The Modern Left

Fools Gold

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:18:00 +0000

Zinn on Socialism

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:53:00 +0000

Let's talk about socialism....I think it's very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name. Socialism had a good name in this country. Socialism had Eugene Debs. It had Clarence Darrow. It had Mother Jones. It had Emma Goldman. It had several million people reading socialist newspapers around the country... Socialism basically said, hey, let's have a kinder, gentler society. Let's share things. Let's have an economic system that produces things not because they're profitable for some corporation, but produces things that people need. People should not be retreating from the word socialism because you have to go beyond capitalism. - Howard Zinn

Happy Independence Day

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:27:00 +0000

Confederate History Month

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 01:30:00 +0000

Earlier this month, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) declared April 2010 Confederate History Month. The declaration didn't mention slavery.

McDonnell claimed:

...there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.

McDonnell later apologized and added language denouncing slavery to his proclamation. But before that apology and even after, others have defended him.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) defended McDonnell. When asked What about the sensitivity of it? Because we heard from a number of African American politicians and just people on the street that were interviwed in Virginia going “this is offensive to celebrate something that was really about slavery and has no mention of it?” he replied:

To me it’s a sort of feeling that it’s just a nit. That it is not significant. It’s trying to make a big deal out of something that doesn’t matter for diddly.

Many Conservatives have gone to great lengths to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

They are wrong.

On March 4, 1861, seven states seceded from the Union.

On March 21, 1861, Confederate Vice President, Alexander Stephens gave his "cornerstone speech" which outlined what the Confederate beliefs:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

When the Confederate Vice President states emphatically that the foundation of the Confederate constitution is that slavery is the "natural and normal condition" for black people...then yeah...it kinda is about slavery.

Honoring Ronald Reagan by renaming stuff

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:00:00 +0000

In August of 1981, then-President Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 striking air traffic controllers. In 1998, Washington National Airport was renamed Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Because irony is awesome.

But the hagiographical actions of "Reagan Republians" didn't end there. And they continue to push to rename things in the honor of "The Great Communicator".

They've already named an airport, an aircraft carrier, a courthouse, a medical center, at least two post offices, several schools and more than two dozen roads for him. A McDonald's in Alabama where he once ate even boasts a bust of him.

Yet that's not enough for the most devout supporters of Ronald Reagan. A year from this coming Saturday would have been the former president's 100th birthday. To honor him, his admirers are fanning out around the nation hoping to win another one for the Gipper. And another. And another.

Their goal: Get at least one significant landmark in every state named for the nation's 40th president, who left office in 1989 and died in 2004. They are far from achieving that aim. There are believed to be 103 dedications in 27 states and the District of Columbia. So, they're using the anniversary of his birth, Feb. 6, 1911, as a launching pad for renewed efforts in Nevada, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and elsewhere.

That article got me thinking so I decided to put together some options for those who want to rename things in Ronald Reagan's honor.

We all know about Ronald Reagan's military career, right?

Reagan once said that he had served in the Air Force, "by way of the horse cavalry." It was true. Reagan had joined the military to ride horses and had transferred to a branch that flew airplanes....

...But in an induction physical, doctors told the future president his eyesight was not good enough for him to remain in the service as an officer.

Lest you feel that the above comes from some left-wing site...it is actually from reagan.navy.mil.

Reagan wasn't cleared to go overseas and spent his entire career with the military on U.S. soil. His first assignment was San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California. Next he went to the 1st Motion Picture Unit (officially, the "18th AAF Base Unit") in Culver City, California. By the end of the war, Reagan had starred in around 400 training films.

But that didn't stop him from fibbing about his military exploits. Reagan never allowed reality to infringe on a good story.

There was no internationally recognized border in Reagan's mind between fantasy and fact, the dividing line having been abolished in the early 1940s when his studio's PR department turned him into a war hero, courtesy of his labors in "Fort Wacky" in Culver City, where they made training films....

...Forty years after Fort Wacky, as Commander in Chief, R.R. told Yitzhak Shamir, then prime minister of Israel, that he had helped to liberate Auschwitz, had returned to Hollywood with film footage of the ghastly scenes he had witnessed, and if in later years anyone controverted the reality of the Holocaust over the Reagan dinner table, he would roll the footage till the doubts were stilled.

So fuck it. Let's name a Holocaust memorial after Reagan. Sure...he didn't actually do anything, but he thought he did. And that's all that counts, right?

We already named an aircraft carrier after him (the USS Ronald Reagan) and he never served on one of those when he was in the service, so I don't think a Holocaust memorial would be much more of a stretch.

I've got another idea.

In March 1966, then-candidate for California governor Ronald Reagan stated the following:

I think, too, that we've got to recognize that where the preservation of a natural resource like the redwoods is concerned, that there is a common sense limit. I mean, if you've looked at a hundred thousand acres or so of trees - you know, a tree is a tree, how many more do you need to look at?

Indeed. How many more do you need to look at? I say...probably not many.

So how about if we clear cut most of a national forest but leave a single solitary tree and call it the Ronald Reagan National Forest.

But to really get the Reagan name spread around, we should probably think about something that almost every American has right in his or her kitchen: food.

Early in Reagan's first term, a proposal was made that would have reclassified ketchup to a vegetable. Why? To allow public schools to cut out a serving of cooked or fresh vegetable from child-nutrition requirements. This ostensibly would have saved $1 billion annually....and completely screwed the health of low income students.

So how about if we rename ketchup as a "Reagan Tomato"? I would be proud to slather Reagan Tomato all over my next burger. And you should be proud to do so too. It would make your burger more patriotic. Or something.

If you have any ideas, I would love to hear them.

More Republican hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:00:00 +0000

During his campaign for the Presidency of the United States, Obama took a break and traveled to his home state of Hawaii.

And the talking heads were up in arms.

Writing for The New Republic, Michael Crowley stated:

I know he grew up [in Hawaii] and all. But if Obama’s being smeared as a highfalutin celebrity who is somehow “other” and distant from the American heartland, is Hawaii really the ideal vacation destination? It sounds trivial but such things can resonate...

Cokie Roberts said:

...going off this week I know his grandmother lives in Hawaii and I know Hawaii is a state, but it has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place. He should be at Myrtle Beach and if he's going to take a vacation at this time.

So going to Hawaii comes off as elitist and distant.

Duly noted.

Unless, of course, you are a Republican. Because that is where the Republican National Committee decided to hold its winter meeting.

As the president gave his first State of the Union address Wednesday against the backdrop of the nation’s wheezing economy, the opposition party marked the event by convening a conference here — on an “island paradise.”

“Imagine lush tropical gardens, waterfalls, exotic wildlife and priceless artwork,” boasts the website of the Hilton Hawaiian Village Beach Resort & Spa. “This one-of-a-kind Honolulu Hawaii hotel resort is the only true resort property in Waikiki.”...

...Yet at a moment when millions are out of work and millions more struggling to get by, the party’s governing board will plot its comeback on the island of Oahu, sipping drinks poolside, catching rays on the beach that abuts the villa and raising questions about whether they’re as politically tone-deaf as they accuse the president of being.

But this is different. Not only are the Republicans not Obama, but they are working on stuff.

GOP Chairman Michael Steele says so.

"Relax," Steele said while sporting a Hawaiian shirt and a flower lei. "We're working hard here, trust me. This is not a vacation."

Oh. That's different then.

Howard Zinn, 1922-2010

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Yesterday, Howard Zinn suffered a heart attack and died at age 87.

Zinn, a longtime professor at Boston University, was known for his left-wing politics. Born in New York, Zinn served in the Army Air Forces during World War II, where he became a second lieutenant. He attended New York University on the GI bill after the war, enrolling as a 27-year-old freshman; he did his postgraduate work at Columbia. As a young professor, he became a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War.

He published books on the Vietnam War, as well as other books on history and American society. But it was his 1980 book "A People's History of the United States" and its follow-up, "Voices of a People's History of the United States," that made him required reading. Literally -- "A People's History of the United States" presented American history from alternative perspectives, including native peoples, slaves, disenfranchised workers, farmers and women.

Zinn was a multi-award winning author having won the Thomas Merton Award, the Eugene V. Debs Award, the Lannan Literary Award for nonfiction and the Upton Sinclair Award.

He worked with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and in 1964 authored a book about the organization entitled SNCC: The New Abolitionists. As a teacher at Spellman College for seven years, Zinn mentored many students, one of which was Alice Walker, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of The Color Purple.

The aforementioned People's History of the United States was a milestone book. The history of the United States written from a different perspective.

Howard Zinn: It really started way back... I wrote A People's History with the idea of bypassing and ignoring the usual from-the-top-down treatment of American history. I wanted not to see American history from the viewpoint of people in authority -- presidents and congressmen, generals and so on. I wanted to see American history from the standpoint of people who had been ommitted from textbooks.

I wrote the book in the late 1970s, and it came out of the movmenets of the 60s and 70s and my participation in those movements. I had spent years in the South involved in the civil rights movement and I was very conscious when I was there -- I was teaching at a black college in Atlanta, Spellman College, and I was going around with SNICK (The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee). And as I was going around participating in various things, whether in Atlanta, or demonstrations in Albany, Georgia, or Selma, Alabama, or various towns in Mississippi, I was very much aware that all sorts of very fascinating things were going on. Fascinating figures were on the scene. And none of this was going to be reported in the mainstream media, because the mainstream media is only interested in big events and big people -- even with movements they conventrate on the big events and big people.

His autobiography written in 1994 is entitled You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times.

Zinn was a great thinker, activist, and author. He stayed attuned to politics and culture even in his later years. Upon Obama's election, Zinn had this to say:

...With his foreign policy, unfortunately, he shows no signs of departing from the traditional militarism of the Democratic and Republican parties. The idea of sending more troops to Afghanistan is disastrous, really absurd. I mean, almost as soon as he came into office he sent missiles into Pakistan. Civilians were killed. The whole tone of foreign policy, adding more soldiers, leaving 50,000 in Iraq even after withdrawing them in 16 months, all of this is very bad. And, therefore, he's going to need a great big push -- protest, really. He's going to need demonstrations and protest and letters and petitions. He's going to have to face the kind of agitation that Roosevelt faced when he came into office.

With the passing of Howard Zinn, we have unfortunately lost one more agitator.

R.I.P.

Texas rewrites history

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:21:00 +0000

Currently, the Texas Board of Education is attempting to rewrite the state's social studies curriculum.

The reason that this is important for people even outside of Texas is the fact that Texas is one of the nation’s largest purchaser of textbooks. It isn't cost effective for publishers to produce various versions of their texts. As such, Texas has the power to set the education curriculum for many other states.

And how does Texas want to rewrite it?

Texas public school students should learn about Newt Gingrich and other conservative politicians but not liberals, according to the first draft of proposed standards for the state's high school history books.

The Texas Board of Education will decide the future curriculum. The board is comprised of 15 members, 10 of which are Republicans.

Republican Don McLeroy has been spearheading the work to drive out any liberal education and replace it with his views.

The first draft recommends students studying U.S. history since Reconstruction be able to identify "significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority."

I'm sure you are familiar with Newt Gingrich.

Schlafly was a major opponent to the Equal Rights Amendment. She founded the "Stop the ERA" movement with the STOP standing for "Stop Taking our Privileges". Schlafly argued that should the amendment pass, women would actually lose valuable rights. Which is more than a little ridiculous.

The text of the ERA amendment is thus:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Equality of rights shall not be denied. How terrifying! Thank God Schlafly stepped in and prevented such a horrible thing from coming to pass!

The Moral Majority was created by Jerry Falwell. Remember him? The sweet Christian man who stated "so-called gay folks would just as soon kill you as look at you." and upon the ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education stated:

If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God's word and had desired to do the Lord's will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made," Falwell boomed from above his congregation in Lynchburg. "The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line."

But yeah, sure, let's make sure we add them to the history course and teach children about how great they were. They have done so much for America.

Make no mistake, this is a movement to indoctrinate children with Conservative only beliefs and values.

As an editorial for the Waco Tribune-Herald notes:

For instance, the state board last week by a 7-6 vote tentatively approved requiring that students study conservative political groups of the 1980s and 1990s — yet with no similar requirement that liberal groups from the same period be studied. That means students must learn about such critical figures as Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. Right...

...Plus there was a spirited argument among board members over whether hip-hop should be replaced by an emphasis on country and western music...

As we all know, country and western music has had a much larger impact on popular culture than that flash in the pan hip-hop thing. Right?

It gets worse though.

The Republican majority voted against requiring Texas textbooks and teachers to cover the Democratic late senator Edward Kennedy, the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and leading Hispanic civil rights groups such as LULAC and MALDEF....

...“McLeroy was successful with another of his noteworthy amendments: to include documents that supported Cold War-era Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his contention that the U.S. government was infiltrated with Communists in the 1950s.”...

...“Republican board member Cynthia Dunbar unsuccessfully tried to strike the names of Scopes monkey trial attorney Clarence Darrow and Pan-Africanist Marcus Garvey from the standards. Asked by another member about her opposition to Garvey, Dunbar explained, according to the Texas Tribune: “My concern is that he was born in Jamaica and was deported.”...

Why would we need to cover Ted Kennedy? I mean, he was only the fourth-longest-serving senator in U.S. history. His older brothers were President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy (of course, who knows how long either of those guys will be in Texas' curriculum). He was awarded honorary knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II, the Order of the Aztec Eagle from Mexico, the US Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Order of the Merit of Chile among others. He played a major role in passing many laws over his 46 years in the U.S. Senate. But he was a liberal...so screw him.

And we are gonna be whitewashing McCarthy in Texas. You know...that guy that was Red hunting, destroying lives and making wild accusations to the point where the Senate even censured him. Yeah....let's teach students how good he was for America.

Many Conservatives have been attempting to rehabilitate McCarthy for years now, Ann Coulter being one of the notable ones. See the thing is, America is a free country. In a free country, you can be a Communist. We don't believe in thought police in this country. Everyone is allowed to have whatever political leanings and opinions he or she wants.

Except in Texas, apparently.

Thoughts for Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Tea Party Nation hates liberals

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 +0000

Since the tea baggers began...um....tea bagging, supporters have often claimed that they aren't affiliated with the GOP, nor are they necessarily conservatives. Merely common folks who are fed up with government spending.

Tea baggers don't hate liberals, see? Just government spending.

Except...bullshit.

The lie has been revealed by Talking Points Memo:

Now note, the TPN website claims outlines what they stand for:

Tea Party Nation (or TPN) is a user-driven group of like-minded people who desire our God given Individual Freedoms which were written out by the Founding Fathers. We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country!

Individual freedoms. Free speech.

Let's look at what they said in that earlier email, shall we?

....TPN doesn't tolerate liberals....
....You can and will be banned for being a liberal....
....If you wish to debate the virtues of liberalism (as though there were such a thing), there are many other sites on the web who will tolerate you. TPN is not one of those sites....

So...individual freedom and free speech...unless you are a damn liberal. If you are, then fuck you.

But did Rachel Maddow even attempt to join their forum?

Um....nope.

"I used to be an activist, too, so I understand the strategy of using the name of a well-known person to try to get publicity," Maddow told TPMDC in an email.

"Of course, this idea of me trying to join their listserv is completely made up, but still -- I'm flattered the Tea Party folks think I'm well known enough to help their cause," Maddow wrote. "I wish them all best luck with their conference."

Ah. Tea baggers. Tea bagging for America. And freedom.

Unless you are a liberal.

Salvation Army uses charitable assets oddly

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:10:00 +0000

This past holiday season, some of you may have read about how the Salvation Army initially didn't want to give Christmas gifts to kids of people who couldn't prove their immigration status.

Back in 2004, the Salvation Army threatened to close soup kitchens to avoid paying benefits to same-sex partners.

The Salvation Army is threatening to close soup kitchens for tens of thousands of New York's homeless and walk away from other projects if the city enacts legislation requiring firms that do business with New York to offer health benefits to the partners of gay staffers.

Now, it has come to light that officers in the Salvation Army are enjoying a very cushy lifestyle.

The Salvation Army, a religious organization best known for helping the homeless and addicted, does not lavish great wealth upon its officers. But as part of its compensation package, it does provide them with housing.

A story by the Worcester (Mass.) Telegram & Gazette done in conjunction with Boston University's New England Center for Investigative Reporting showed the practice can create some serious image problems at a time when charities are battling over a shrunken pool of donations.

First, we'll start with Divisional Commander Major William Bode. He and his wife Major Joan Bode (Salvation Army officers share the same ranks as their wives, who also serve the organization) live in a $900,000 home in Needham, Mass. Nice.

This charitable organization is shelling out $900,000 for an employee to live in a palatial house. But William Bode isn't the only one taking advantage of the Salvation Army's kindness.

Then there's Major Michael Copeland, who, by his own account, repeatedly pushed property limits set for him in the Worcester area until settling on a four bedroom, two and a half bath home in suburban Holden, Mass., for $350,000 (pictured above). When the basement and garage are added in (per the organization's policy), the home's 3,800 square feet exceeds the 3,000 square foot cap permitted by the Salvation Army's own rules.

Not only did the good major push his organization to move the bar higher because he didn't want the property that was available for less, but in the process he delivered a host of insults to the people who live in the community that actually houses his facilities -- Worcester. And, he made it clear that he wanted to put some space between him and the people he is "serving."

"You work with people who are very troubled for many hours a week. You need a place where you can kind of get away from things, recoup. So when you come back you're renewed and refreshed," Major Copeland told the Telegram & Gazette. "Because of some of the people we deal with, often we're not sure of their backgrounds. We certainly don't want to be so accessible that somebody shows up on our front door in the middle of the night."

Then, Copeland told the newspaper that the city's schools were not suitable for the families of Salvation Army officers...

Good enough to take your money. Too good to go to the same schools as you. Gotta love the Salvation Army.

Health care fight? GOP hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:00:00 +0000

While the Republicans (a.k.a. the party of NO) fight against health care reform citing the possibility of enlarging the federal deficit.

Granted, the Congressional Budget Office says otherwise. The CBO claims it will actually save money. Specifically, $132 billion in the first 10 years.

But the Republicans didn't care so much about enlarging the deficit when they were in charge. Not at all.

Republican senators attacking the cost of a Democratic health care bill showed far different concerns six years ago, when they approved a major Medicare expansion that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits.

The inconsistency — or hypocrisy, as some call it — has irked Democrats, who claim that their plan will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for support.

By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates.

And what exactly is the excuse for being pro-enlarging the deficit when they were in charge and exceptionally anti-any new spending now that they aren't?

Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question."

Seriously?

This is the party who continuously claim that the country would be better off with them completely in charge...but when they were, but Hatch's own admission, it was "standard practice to not pay for things"?

Amazing how losing an election and consequently desperately needing the votes of some angry tea baggers will suddenly change your perspective on needing to pay for things.

Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush. Bartlett disagrees with the Republican sentiment that the past is past and today is today.

"As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt," said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy."

Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was "a pure giveaway" that cost more than this year's Senate or House health bills will cost. More important, he said, "the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers. One hundred percent of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit."

But then, Bartlett has been disenchanted with the current Republican party for a while now. Back in August, Bartlett had the following to say:

I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years, as I explained in my Impostor book. In my opinion, it no longer bears any resemblance to the party of Ronald Reagan. I still consider myself to be a Reaganite. But I don’t see any others anywhere in the GOP these days, which is why I consider myself to be an independent. Mindless partisanship has replaced principled conservatism. What passes for principle in the party these days is “what can we do to screw the Democrats today.”

That same month, he chastised tea baggers for aiming their ire at the wrong man.

Specifically, rather than falling for the GOP meme that Obama is the source of America's financial ills, it was in fact Bush who brought this all down on us.

Where is the evidence that everything would be better if Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product and the level of employment would be pretty much the same today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since Barack Obama’s inauguration.

In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s.

The current GOP doesn't care about making America better nor do they care about helping Americans. They care about scoring political points.

As Bartlett said, the GOP's entire policy these days is "what can we do to screw the Democrats today".

When they rail against the Democrats health care bill remember: they are hypocrites and they are only concerned with amassing power and/or punishing Democrats. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thoughts for Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:00:00 +0000

Making resolutions is a cleansing ritual of self assessment and repentance that demands personal honesty and, ultimately, reinforces humility. Breaking them is part of the cycle. - Eric Zorn

Year's end is neither an end nor a beginning but a going on, with all the wisdom that experience can instill in us. - Hal Borland

The object of a New Year is not that we should have a new year. It is that we should have a new soul and a new nose; new feet, a new backbone, new ears, and new eyes. Unless a particular man made New Year resolutions, he would make no resolutions. Unless a man starts afresh about things, he will certainly do nothing effective. - G.K. Chesterton

One resolution I have made, and try always to keep, is this: To rise above the little things. - John Burroughs

Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each new year find you a better man. - Benjamin Franklin

New Year's Resolution: To tolerate fools more gladly, provided this does not encourage them to take up more of my time. - James Agate

Bunny from Kansas thinks Christmas is ruined

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:00:00 +0000

As the Senate passed comprehensive health care reform legislation by a vote of 60-39, C-SPAN's call in show was taking opinions from people about the legislation.

Bunny from Parsons, Kansas, was so distraught about the health care vote that she took down her Christmas tree. But that's not all.

It wasn't just Bunny's tree that went. "I have taken my Christmas wreath off my house. I have taken all the lights down," she said. "This is supposed to be a nation under God, and it isn't. They absolutely have ruined Christmas."

I'm not very clear on how health care reform has "ruined Christmas". Christmas is a holiday because it celebrates the birth of Jesus. That didn't retroactively not happen because of a Senate vote.

As I've noted previously, the Bible does not speak against helping the sick. Not at all.

Jesus never said "screw the poor". Nor did he preach that one should be more concerned with the amount of taxes he or she personally pays more than one should be concerned with the health of others. Quite the opposite, actually.

Recall Matthew 22:15-22 (...Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.")

Henry Van Dyke, who chaired the committee that wrote the first Presbyterian printed liturgy, The Book of Common Worship of 1906, wrote the following poem.

I am thinking of you today because it is Christmas
and I wish you happiness.
And tomorrow, because it will be the day after Christmas,
I shall still wish you happiness.
My thoughts and my wishes will be with you always.
Whatever joy comes to you will make me glad.
All through the year
I wish you the spirit of Christmas.

Christmas is not about being hostile about health care reform because you believe the inane and self-centered ramblings of the tea baggers. Christmas is about wishing happiness and joy to others.

An organization called the Advent Conspiracy has the stated purpose of bringing back the true meaning of Christmas.

As they note on their website:

When Jesus loved, He loved in ways never imagined. Though rich, he became poor to love the poor, the forgotten, the overlooked and the sick.

Christmas isn't ruined by a Senate vote. And certainly not a vote which aims to help provide health care to millions who are without care.

Merry Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:30:00 +0000

Merry Christmas!

Should you plan to go out wassailing (and more specifically should you choose to imbibe some adult beverages) please remember that many communities have free cab services through the holidays.

You can do a simple search on google and find out the number for your community.

Be safe and have a great holiday season.

Barry from D.C. calls a radio show

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:00:00 +0000

On December 22nd, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine was on WTOP's Ask the Governor radio program. President Barack Obama called in and initially gave his name as "Barry from D.C.".

Obama used the pseudonym so he would be patched through without Gov. Kaine knowing who was on the line so he could surprise him and then praise his work as governor. This, of course, has right wingers in a tizzy.

Here are a few select comments from a TMZ.com article about the radio show.

So it is arrogant for the President of the United States to call himself the President of the United States? What the hell else was he supposed to call himself?

But then again, clearly I am a liberal and therefore I obviously want to see Republicans die because of health care. Which is completely nonsensical as a health care plan ostensibly prevents untimely death.

Oh wait. This is probably to do with Sarah Palin's idiotic "death panel" claims.

Yes Felicity. That phone call cost every tax paying citizen $50. Seriously. I didn't make up that number at all. $50. Pay up.

Nice. Jen was able to both call Obama a "commie" as well as make an idiotic teleprompter joke.

Well played, madam. Well played, indeed.

Although, why in the hell Obama would need a device for televised speeches when he is on the phone is a little weird. But fuck it. Good insult, Jen!

Obviously only MUSLIMS would like Obama since he is secretly a Muslim (or is it MUSLIM?) right?

Um....what the fuck did any of those criticisms have to do with Barack Obama being black?

I'm not trying to be a dick RJ...but there is a slight possibility that you are a racist. And a much higher probability that you are an idiot.

This, of course, isn't the first time Conservatives have used any story as an excuse to attack the President. These examples aren't even the dumbest. Or the most hateful. Gotta love those tea baggers.

But like him or not, Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

Here is a lovely quote from 2006 wherein Sean Hannity took Democratic Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon to task about Blumenaur supposedly undermining the president:

"...And what I find frankly repugnant about you and some of your fellow Democrats – you have undermined our president, you have undermined our troops, you have undermined our war effort from day one and you’re doing it for the sinister reason of political gain..."

Yeah! Now let's see what Sean Hannity has to say about people who leave comments like those listed above!

Go get 'em Sean!

Oh. Wait.

You only care when people criticize a Republican president for "political gain". You don't give a shit if people criticize a Democratic president.

Nevermind.

Substitute teacher wants religious carols in school

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:51:00 +0000

Merry Hyatt is a teacher in California. She taught fourth-grade for a year and a half in a public school and also taught at a Christian school for a year. Mostly she has been a substitute teacher.

And she thinks children need more Jesus in school.

It's sad and it's wrong to have a Christmas party and not mention Jesus," said Hyatt, who recently moved 600 miles north to Redding. "It's his birthday."

Actually, the early Christians didn't celebrate Christmas at all as they considered birthday celebrations to be pagan. Furthermore, Jesus wasn't born in December.

Clement of Alexandria wrote of an early Christian nativity celebration around 200 AD. The group he wrote of celebrated the nativity on Pachon 25 which corresponds to May 20.

The December 25th date was chosen to commandeer the winter solstice celebrations celebrated by non-Christians.

The substitute teacher in Redding, Calif., says she is tired of working in schools where students aren't allowed to sing Christmas songs that are religious in nature. So she's sponsoring a ballot initiative that would require all public schools in California to give children the opportunity to sing or listen to Christmas carols.

"For years and years, maybe one person has been able to ruin it for an entire school," Hyatt said. "It's not right. I think it's the majority's turn."

Um...no.

For years and years the majority had its turn. Basically, from the founding of America until the early 1960's when the Supreme Court ruled on Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963).

In 1971, the court further ruled in Lemon v. Kurtzman that any practice sponsored within state run schools must have a secular purpose.

Hyatt doesn't think it will be a problem for non-Christians though:

Although California is one of the most diverse states in the nation, Hyatt believes the number of children opting out would be relatively small. In all of her years of teaching, she says, "I haven't run into a Jewish child."

I'm not sure what is scarier: that Hyatt really believes the entire California school system is only filled with Christian children...or that she seems to think she can identify a Jewish child by sight.

Hyatt said she got the idea for the initiative "from above" one day while she was sitting on her couch. At first, she rejected the notion. "But then I thought about the blessing I might get and I thought, 'Yeah, that would be worth it,'" she said.

Wait.

So she feels that she might receive a divine reward for pushing this initiative? A blessing? And that is what will make it worth it?

That kinda blows away the initial comment that the motivation was to celebrate Jesus's birthday. It turns out, Hyatt wants to use the California school district to try and win cool points with God.

I guess the "war on Christmas" doesn't just involve defeating health care reform but it also extends to forcing children to sing religious songs in school.

But only if Hyatt gets a blessing out of this whole thing. Otherwise, screw it.

Thoughts for Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:00:00 +0000

Ohio Right to Life opposes "merit selection"

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:00:00 +0000

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Moyer is the longest-serving current state chief justice in the United States. A Republican, Moyer has been Chief Justice since 1987. As a strong proponent of Stare decisis, he has worked well with both Conservatives and Liberals on the court through the years.

The last day of Moyer's current term is Dec. 31, 2010. Due to age restrictions within the Ohio Constitution, Moyer is unable to seek another term on the bench.

As his term comes to an end, Moyer is pushing for an overhaul of the system to which judges are elevated to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Moyer has long wanted to reduce the amount of fund raising and campaign donations needed for state Supreme Court elections. Over the last several years, he has pushed to set campaign finance regulations for the court.

This time he is seeking a structural change in which the governor and a review panel would select Supreme Court justices. Voters would decide a few years later whether to retain those justices.

His second choice, he said last week, would be a system of public financing of judicial election campaigns.

"The goal is to get the money out of the election process," he said.

This week, a "statewide, non-profit, non-sectarian educational organization" in Ohio has come out against Moyer's plan: Ohio Right to Life.

Ohio Right to Life on Monday, Dec. 14, came out strongly opposed to the idea of allowing the governor and a panel to pick justices for the Ohio Supreme Court, instead of allowing voters to elect them.

Ohio Right to Life Executive Director Mike Gonidakis and Legislative Counsel Mark Lally sent a two-page letter to Gov. Ted Strickland and Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Moyer outlining their opposition to “merit selection.”

Currently, there is not one Democrat among the seven judges on the Ohio Supreme Court. Ohio Right to Life regularly endorses candidates who toe their anti-abortion party line.

Should the power to influence votes on judges be removed from the hands of powerful and rich special interests like Ohio Right to Life, a Democrat or two might actually end up on the Supreme Court. And we can't have that, now can we?

The idea in the proposal is for "merit selection". A panel of experts would recommend judges for the high court. The Governor would have no veto power and instead have to choose from that list. Alaska has a similar system in place.

Ohio Right to Life, however, actually opposes "merit selection". Because people on the Supreme Court certainly shouldn't be there due to merit. They should be there based on votes garnered by advertisements flooding the airwaves paid for by special interest groups. Like Ohio Right to Life.

Gonidakis and Lally, however, criticize this set up, citing a 2007 study that found only 56 of 6,306 judicial retention elections between 1964 and 2006 led to the judges not being retained. Direct elections provide an important power check on the judiciary system, they argue.

Except their argument isn't valid. According to the current proposal, voters would have a chance to vote judges out of office in a retention election. That takes care of the whole power check argument.

Supreme Court justices should be sitting on the bench because they have earned that responsibility. Not because they toe the line to powerful special interests who help get them elected to the highest court in the state.

Christianity and health care

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:22:00 +0000

Around this time every year, right-wing organizations go out of their way to pretend there is a "war on Christmas" and to remind us that Jesus is the reason for the season.

Last month, the American Family Association urged a boycott on Gap believing the company wasn't showing enough tradition and recognition of Christmas in their holiday advertisements.

To me it is a little odd that the AFA actually wants companies to use Christmas in their advertising. You would think Christians would be concerned with the commercialization of a religious holiday....

In any case, the message is clear: Christmas is supposed to be about Jesus.

Unless you are a teabagger.

At a small gathering this morning in Upper Senate Park, Tea Party activists sang The 12 Days of Christmas, refashioned with lyrics about the problems under President Obama. Later on at a larger gathering organized by AFP, both Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and conservative radio host Laura Ingraham invoked Christmas as a reason to defeat reform.

How is Christmas a reason to defeat reform? Because...um....the thing is...uh....

Here are some thoughts on health care and Christianity:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. (Matthew 10 5-8)

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (Matthew 22:39)

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' (Matthew 25:31-36)

When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. He told them: "Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them." So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere. (Luke 9:1-6)

On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, "Woman, you are set free from your infirmity." Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.

Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath."

The Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?"

When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing. (Luke 13:10-17)

Earlier this year, Drew Smith wrote an article entitled "How Would Jesus Handle Health Care?" In the article, Smith notes the two stories of healing in Mark 5:21-43; the daughter of Jairus, a synagogue ruler, and an unnamed female outcast.

...Yet, when we read the stories as one, we also come away with the idea that the two individuals that come to Jesus could not be more different. Jairus, whose name we know, is a male. The woman, who remains nameless, is a female. Jairus is a leader in the synagogue, a man of great religious and political stature and influence. The unnamed woman is an outcast, who has been shunned by her community because of her disease. Jairus can come to Jesus expecting to seek healing for his daughter. The woman is disregarded by the crowd as she approaches Jesus from behind....

...In a market-driven system of health care, the unnamed woman would have perhaps gone untreated, but Jairus would have had the health care he needed for his daughter. After all, Jairus is a man of means. But the woman has no money left. Jesus, however, saw things differently. Jesus valued all human life as sacred to God, and he extended healing and wholeness to both the woman and Jairus' daughter.

But in stopping to heal the unnamed woman instead of proceeding straightaway to Jairus' house uninterrupted, Jesus also rebuked a system that offered preferential treatment for those like Jairus who have power, status and money. He recognized the universality of pain and suffering, and thus he desired to heal both the woman and Jairus' daughter....

It amazes me that many Conservatives can claim the Christian faith as their motivation for actions that directly contradict the teachings of that faith.

Jesus never said "screw the poor". Nor did he preach that one should be more concerned with the amount of taxes he or she personally pays more than one should be concerned with the health of others. Quite the opposite, actually.

Recall Matthew 22:15-22 (...Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.")

There is no moral argument against helping those who are in need. None. And there certainly isn't a theological argument against helping the sick and the poor. The groups united against health care reform are motivated by greed. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

Lynne Torgerson believes Islam isn't a religion

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:00:00 +0000

In 2006, Keith Ellison won the open seat for Minnesota's 5th congressional district. In doing so, Ellison become the first African American elected to the House from Minnesota.

He is also the first Muslim elected to Congress.

After his election, Glenn Beck had him on his show and stated the following:

BECK: OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I`ve been to mosques. I really don`t believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it`s being hijacked, quite frankly.

With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let`s cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."

And I know you`re not. I`m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that`s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

I would hope that most people would see this baiting for the idiocy that it is. But Beck isn't alone in feeling that Muslims are the enemy.

In Minnesota, an independent candidate has thrown her hat into the ring to unseat Ellison. Her name is Lynne Torgerson.

Torgerson has a campaign website with a long list of issues. One of those issues is "Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion". Here is what she has to say:

What is freedom of religion? When one thinks about it, religion is primarily one's freedom to choose which god or gods to worship. Correct? Religion is really not primarily behavior. Rather, it is faith. And of course, certain behaviors attend certain religions. However, I think we can all agree that religion does not include criminal behavior. Correct? And also, it should therefore follow that the advocacy of criminal behavior is not religion. Correct?

And thus, we come to the teachings of Islam, or the Quran. The Quran actually teaches Muslims to kill people not of their faith, which are labeled infidels, which includes Christians and Jews, as well as people of other faiths. ("Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Sura 9:5)). This is advocating criminal behavior. Thus, at a minimum, this portion of the religion of Islam cannot be protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It portion is not "religion" recognizable under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Quran also says that if a person leaves Islam, that that is an offence mandating death. Recently, a Harvard Muslim Chaplain, Taha Abdul-Basser, stated that apostates (those who leave Islam) should be killed, although he stated that they could only be killed by a legitimate Muslim governmental authority and cannot be performed by a non-state, private actors. Again, this is advocating criminal behavior. Again, this is not allowing all people the right to freedom of religion. Thus, the Quran conflicts with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and our criminal laws. Thus, the total "religion" of Islam is not fully protectable by our First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Further, evidently, the goal of Islam is to Islamize the entire world, or, global Islam. I believe there is a term, "umrah" that reflects this goal. Well, this goal also conflicts with our First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Islam also oppresses women. That conflicts with the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

And, what do I know of Islam? Well, I know of 911. Nineteen (19) men from Saudi Arabia, all Muslim, hi-jacked planes, and flew into the two (2) World Trade Towers murdering thousands of people, and tried to fly into our Pentagon, and some believe they also tried to fly an airplane into our White House. From this, what I perceive is Islam conducting an act of war against my country.

People say that we can't include the moderate, peace loving Muslims. Well, I agree. But, who are they? They need to stand up and identify themselves loudly and clearly say that they oppose Jihad and terrorism, etc. Who are these people? I cannot tell. It is not for me to go and try and find them. Rather, it is their duty to stand up and identify themselves, if there are any.

Torgerson believes in freedom of religion...she just doesn't count Islam as a religion and therefore Muslims shouldn't have freedom. Convenient, no?

Here lack of theological knowledge is stunning. She seriously writes: "And, what do I know of Islam? Well, I know of 911." And that is supposed to be a valid argument.

How about this? What do I know of Christianity? Well, I know of witch burnings, pograms, and crusades.

Recently, Joe Jervis pointed out how many Christians in positions of authority have committed, admitted to, or been convicted of crimes in the last week.

Should that been seen as indicative of Christianity as a whole?

Let's look at some of her other observations:

...The Quran actually teaches Muslims to kill people not of their faith...

So does the Bible. Luke 19:27, Deuteronomy 20, etc.

...The Quran also says that if a person leaves Islam, that that is an offence mandating death...

Deuteronomy 21:18 instructs parents to have their children stoned to death if they are rebellious and disobedient.

...Islam also oppresses women...

Ambrose, the bishop of Milan from 374 to 397 A.D. stated that "though the man was created outside Paradise, an inferior place, he is found to be superior, while woman, though created in a better place, inside Paradise, is found inferior."

Augustine also said of women: "I cannot think of any reason for woman's being made as man's helper, if we dismiss the reason of procreation."

But those are people. Let's look at the Bible.

Ephesians 5:23-32
"For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Colossians 3:18
"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."

There are many other passages. Just read the book.

...the goal of Islam is to Islamize the entire world...

Need I remind you of Matthew 28:18-20?

Apparently, many of the criticisms Torgerson has toward Islam are also valid criticisms of Christianity. Of course, every single religion has scriptures that are open to interpretation so you can make them sound evil or enlightening, depending upon your motivation.

I am a Christian so obviously I don't feel that Christianity is evil. I am making a point that anyone can cherry pick and make something look bad. And that is exactly what Torgerson is doing with her ~~criticisms~~ attacks on Islam.

Christianity isn't evil, and neither is Islam.

Torgerson's views on Islam, however, are rather bigoted.

Athletics trump education

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:00:00 +0000

Almost a year ago, I wrote about Education and athletics and my belief that our society puts too high a premium on athletic achievement. A month later, I wrote about the effect of the economy on colleges and universities.

While the economy slowly begins to get better (according to various economists and television talking heads), unemployment remains high and colleges have raised tuition, cut classes, and downsized staff.

But only in education. College athletics, however, are doing just fine.

Recently, the University of Texas at Austin just decided to give their football coach a raise. A big raise.

We don’t need more reminders that college sports is a gigantic business, camouflaged with pompoms and the sound of cash registers drowned out by spiffy marching bands, but we continue to get them anyway. And today’s comes with the force of a frying pan.

Do pause and consider that Texas just gave its head football coach, Mack Brown, a raise to $5 million a year. The university carefully explains he is worth it because he is taking the Longhorns to the Bowl Championship series title game for the second time in five years, that the money will come out of athletic department revenues and is not crippling the budget of, say, the engineering school. But lost in that is the fact that under the pompoms is supposed to be a nonprofit educational institution, one that recently raised tuition and voted to freeze the pay of university presidents, but whose football coach is now envied by oil barons.

An editorial in the Austin-American Statesman outlines the defense for giving Brown that enormous raise.

The news that Mack Brown, head football coach at the University of Texas, will be paid $5 million this year and millions more if he chooses to stay is hot community conversation.

The juxtaposition of that stratospheric salary and layoffs of UT staff members fuels angst over the value placed on knowledge and skills.

Why should a football coach make more than a professor? Yeah, respond fans, would 40,000 people buy tickets to hear a lecture on the Medicis?

Pardon the expression, but the exercise is academic. In this world, football sells not only tickets but also an image that attracts donors. Face it — football generates dough.

Brown's seven-figure salary should be put in context of the many, many millions the UT football program makes as well as the recognition it brings the school.

See? The athletics bring in donor cash...which is funneled back to athletics and not so much to the downsized staff or to reverse the pay freezes and tuition raises. Besides...who wants to hear a lecture on the Medicis? Right?

OK. I guess that argument kinda sucks, actually.

But the University of Texas at Austin isn't the only guilty party. There are numerous universities that have put athletics far above education.

Pete Carroll, of Southern Cal, earns around $4.4 million and is one of three coaches with salaries that are worthy of the pregnancy ward.

And it’s students that take it on the chin.

USC has increased its tuition by 32 percent as well as cut classes, in addition to the $31-plus million in debt the athletic department simply looked away from in 2007 that has yet to be paid.

The University of California is paying Jeff Tedford $2.8 million in addition to another $430 million renovation project for its stadium, despite state appropriations and overall funding for education shrinking.

But Arizona is the worst of them all.

Arizona’s $378 million spending effort to upgrade sporting facilities in every major sport over the next 20 years is the most idiotic news I have heard from any state in this country to date—see what happens when education get’s cast aside?

This is from the same state who just recently claimed it was going broke.

Despite the announcement, and the exaggerated salary of Mike Stoops at $1.3 million, the state is one of 34 who have cut spending to public colleges and universities. Arizona State has cut almost 600 staff positions; can you guess where that touted $378 million is coming from now?

This past weekend, eight people were arrested for breaking windows and throwing burning torches at UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau's campus residence. The hostility stemmed from rising fees coupled with budget cutbacks. It was estimated there were upwards of 75 people involved.

This followed the arrest of 66 people from a four-day protest last week at Wheeler Hall. Earlier this year, on November 20th, the same building was the site of a student occupation.

Earlier this year, UC Berkeley gave their football coach, Jeff Tedford, a contract extension. Even before the extension, Tedford was one of the highest-compensated employees of UC Berkeley. The extension is incentive laden and could grant Tedford more than $4 million a year.

According to the contract, which is through 2013, "The maximum total potential payout under this contract occurs in year five in the amount of $4.285 million. Payment of this amount is dependent upon Mr. Tedford achieving all goals, including all those in the 'Accomplishments.' " The accomplishments include winning national championships and receiving national coach-of-the-year recognitions while keeping the team's cumulative GPA at 2.8 or better...

...Tedford's base salary would jump 34.3 percent, from $167,500 to no less than $225,000, and his "talent fee"' would get a rise from $1,332,500 to $1.575 million...

...Tedford will receive a $1 million bonus if he is Cal's coach through the 2008 season, another $1.5 million if he finishes 2011 and yet another $1 million for completing the contract. He also gets a $1 million signing bonus.

All these years I have been operating under the mistaken impression that colleges and universities were places of education. Not so much farm teams for the NFL.

When the argument for cutting staff and raising tuition while concurrently giving your football coach a raise boils down to "wins bring donors", there is something wrong with the way universities are being operated. What happens to that donor money? Do any of these universities hire back the hundreds they downsized? Do they refund tuition money to students?

Hell no. They refurbish their stadiums and give the coaches even bigger raises.

I enjoy watching football as much as the next guy and I don't begrudge college athletes for using their physical gifts to get into colleges and universities they might not be able to afford to attend. I do have a huge problem with the fact that those universities are too expensive for so many to afford to attend. Rather than athletic scholarships...how about making education accessible to all?

How about making education the priority and not athletics?

All this focus on athletics over education is taking a toll.

The United States is now in a rare club. We are one of only two nations where people ain the 25-34 age bracket have less education than their parents.

While the U.S. ranks second among all nations in the proportion of its population aged 35–64 with a college degree, it ranks tenth in the percentage of its population aged 25–34 who have earned an associate or baccalaureate degree. Other nations are overtaking the U.S. in educating younger members of their populations to meet global challenges and remain vitally engaged in the competitive terrain of the twenty-first century....

...We note the declining performance of U.S. tenth-graders in math and problem-solving abilities relative to their peers of other nations. There is a diminished interest in science among undergraduates in the U.S., and the U.S. is losing ground to other nations in the proportion of young people earning a college degree. While U.S. universities and colleges have for many years been the destination of choice for promising international students to earn undergraduate and graduate degrees, several nations are now heavily investing in their own higher education institutions and seeking to educate more of their own best and brightest at home. Finally, we note that the price of higher education continues to increase at rates that make a college degree financially challenging to many students across the United States.

When the cost of attaining a college degree is too financially challenging for American students, we will remain one of two countries where young people have less education than their parents. That is, of course, until the other country fixes the problem. Then it will just be us.

But by all means...let's continue to focus on how unfair the BSC system is as opposed to a playoff series. Hell, let's have government intervention! And as we focus on football, out future generations continue to become less and less able to compete in the global workforce due to lack of education.

Thoughts for Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:00:00 +0000

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. - Albert Einstein

War means blind obedience, unthinking stupidity, brutish callousness, wanton destruction, and irresponsible murder. - Alexander Berkman

War is organized murder and torture against our brothers. - Alfred Adler

War is a quarrel between two thieves too cowardly to fight their own battle; therefore they take boys from one village and another village, stick them into uniforms, equip them with guns, and let them loose like wild beasts against each other. — Thomas Carlyle

Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others. The inhabitants of the other spots reason like manner, of course... - Emma Goldman

Booze + FratBoys = Whore?

noreply@blogger.com (Victoria) — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:00:00 +0000

Amy Dickinson writes an advice column entitled "Ask Amy" which runs in the Chicago Tribune. She recently received a letter from someone who calls herself "Victim? in Virginia".

Dear Amy: I recently attended a frat party, got drunk and made some bad decisions.

I let a guy take me to "his" room because he promised that he wouldn't do anything I wasn't comfortable with.

Many times, I clearly said I didn't want to have sex, and he promised to my face that he wouldn't.

Then he quickly proceeded to go against what he "promised." I was shocked, and maybe being intoxicated made my reaction time a bit slow in realizing what was happening.

We were soon kicked out of the room by the guy who lived there, who was pretty angry.

I guess my question is, if I wasn't kicking and fighting him off, is it still rape?

I feel like calling it that is a bit extreme, but I haven't felt the same since it happened.

Am I a victim?

-- Victim? in Virginia

Now that you have read the letter, here is a gem from the response:

Were you a victim? Yes.

First, you were a victim of your own awful judgment. Getting drunk at a frat house is a hazardous choice for anyone to make because of the risk (some might say a likelihood) that you will engage in unwise or unwanted sexual contact.

Here are a couple more:

You don't say whether the guy was also drunk. If so, his judgment was also impaired....

...Go to your college's health department to be tested for STDs and pregnancy. See a counselor to determine how you want to approach this. You must involve the guy in question in order to determine what happened and because he absolutely must take responsibility and face the consequences for his actions, just as you are prepared to do.

Yep. You should just go ahead and ring up your rapists and ask him how he feels about the situation. Get his perspective, you know?

Pissed yet? I know I am. So were these folks...

Well, Ms. Dickinson, we'd expect someone handing out advice in a national forum to be more educated, careful, respectful and circumspect. Especially when talking about rape.

Yeah equality! Young boys can get drunk at a party, they are either going to be told "Oh, they're just being boys", or "Way to go, Bro!" Women, apparently, shouldn't drink alcohol because it either turns them stupid, or brings out their inner Jezebel.

Quite frankly, Ms Dickinson, you really aren't supporting either gender in your response. Not all drunken fraternity brothers are rapists in the wings, and not all young women are morons just waiting to break through their cocoons by the power of the booze.

Yes, sometimes drunk people do things they may regret later, and yes sometimes, bad things happen to decent people when they have had too much to drink. But that is not a gender exclusive club. The only accurate point in your response was:

You don't say whether the guy was also drunk. If so, his judgment was also impaired.

That part is true.

However, impairment, if the guy was drunk, doesn't excuse rape. Rapists are going to rape if they are drunk, sober, or have a wicked case of the swine flu. It is a little heavy handed to infer that every young man on a college campus is going to get drunk and lure young women into their den's of evil, get them drunk, and rape them.

The thing in all of this that may have been forgotten is:

Victim? in Virginia

I sincerely hope this girl has gotten some help, both physical and psychological. Especially after reading how her cry for help was answered. In case no one else has said it, Victim, this was NOT YOUR FAULT!

Ms Dickinson, I don't know you. I don't know your history. For your sake, I'm hoping you've never been nor ever will be raped; I'm guessing from the tone of your letter that you have not. Sometimes, perhaps, you should get some advice from the experts before dolling out your own.

Ronald Hanyerere dislikes human rights

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:00:00 +0000

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda.

Recently, allAfrica.com ran an opinion piece by Ronald Hanyerere curiously entitled "Not Every Human Right is Right" which deals with this bill.

One Sunday morning, I was going to church when I met a lady who was so skimply dressed, one would think she was a sex worker. I initiated a conversation with her, only to find out, she was going to church.

I sarcastically told her she was smart and God would hear her prayers, but not those of the people who were going to sit near her. To my surprise, the lady responded with a verbal tirade: "It is my right to dress the way I want. Who made you judge over those whose prayers God answers?" she shouted.

This whole concept of human rights grates my nerves. It has made people un-african, mean and self-centered.

One can now shamelessly stand up and tell you: "I do as I please. You have no business in my affairs." A sodomist can now swear to you that what they do in the privacy of their bedroom does not concern the public.

No wonder when a brilliant MP comes up with a Bill against homosexuality, the human rights activists baptise him an enemy of the people.

Yep. Apparently the guy who is pushing an anti-homosexuality bill which would prohibit any form of sexual relations between persons of the same
sex is "brilliant".

But then again, the whole concept of human rights grates on Hanyerere's nerves so I guess I guy who pushes for a bill which violates human rights would be "brilliant" in Hanyerere's eyes.

Here are some highlights from the "brilliant" bill:

4, Attempt to commit homosexuality.
(1) A person who attempts to commit the offence of homosexuality commits a felony and is liable on conviction to imprisonment seven years.
(2) A person who attempts to commit the offence of aggravated homosexuality commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

7. Aiding and abating homosexuality
A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage in acts of homosexuality commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for seven years.

14. Failure to disclose the offence.
A person in authority, who being aware of the commission of any offence under this Act, omits to report the offence to the relevant authorities within twenty-four hours of having first had that knowledge, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty currency points or imprisonment not exceeding three years.

The bill would not only punish all homosexuals but also anyone who knows a homosexual and doesn't call the police on the homosexual person. Nice, eh?

But Hanyerere's article continues:

The so-called human rights activists have hijacked the driver's seat and are sending nations into the sea of permissiveness in which the Western world has already drowned.

Every evil that has penetrated our society comes disguised as a human right and is watered by a group of elites who have attained education in the West. These elites have come back to impose on us practices that our forefathers deemed abominable....

...These activists force their unsuspecting disciples into believing that everything the West does is right. That is why they always refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...

...Not every human right is a right, and not every right is a human right. As Africans, we should defend our heritage even when human rights activists are misleading our society.

Well....except for the fact that the definition of "human right" is "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled" so I guess every human right is a right.

And those damn activists constantly referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human rights probably do grate on your nerves when you openly espouse bigotry towards all who are different than you.