wall between church and state, and it would prohibit federal judges from making such rulings in the future." The text of H.R. 3799 can be read on the Yurica Report site and probably any number of other sites that could be found with a search engine.

As I researched the above paragraph, however, I noticed an innocuous-looking link on the same page that leads to a Harper's Magazine article entitled "Jesus Plus Nothing" by Jeffrey Sharlet. Now...after reading about Ivanwald, the Cedars, the Family—such tranquil, pastoral names—nothing is the same. I've passed through a gate, a membrane, into another place. Single young men, living and praying together in a D.C. suburb, denying the lusts of the flesh, consecrate themselves to preparing for covert war and are wholly focused on establishing a new government based on the power of Christ. But it's not just about a group of self-purifying zealots. It's also about the power suits who attend prayer breakfasts where the zealots are attendants, "a rotating group of ambassadors, businessmen, and American politicians." Are you ready to take the red pill? Read the article.

Ivanwald
Now, was Jeffrey Sharlet killed shortly after publication of this article? How is it that the article is still online? Am I at risk because I link to it?

Wait, when was the article originally published? Was it an April fool's joke? March 2003. But there's no "gotcha" at the end of it, only footnotes.

Nah. The Family can't be real. Nobody's that dumb.

Dungeons & Detainees

2009-05-21T14:48:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. President:

There it goes. "Growing concerns over closing Guantanamo." It's as if people think that the detainees are going to be released into the air like a flock of doves. How hard is it for people to grasp that the detainees will be moved from one maximum-secuity prison (Guantanamo) to another maximum-security prison, where they will be treated like dangerous criminals who nonetheless have the right to know what they have been accused of and who their accusers are. Those rights, along with knowing that they will have a fair trial, are basic, fundamental, Founding Fathers protections built into the structure of the nation. Throwing somebody into a dungeon for an indefinite period of time without letting him know who is accusing him of what, is more characteristic of the Inquisition, the Roman Empire, ancient Egypt, the Third Reich. But the US in the 21st century?? What generated this wrinkle in time? Solar activity? A black hole?

Well, there goes the new, improved America that people hoped for when they voted you into office. We knew it was too good to be true. All it took was scaring people into believing that, if Guantanamo were closed, there would soon be enemy combatants running around their neighborhoods. The attention is now off rebuilding the economy and getting the tripartite federal government back into balance. (Did they ever find out where the Office of the Vice President fits in?)

Guantanamo is an archaic dungeon. It doesn't belong in this century.

Dear Mr. President

2009-05-20T21:26:00.000-07:00

So, our Hero has feet of clay. When pressed by civil-rights groups as to whether you will allow a central 9/11-style commission under the Attorney General to investigate the torture issue, you repeatedly and curtly dismissed the idea. The reason you gave was that it would require too much time.

If my parents were murdered, and the police department stated that they didn't want to redirect any forensics or investigative personnel to investigate the crime because it would take too much time away from their current investigations, would you find that acceptable?

I believe you need to rethink your decisions regarding investigating the previous administration. If a sense of betrayal has reached all the way down through the grassroots to me and motivated me to write to the President, there must be a powerful, pervasive sense of betrayal among the people you represent.

When questioned about continuing the tribunals at Guantanamo rather than providing the detainees with legitimate trials, you said that it didn't help to compare you to the previous administration. This doesn't sound like the man who calmly and methodically countered the verbal attacks aimed at him by Clinton and McCain during the campaign. This is a swing from "conciliatory" all the way to "unreasonable."

I hope the shift is for good reasons. You are a deep thinker and seem to be able to outthink just about everyone in D.C. From my perspective deep in the grassroots, I would be relieved if a thorough investigation into the activities of the previous administration proved that no crimes were committed. And I would like to think that your reasons for obstructing that investigation and stonewalling on the matter are good, solid, honorable reasons. "It would divide the nation" is an honorable reason, but it's not solid. The nation is already critically divided. "We can't divert resources from rebuilding the economy" is also not solid. The personnel needed for the investigation would not make much of a dent in what is needed to rebuild the economy. I'd like to think that your reasons are sounder than these.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow said that it is absurd to think that the U.S. is incapable of incarcerating dangerous criminals. Close Guantanamo, by executive order if necessary. Allow the detainees the benefit of habeas corpus. And allow an investigation of the previous administration and, if possible, clear their good names.

Clip and save on healthcare!

2009-04-25T10:49:00.001-07:00

Fax this coupon to your Senators!

An independent commission to investigate torture

2009-04-23T17:15:00.000-07:00

Bipartisan, fair, disinterested, thorough.

If a thorough, honest investigation reveals that no crimes were committed by the Bush Administration, I would be as relieved by that outcome as I would be if the investigation turned up criminal wrongdoing and the perpetrators were not permitted to go free just because they're well-connected and rich.

Mr. President, you personally do not have to become entangled in the investigation. You can focus on moving the country forward, which you have stated as your intention. But don't block a criminal investigation. Let the messiness be taken care of by honorable, disinterested people far removed from your Administration.

The country is already critically divided. The distance between the poles of our polarization is already huge. (With Texas just happening to "mention" secession.) A criminal investigation cannot divide the country any more than it already is, and it would actually provide closure for all of us, whatever the outcome.

The Obama budget

2009-03-03T10:02:00.000-08:00

(From MoveOn.org)

...makes a $634 billion down payment on fixing health care that will go a long way toward paying for a more efficient, more affordable health care system that covers every single American.³

...reduces taxes for 95% of working Americans. And if your family makes less than $250,000, your taxes won't go up one dime.⁴

...invests more than $100 billion in clean energy technology, creating millions of green jobs that can never be outsourced.⁵

...brings our troops home from Iraq on a firm timetable, finally bringing the war to a close—and freeing up almost ten billion dollars a month for domestic priorities.⁶

...reverses growing income inequality. The plan lets the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire and focuses on strengthening the middle class.⁷

...closes multi-billion-dollar tax loopholes for big oil companies.⁸

...increases grants to help families pay for college—the largest increase ever.⁹

...halves the deficit by 2013. President Obama inherited a legacy of huge deficits and an economy in shambles, but his plan brings the deficit under control as soon as the economy begins to recover.¹⁰

...dramatically increases funding for the SEC and the CFTC—the agencies that police Wall Street.¹¹

...tells it straight. For years, budgets have used accounting tricks to hide the real costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, and too many other programs. Obama's budget gets rid of the smokescreens and lays out what America's priorities are, what they cost, and how we're going to pay for them.¹² This is the change we voted for. President Obama has done his part, now we need to do ours.

...stops unnecessary government subsidies to big banks, health insurance companies and big agribusinesses.^13,14,15

...expands access to early childhood education and improves schools by investing in programs that make sure every child has a qualified, strong teacher.¹⁶

...negotiates for better prescription drug prices using Medicaid's tremendous bargaining power.¹⁷

...expands access to family planning for low-income women.¹⁸

...caps the pollution that causes global warming, and makes polluters pay to support clean energy innovation.¹⁹

Sources:
1. "Climate of Change," The New York Times, February 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html?em
2. "Obama Calls His Budget Sweeping, Needed Change," The New York Times, February 28, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51201&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=2
3. "Obama Offers Broad Plan to Revamp Health Care," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51202&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=3
4. "Obama Expects Fight Over $3.55 Trillion Budget Plan," Bloomberg News, February 28, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51203&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=4
5. "Energy Budget Is Sunlight After Eight Years of Darkness," Center for American Progress, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51204&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=5
6. "The Economic Cost of War in Iraq and Afghanistan," The New York Times, March 1, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01glanz.html
7. "Tax Cuts," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-tax.html
8. "Energy Budget Is Sunlight After Eight Years of Darkness," Center for American Progress, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51204&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=6
9. "Student Loans," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-edu.html
10. "Obama unveils budget blueprint," CNN, February 26, 2009 http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/budget/
11. "Obama budget would boost SEC, CFTC, FBI," Reuters, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51205&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=7
12. "Obama's budget," Los Angeles Times, February 27, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51206&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=8
13. "Student Loans," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-edu.html
14. "Health Insurance Stocks Dive on Medicare Advantage Cuts," The Wall Street Journal, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51207&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=9
15. "Agriculture," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-agri.html
16. "Investing Wisely in Our Children," Center for American Progress, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51208&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=10
17. "Obama Offers Broad Plan to Revamp Health Care," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51202&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=11
18. "Obama Offers Broad Plan to Revamp Health Care," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51202&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=12
19. "Setting 'Green' Goals," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51209&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=13

Midnight regulations and the American King

2009-02-27T07:16:00.000-08:00

I'm just learning about midnight regulations now, and I am appalled. The president becomes a king in the last 100 days of his term by using executive tools (midnight regulations, executive orders, presidential proclamations, executive agreements, and national security initiatives) because Congress is too busy to block him while its own term is ending.

...[The new president] can try to reverse the midnight regulations by using a law that has been successfully deployed just once. The Congressional Review Act creates an expedited process for Congress to repeal, by a simple majority vote in each house, any regulation it doesn't like. The president then signs the bill, and the rules are reversed. Given the Democratic majority, that tactic might work this time around. Now is the time to see whether Democrats really are any different from Republicans. (Veronique de Rugy, Reason, Feb. 1, 2009)

It would be much more effective to put strict limits on the number of regulations the president can issue in the last 100 days of his term, when he faces absolutely no political repercussions. Waiting until the new president takes office is clearly a less effective way to undo the cloud of midnight regulations issued by the outgoing president: 82% of Clinton's midnight regulations were left unchanged by the new Bush administration. This isn't a political issue. The party affiliation of the outgoing president isn't significant in this regard. This is an issue concerning whether the government is representational or a monarchy.

Tinselfish is not the name of a drag queen!

2008-12-28T19:26:00.000-08:00

(Although I can picture a performer with a name like Holly Tinselfish.) Then it's like a thorny tinselfish (Grammicolepis brachiusculus)? Not this time. Tinselfish is a novel and the tagline explains the title: “Underneath all the tinsel...is a fish out of water.” Another tagline I use is “Real guns. Real tinsel.”

My book was recently included in the Drewey Wayne Gunn Collection of Gay Male Mysteries and Police Stories in Duke University's Rare Book, Manuscript and Special Collections Library. I would be interested in finding out if an earlier version of the book (the earlier title was Life Doesn't Always, published in 2004) was listed in Gunn's book The Gay Male Sleuth in Print and Film: A History and Annotated Bibliography, published in 2005.

The following is how I describe the book to librarian-types:

Tinselfish offers a look at gay West Hollywood in the early 00's. Cafes, bars, and club nights which no longer exist are mentioned and described. The two-volume set is written as a series of screenplays for a TV detective series, but they are written to be read as a cohesive novel and not as screenplays composed in the industry's abbreviated, codeworded style. Book 1 includes a detailed, extensively researched account of a closeted Amish farmer's difficult coming-out process in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in the 70's and 80's. It also includes a chapter/episode which focuses on the gay scene in Philadelphia in the late 80's around Walnut and 13th. (Find Book 2 here.) Both books extensively reference classic films noirs of the 40's and 50's and highlight the encrypted gay subtext of many of those films. Several chapter/episodes explore homosexuality in traditional Arab and Persian cultures as well as the gay Arab-American experience in Los Angeles since 9/11. Each chapter/episode includes endnotes citing the books and screenplays referenced in the text. Other chapter/episodes explore Hollywood history and examine Intolerance, Clara Bow, Busby Berkeley, and Sunset Blvd. and the different film technologies and styles prevalent at each stage. A minor subplot in the novel involves tracking down ex-Nazis in South America in the years following WWII. A recurring theme is the dilemma of an actor trapped in a movie franchise he hates because the franchise does reasonably well at the box office.

Because the novel is written as a series of screenplays, it should be considered experimental fiction, an exploration of the one literary form reading or looking like the other. With the novel set in “Hollywood,” the reader's Hollywood-insider experience is enhanced by going through the same reading process as an actor or director reading a screenplay. (As a compromise, the text is set in a Roman font rather than the standard typewriter font.) Another continuing theme is depression and its medications, and in the experimental vein, one chapter/episode presents an attack of severe depression as alternating time-lapse and slow-motion cinematography. The detailed descriptions of these effects allow the reader to envision what are otherwise exclusively visual techniques, as well as to gain insight into the emotional disruption of severe depression.

Tinselfish is not only an entertaining read, carefully written and exhaustively proofread, but is also educational and enlightening in its exploration of different cultures, regions, timeframes, topics, and genres.

Block the Bush pardons

2008-12-27T14:17:00.000-08:00

From the People's Email Network:

Speak Out Against The Planned Bush Blanket Pardons BEFORE They Can Happen

Pay no attention to the handful of Christmas pardons granted by Bush. This is mere political window dressing to distract from the bumper crop of blanket absolutions, including one for himself, scheduled to be released just before midnight on Jan 19th. Cheney would not so arrogantly be bragging on TV about how he authorized torture if it were not so.

But there is a resolution in Congress, H.Res. 1531, preemptively condemning any such move if we can just get enough members of Congress to sponsor it (already 10 so far). Many of you have submitted a action page on this already. Please do it again, especially if your representative did not hear you the first time.

Action Page To Stop The Bush Pardons: http://www.usalone.com/hres1531.php

Each action page you submit is another lump of coal in Cheney's stocking. [John's comment: And we all know how clean coal is as a fuel. No greenhouse gases. No residual sludge. Clean energy for tomorrow's world.] Some have speculated on the possibility of post-inauguration impeachment, especially considering the fact that many insiders are waiting until then to spill the beans. Maybe they don't want to get bumped off in asuspicious plane crash like Mike Connell. But a self pardon at the very last minute would certainly be grounds for some kind of action, perhaps even impeachment, if and only if Congress would react and take action immediately

Father God, please save us from your people.

For 5,000 years, every culture, every religion...

2008-12-20T09:08:00.000-08:00

has implemented or condoned slavery. So what's your point, Warren? Historical precedent isn't a very reliable support for an argument. In fact, you've probably already been contacted by quite a few historians who can show you with actual historical and archaeological evidence that your blanket statement "every culture, every religion" was wrong. But your response to each of them is a shrug, because you already know what you want the truth to be.

The Warren invocation: It's just a prayer

2008-12-18T07:11:00.000-08:00

Yes the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration is an insult to progressives who feel that Prop 8 stapled bigotry onto California's constitution. And it's appropriate that we voice our disapproval vigorously. But if Warren's invocation makes evengelicals preen a little and feel smug but results in their being a little more willing to work with Obama, then the good that is accomplished outweighs the harm. It's not as if Obama appointed Warren to a Cabinet position. It's just a five-minute prayer, during which kids will fidget and grownups on both sides of the fence will yawn, and afterward Warren will leave the stage and that will be it. The symbolic gesture will dissipate into the winter air.

Addendum: My message to Warren via Courage Campaign's petition:

Rev. Warren,
Your girth indicates that you have very strong appetites and that you indulge yourself in some of them, apparently unaware that your excessive weight undermines your credibility. As an obese wealthy person, you send a clear message that you are appetite-driven (bigger congregation, more revenue, more TV time, greater political influence), which runs counter to the message you preach from Scripture. I'm surprised your congregation overlooks your wealth and obesity, but you certainly aren't the first obese minister to have achieved your level of fame, e.g. Falwell, Hagee. When a minister preaches what people want to hear, people don't concern themselves with what disconnect there may be between the simple, service-oriented life promoted by the minister's sermons and the appetite-driven life exhibited by the minister himself. You should have already examined your heart deeply to see how this disconnect could have happened. God wants you to be rich? God wants you to be fat? What passages of Scripture support those ideas? I could point you to Scripture passages that lead the Christian away from obesity and wealth. But, of course, you already know those passages—a discrepancy that calls into question your credibility as a leader in any discussion of moral issues.

A well-regulated militia in Yosemite

2008-12-12T06:21:00.000-08:00

From Freedom States Alliance:

As a parting shot, the Bush administration has overturned a regulation to keep guns out of national parks. Despite the objections of every living former director of the National Park Service, tens of thousands of national park visitors, and several ranger organizations, the Interior Department has published a rule that will allow loaded, concealed guns in most of the country's national parks.

This rule is a gift from the Bush administration to the National Rifle Association and the reversal of this ruling should be among the Obama administrations first actions upon taking office in January.

Please sign our petition to encourage the incoming Obama administration to reverse this rule so we can keep our national parks safe from gun violence.

Jerry Falwell with a pretty face

2008-09-18T14:21:00.000-07:00

I can't believe it. It's going to happen again. Four more years of a conservative White House. I'm already beginning to prepare emotionally for seeing mobs of conservatives on TV shrieking with unbelieving joy that they've won the Biggest Football Game in the World a third time in a row, and for seeing bloggers rub salt into the wounds of the loser lefties by posting pictures of crying babies. After '00 and '04, why should it come as a surprise?

By all means, give the people what they want. That's the nature of democracy. One takes the good with the bad. One just hopes that there are enough checks and balances left in the system to keep the people from genuinely hurting themselves with the choices they make.

It's surprising how close Obama and McCain are in the polls. One could have expected that Obama's rockstar status during the primaries would have given him a significant lead in the campaign. But there doesn't appear, yet, to be an unstoppable momentum building toward bringing Obama's freshness and intelligence to the White House. It may be just the way the media are presenting the two candidates and consciously trying to avoid the favoritism toward Obama they exhibited during the primaries. But one would expect that, by now, there would be a huge, youth-driven wave of enthusiasm for a changing of the guard in Washington, for the torch being passed to a new generation. But my perception isn't that the tide is flowing strongly in that direction.

I've just learned that a Clinton fundraiser, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, is now backing McCain instead of Obama. She says "I believe that Barack Obama, with MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, has taken the Democratic Party—and they will continue to—too far to the left. I'm not comfortable there."

Of course Ms. Rothschild isn't comfortable on the left. After building her multimillion-dollar telecommunications company, she married into the Rothschild banking family of England and her net worth is probably in the hundreds of millions. One wonders if she wandered into the Democratic party by mistake. She says she will step down from her position on the DNC Platform Committee (how did she get on the committee in the first place?) but will not be changing parties. We would, however, heartily encourage Ms. Rothschild to change parties. It's very simple: When one wants to make mountains of money, one doesn't become a Democrat. The philosophy and focus of the party are counter-productive to the amassing and retention of great wealth. One wonders if Ms. Rothschild actually infiltrated the upper echelons of the DNC in the same way that Mary McFate infiltrated numerous gun-control organizations as an NRA mole.

I've also recently learned that, while Mayor, Sarah Palin wanted a book written by a Baptist minister from the neighboring town of Palmer to be banned from the public library in Wasilla. The book is Pastor, I Am Gay by Howard Bess. Palin now denies trying to have the book banned, but Bess says "This is a small town, we all know each other. People in city government have confirmed to me what Sarah was trying to do." Bess, now a retired American Baptist minister, also says of Palin "She scares me. She's Jerry Falwell with a pretty face" and "At this point, people in this country don't grasp what this person is all about. The key to understanding Sarah Palin is understanding her radical theology."

When comparing the virtual landscapes created by the rhetoric of both parties, I wonder why there isn't a wholesale evacuation of the right because of its unrelenting drive toward tight moral control of the individual by the unelected government of business. Why isn't there a mass migration toward the healthy, digital landscape of the left? Why should the tide of this campaign be pulled in both directions with equal force? Because being controlled is comforting and feels safe? If only voters on the right could see their landscape with disinterested clarity. They would see everything in the landscape, including the pews and pulpits, covered with a thin, gummy film of petroleum.

The Reverend Obese Millionaire

2008-08-18T20:58:00.000-07:00

God has truly blessed Rick Warren's ministry. He's plump as a fatted calf, he's a multi-millionaire from his book sales, and his congregation is one of the largest in the nation. Like the Dean Martin song says (more or less), if he were any more blessed, he'd be sick.

My only question is, why would God reward the faithfulness of his servants with treasures on earth? He told us not to lay up for ourselves treasures on earth. Y'know—moths, rust, thieves. So why would he himself reward his servants with what he told us not to accrue? It's okay if God gives us treasures on earth, but it's not okay for us to lay up for ourselves treasures on earth? Is that what that verse means? So, the treasures Rick Warren has been laying up for himself in Heaven, like he's supposed to, God is giving part of those treasures to him now as an advance, like an advance from a publisher? I'm confused. If life here on earth is supposed to be like a strait gate and a narrow way, why would God bestow so much treasure on his servants that their way becomes undeniably broad?

I hope Warren preaches a sermon soon about his various treasures on earth to clear this issue up for all of us. And while he's at it, he could also explain God's blessing McCain with so much treasure on earth too. I've just learned that he owns ten very pricey homes. Ten? Ain't that a kick in the cred.

A response from Congressman Schiff

2008-08-08T09:05:00.000-07:00

Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for introducing articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome your input.

I share your concern about the policies and actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney and I am deeply troubled by the potentially precedent-setting expansion of executive power at the cost of our system of coequal branches and the civil liberties guaranteed to all Americans. The Executive Branch is an extraordinarily powerful one; in order for the checks and balances to function properly, both Congress and the Courts must resist an excessive assertion of executive power that is at odds with the interests of the American people or violates the Constitution. Despite the challenges that our nation faces, we must not cast aside the values and ideals that our people have defended for centuries.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the intention that no one branch of government should become too powerful. With the oppression of monarchical rule only recently behind them, they sought to prevent the rise of a too-powerful executive by crafting a calibrated system of checks and balances that allows for interplay between the three branches of government. Congress has an important legislative function, but it has an equally vital role in providing oversight and we must continue to aggressively exercise this prerogative.

On the specific remedy of impeachment, the Founding Fathers established a high standard requiring the determination of high crimes and misdemeanors. After witnessing the misguided, destructive and polarizing impeachment of President Clinton, I can well understand why they raised the bar so high. There is no question that the President and Vice President have done a great disservice to the country in many ways, and I am deeply troubled by their views of executive authority and performance in office. We must continue to do vigorous oversight and let the evidence lead us where it may; at the same time, we must not be deterred from the highest imperative of changing our Iraq policy, reversing the Administration's intrusive surveillance policy, meeting the challenge of global climate change, and turning around our ailing economy.

Recently, Rep. Kucinich introduced an article of impeachment against the President (H.Res.1345) on the House floor and requested a vote to refer the legislation to a committee with appropriate jurisdiction. I voted with Rep. Kucinich to refer this legislation to the Judiciary Committee. On July 25, 2008, the House Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, held an important hearing to probe these matters. The hearing, entitled "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations," included testimony from Rep. Dennis Kucinich who testified about the impeachment articles he has introduced.

At the hearing, I spoke of my deep concerns with the conduct of this Administration and its overreach of constitutional limitations—particularly related to the areas of surveillance, interrogations, and the intelligence used in leading up to the war in Iraq. I used this opportunity to call upon Congress to create a select committee—in the mold of the "Church Committee"—to conduct a comprehensive investigation of activities engaged in by the Executive Branch to determine their impact on the civil liberties of Americans.

The "Church Committee" was established in 1975 in response to abuses during the Nixon Administration. The Committee produced 50,000 pages of documents and published 14 reports—leading to a variety of crucial reforms including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I believe that Congress should initiate a similarly robust investigation of Executive Branch abuses to ensure continued Constitutional accountability and to implement necessary reforms.

Please be assured that I will continue to do my part in every other way to ensure that Congress provides a check on the Executive and ensures that the Administration is held accountable for its actions.

Sincerely,
Adam B. Schiff
Member of Congress

Judiciary impeachment opponents

2008-07-28T23:07:00.000-07:00

Congressman Schiff,

You're an impeachment opponent?? According to the email from Democrats.com, you and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Mel Watt are opposed to impeachment hearings, even though "by the end of the hearing [on July 25], even the see-no-evil Republican witnesses admitted Congress should consider impeachment."

We aren't asking you to be another Tom DeLay and railroad impeachment proceedings through Congress. We want you to support looking into the evidence because at this point there is some agreement that the evidence seems "credible and substantial." And you're continuing to oppose looking into what crimes may have been committed by the Bush Administration?? Why?? What have they offered you in exchange for blocking the investigation? When important players like Karl Rove blithely ignore a Congressional subpoena, you know something's up and the Administration has something to hide. And you're not interested in looking into it??

Is something rotten in District 29?

Lieberman's conflicting allegiances

2008-07-15T07:24:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator Lieberman,

You need to make a decision about who "your people" are. Are you primarily Jewish? Then you need to be an Israeli. Are you primarily American? Then you need to let Israel stand on its own. Israel is a strong, modern nation capable of handling the repercussions of its invasion of Palestine in 1948. The U.S. doesn't need to be involved anymore as hired mercenaries protecting a fledgling nation. Your love of Israel should lead you to become directly involved in developing Israel's policies and strategies, without maneuvering the U.S. to implement those policies. Follow your heart.

It’s not OPEC’s fault

2008-06-26T10:42:00.000-07:00

Dear Congressman Schiff:

I've only recently learned that gas prices are affected by futures traders. I thought OPEC was solely responsible for the high prices. But as it turns out, the bubble in real estate prices (before the subprime mortgage crisis) and the current bubble in gas prices have a lot in common. Investors don't mind high prices if they believe they will continue to rise indefinitely, but eventually every market corrects itself. The bubble bursts and we have a recession until the next bubble.

In the 80s, it was the reckless S&L loans to foreign countries that helped bring about the Black Monday of 1987 ("The 80s are over!!") and precipitated the deep recession of the early 90s. In the later 90s, it was the frenzied speculation in dot-coms that brought about the dot-bomb and the recession that was already in place by 9/11. This time around, we're hit by two bubbles at once, subprime mortgages and oil futures. Obviously investors can't exercise caution when they smell an opportunity to make a killing.

If the CFTC were to raise margin requirements and close loopholes that allow unregulated speculation in energy futures, the speculative excess that has driven gas prices so high would be reined in. Please take action to pressure the CFTC to make the changes that will benefit almost every American. The current extremes in gas prices benefit only a small elite.

Gay marriage in California

2008-05-15T11:48:00.000-07:00

The California Supreme Court ruled today in a vote of 4-3 to reject state marriage laws and allow same-sex couples to marry. Maura Dolan writes in her article for the Los Angeles Times "The reaction to today's ruling outside the courthouse in San Francisco was one of jubilation as couples, once denied marriage, hugged, kissed, shouted and shook their fists at the sky."

Ron Prentice of the conservative California Family Council, in reaction to the ruling, said "With the November ballot we will have the opportunity for the people of California to once again define marriage as only between a man and a woman and this time place it into California's constitution which would strengthen it and keep it out of the hands of the courts."

Now that California has sunk to this unprecedented level of depravity, I expect that conservative Southern states will begin sending missionaries to California to try to help pull these poor lost souls from the tar pits of sin they've gotten themselves mired in. I can picture earnest young people declaring to their churches that they feel that God has called them to be missionaries to California. It's not a bad idea, actually. Living in California with all their expenses paid? It could be worse. God could've called them to Africa or to the rainforests of the Amazon. Or, worse yet, to Afghanistan.

Bush confesses to approving torture

2008-04-14T07:20:00.000-07:00

From Democrats.com:

Impeach Bush and Cheney for Torture

On 4/11/08, George Bush told ABC News he personally approved of the approval of torture—including waterboarding—by Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet.

"Yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

In the wake of this shocking and appalling confession, we've come to a historic moment where every American—and every Member of Congress—must take a stand.

Either you're for torture or you're against it. And if you're against it, you must support the only Constitutional remedy: impeachment.

We don't need a Special Prosecutor when the President has publicly admitted to approving war crimes!

It's no excuse to say, "We can't impeach Bush because President Cheney would be worse." We know that Cheney directly approved torture, so they must be impeached together. If they were convicted by the Senate (or resigned to avoid impeachment), Speaker Pelosi would become President, as prescribed by the Constitution.

It's no excuse to say, "We don't have the votes to impeach Bush and Cheney." Democrats didn't have the votes to impeach Nixon when they started, but when the House Judiciary Committee reluctantly adopted Articles of Impeachment, Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.

Nor is it an excuse to say, "We don't have time to impeach Bush and Cheney." Bush admitted both his own and Cheney's guilt, and Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet are witnesses. There's no need for impeachment hearings—an impeachment resolution based on Bush's confession could go straight to the floor for a vote, just as it did on 11/6/07 when Dennis Kucinich introduced H.Res. 799, Articles of Impeachment for Vice President Cheney.

And finally, it is utterly immoral for Democrats to say, "We shouldn't impeach Bush and Cheney because it would hurt the chances of electing a Democrat in November." Simply stated, politics should never come before the prosecution of torture.

Dr. Martin Luther King famously said, "A time comes when silence is betrayal. That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam."

Thanks to Bush's confession that he approved torture, that time has come for us in relation to Iraq.

My email to Congressman Schiff:

I don't consider valid the comparison of impeachment proceedings for Clinton and for Bush. Clinton's proceedings were divisive because they were purely partisan. Bush's impeachment hearings, because they would be initiated by allegations of actual war crimes which resulted in thousands of deaths, would be non-partisan by nature, except for the extreme right wing, a minority of the American people.

Impeachment proceedings would not necessarily result in impeachment. They would simply examine the evidence and make it clear to the people what happened and why. And if no impeachable crimes were committed, the people would be shown clearly why what appeared to be war crimes actually weren't. The proceedings would be extremely informative for people regarding how their government operates and how it is structured and balanced.

As a voter who approves and appreciates your activity in Congress, I urge you to change your mind regarding the impeachment of the President and Vice President. I urge you to represent me and the many voters in your district who want to see the right thing done. I would actually accept Bush being exonerated, fairly, of wrongdoing, because I would have learned from the hearings that my impressions had been wrong, that what actions were taken by the Administration leading up to and during the war in Iraq were acceptable in the context of Constitutional and international law.

Impeachment hearings would be cathartic for me and for a lot of Americans. The nation is already divided. Examining the evidence carefully and publicly would provide healing.

Thanks very much.

Babies accelerate global warming

2008-04-12T11:35:00.000-07:00

I know this one's a stretch for you, but if you sit down and think about it for a little while, you'll eventually be able to connect the dots.

Last December, ABC News reported that there is a baby boom occurring in the US. "In 2005, there were two children born for every American woman. Last year, the so-called 'fertility rate' rose to 2.1 children for every woman." Fortunately, the rate is no higher than that. "That's still nowhere near what it was during the height of the baby boom, when the rate hovered somewhere between three and four kids per family."

Between 3 and 4 kids?? Which means that the families having 1 to 2 kids back then were offset by families having 5 to 6 kids. And the families having 0 kids were offset by families having 7 or more kids. Seven kids?? What were they thinking? The logistics alone of feeding and clothing that many kids is staggering. (Crash Ow! Mom! Bang Thump Stop throwing your food! Waaaaaa Hurry up, we'll be late! Whooooooosh Bonk Mom! Bangbangbangbangbang Waaaaaaaa Stop it! Crash)

"Okay," my hypothetical Jennifer says, "maybe those people who have like 17 kids are sort of dumb, but why would my having a baby affect global warming? That's caused by greenhouse gases from factories and cars and herds of cattle. What does that have to do with my baby sitting in a highchair eating mashed peas? My baby won't produce that much greenhouse gas." No, you're right. But do babies stay babies? Generally they grow up and buy SUVs and newspapers and groceries, live in buildings constructed at least partially of wood, and watch TV and turn lights on in the evening. "Okay..." Jennifer concedes, unconvinced. Yes, you're right, one adult's carbon footprint isn't really that big, if that person recycles, turns unnecessary lights off, buys a fuel-efficient SUV, consolidates road trips for running errands, uses public transit to get to work, stuff like that. "My child would grow up knowing how important those things are." That's great. But multiply your adult child's conservative carbon footprint by 300 million Americans and collectively you get a giant carbon footprint.

I believe the fertility rate should drop to 1.5 or even 1 so that the population actually decreases over the years. That alone would significantly slow global warming and reduce some of the urgency for finding new landfills for the trash we generate.

However, from an economic standpoint, a reduction in population isn't always beneficial, since a smaller population produces less revenue overall. Statistically, the higher the IQ and level of education people have, the fewer children they generally produce, and so a reduction in population would likely result in a greater reduction of those with higher levels of disposable income, and less of a reduction among those with less spending money and a greater need for government services. Economies can thrive in huge populations because the more people there are, the more revenue they generate. Substantial revenue can be generated even from people with very low incomes, provided there are enough of them.

For a reduction in population to be as much of a benefit economically as environmentally, there would need to be a greater reduction at the lower end of the income scale, and less of a reduction at the higher end. Jennifer snorts. "So only rich people should have kids?" Actually no, because (theoretically) most "rich people" are lower-income people with insatiable appetites. We don't need more of them. But people with higher levels of education and higher salaries generate revenue more efficiently. One middle-class person might generate revenue equal to what 10 working-class people might generate. With fewer people generating more disposable income per person, the environment and the economy benefit.

But it's difficult to suggest to a community that they encourage educated people to have more kids and less-educated people to have fewer kids. The self-worth of those encouraged to have fewer kids would be significantly affected. They would feel rejected by their own communities. If that encouragement had been a familiar, congenial custom all along in our communities, we would have the environmental and economic benefits of the custom now and there would be no hard feelings. But asking a community to begin encouraging professors and architects to have kids and discouraging hairstylists and truck drivers from having kids would be seen as an attack on our natural right to have a family.

I understand those feelings of rejection and have no foolproof remedy for them, but financial compensation might help those people feel a little better. If a low-income family has 1 child instead of 5 children, their need for government services is greatly reduced, and their tax liability should be reduced proportionately. Currently, a family's tax liability is reduced for each of the children they produce, and it could be argued that these tax breaks are an unconscious encouragement to have more kids. Conversely, if a family's tax burden increases with each child they have because their need for government services increases, a new idea like having fewer kids would be easier to adopt.

Carpe Cranium Political Tees

2008-04-10T21:22:00.000-07:00

Political T-shirt designs offering the discerning wearer the opportunity to inject subtle irony into public discourse.