TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | April, 2010

Our Unstable Afghan Partner

By on 07 April 2010

“He’s prone to tirades. He can be very emotional, act impulsively. In fact, some of the palace insiders say that he has a certain fondness for some of Afghanistan’s most profitable exports,” said Galbraith, in an apparent reference to opium or heroin. – Peter Galbraith

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


As if our challenges with Pres. Karzai aren’t bad enough, the latest charge from Peter Galbraith, who made the rounds yesterday, is enough to make you understand why the guy got canned. His animus towards Pres. Karzai is palpable.

Whether the swirling rumor about Karzai doing drugs is true or not, he’s certainly nervous about something, having blurted out a threat about joining the Taliban not long after Pres. Obama made a trek to his country. The reactions from everyone in the press about Galbraith’s comments are priceless and they did the trick. They got everyone’s attention.

Practically speaking on policy, Obama’s summer insurgency plans are going to go south before they get started if he doesn’t have a reliable partner to coordinate the mission this summer.

I’ve been a stalwart supporter of Obama’s Afghanistan plans, though Karzai’s corruption in fixing the election dimmed my enthusiasm by about half, with this latest public tangle truly troubling.

It’s more likely Mr. Galbraith, who I have never met, was brandishing rhetorical barbs to further damage the Afghan troublemaker who wants to blame everyone but himself for the mess he’s made of an amazing opportunity the U.S. has provided.

I can only imagine what Joe Biden is saying to Obama after he got a load of Galbraith’s wild accusations, as Mr. Biden was never too keen on the Afghan plan in the first place.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

WikiLeaks Video on Reuters Story: Collateral Damage or ‘Collateral Murder’?

By on 07 April 2010

–bumped–

Part of this story centers around the release of a classified U.S. military video through WikiLeaks, now available through a site provocatively called “CollateralMurder,” which has now been aired across the web and cable TV. Elizabeth Bumiller confirming that the video is authentic. Other parts of the story revolve around rules of engagement, but also the dangers of war correspondents and their support teams, especially when reporting within weapon carrying groups of individuals being scout by U.S. military scoping out areas in Baghdad, circa 2007. It’s a complicated situation.

In the video posted above, at around 3:50, it is clearly heard that the military surveying the situation not only sees weapons, obviously AK47s, but also believe the armed individuals have an RPG weapon launcher, something taken seriously when you’re in a U.S. Apache gunship.

As is now known, Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh were killed in this U.S. Apache strike. The request for the release of the video of the scene was made right around that time, which is what WikiLeaks released.

From Bumiller’s report:

… On the day of the attack, United States military officials said that the helicopters had been called in to help American troops who had been exposed to small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades in a raid. “There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad, said then.

But the video does not show hostile action. Instead, it begins with a group of people milling around on a street, among them, according to WikiLeaks, Mr. Noor-Eldeen and Mr. Chmagh. The pilots believe them to be insurgents, and mistake Mr. Noor-Eldeen’s camera for a weapon. They aim and fire at the group, then revel in their kills.

“Look at those dead bastards,” one pilot says. “Nice,” the other responds.

A wounded man can be seen crawling and the pilots impatiently hope that he will try to fire at them so that under the rules of engagement they can shoot him again. “All you gotta do is pick up a weapon,” one pilot says.

A short time later a van arrives to pick up the wounded and the pilots open fire on it, wounding two children inside. “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle,” one pilot says.

At another point, an American armored vehicle arrives and appears to roll over one of the dead. “I think they just drove over a body,” one of the pilots says, chuckling a little. [...]

It’s a harrowing transcript read out that is anything but flattering to these soldiers. However, to call it a “massacre,” as Matthew Yglesias wrote today, is unfair, however heartbreaking the video or heartless the comments captured. Glenn Greenwald calls it a slaughter, though I think it’s very safe to surmise that there was an effort by the U.S. military to conceal the video.

The United States Central Command is also quoted in Bumiller’s report, via a redacted report on the Reuters’ reporters saying they…

“made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.”

What it definitely is in my assessment is the tragedy of war, where there are no guarantees. Iraq was a volatile war zone in 2007, where embedded journalists and their teams took their lives in their hands to report the war. Their bravery was incredible, with over 170 journalists giving their lives to get the story.

Let’s also remember the job of soldiers, especially when they see armed enemies that they are trained to seek out and to kill, which is their mission.

I’ll let you be the judge as to whether this is a tragic tale of collateral damage or “collateral murder.”

Read full story · Comments { 76 }

Newt to GOP: Leave Michael Alone

By on 06 April 2010

There’s nothing like the smell of Republican pandemonium in an election year, especially one that is looking up hill for Democrats. From bondage to Michael Steele blundering in his answer to George Stephanopoulos yesterday; when Steph repeated a question he’d received from someone on his blog that asked whether, as an African American chairman of the RNC, Mr. Steele had a “slimmer margin of error.” Steele replied emphatically “yes,” then went on to invoke Barack Obama, which brought a swift response from the White House.

“I think Michael Steele’s problem isn’t the race card, it’s the credit card.” – Robert Gibbs

Playing the race card falls flat for Steele, because no one has been given more opportunity to fix his screw ups than Mr. Steele. If this is an example of a “slimmer margin of error,” well, I want to know what it takes to fire someone. If Republicans don’t come close to taking the House we may well see.

The Republicans are eating up all the oxygen with loads of negative press, while Obama struts his non-proliferation commander in chief stuff, leaving the wingnut weenies to whine amongst themselves.

So, here comes Newt to the rescue:

Gingrich said Tuesday he thinks “it’s foolish for Republicans to focus on Michael Steele as a person and it’s better to focus on Democrats.” – AP

I guess Mr. Gingrich forgets the reason Mr. Steele is taking so much heat is that he’s rifled through a lot of money, with Republicans now underdogs in fundraising to Democrats, while his continued ineptitude is providing plenty of fodder that needs no laugh track.

Hotline On Call goes into a lot of minutia about the troubles of the RNC, but also Steele’s power base, finishing with the captivity issue, from bondage to Republicans bailing:

[...] What really burns GOPers is their captivity to the story. Just weeks after health care legislation passed Congress, Dems should be on the defensive, especially in a DC climate in which little news beyond Pres. Obama’s opening-day pitch at Nationals Park is happening. Instead, Steele and the RNC have dominated headlines and the DC media’s attention all week.

For a minority party, a successful electoral strategy is one that makes an election a referendum on the incumbent majority party. Despite a major shakeup at the party headquarters, GOP strategists are still waiting for evidence that the RNC can convince the media to stop talking about themselves and start talking about Dems.

It’s a long way until November, but the constant Michael Steele – RNC soap opera is a nice spring respite amidst a lot of rage that’s been trained on Democrats.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Obama Limits U.S. Nuclear Weapons Response

By on 06 April 2010

“NO NUKES: EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE!” – Drudge squealed.

Honestly, conservative cowardice is only outmatched by their inability to grasp national security reality. As if any United States president would not retaliate if seriously provoked with all means necessary. The conservative idiocy is simply astounding.

Pres. Obama has delivered a policy that matches his speech in 2009 on non-proliferation. In doing so, he also was specific to carve out a special place in U.S. policy for Iran and North Korea, two countries whose leaders have shown they cannot be trusted. From the New York Times:

[...] It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike. [...]

Outside of this discussion, just to acknowledge a wider reality, we have Israel, a country which is waiting on sanctions against Iran, as well as a promise to be delivered that a country they perceive as a mortal enemy will not acquire nuclear weapons. No one will say it out loud, but there is nothing the U.S. is prepared to do or actually can do, beyond sanctions, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, unless the Iranian leadership chooses that course themselves. The rest is about what Israel will do in response.

How Israel fits into Obama’s U.S. policy on non-proliferation is interesting to ponder, because by all measures it seems clear that as Obama moves the U.S. into an important, even groundbreaking clarification on U.S. nuclear policy, which takes us into a 21st century stance that moves away from prior ambivalence as well as Bush-Cheney’s tactical nuke fetish, Israel remains moored in the 20th century unable to make the shift, either on peace or diplomacy.

On the political front, Republicans and conservatives are already delivering 20th century arguments in a 21st century moment. From Power Line:

On its face, that is unbelievably stupid. A country attacks us with biological weapons, and we stay our hand because they are “in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty”? That is too dumb even for Barack Obama. [...] The danger here is not that the Obama administration has really gone pacifist. On the contrary, the significance of today’s announcement appears to be entirely symbolic–just one more chance to preen. The problem is that our enemies understand symbolism and maybe take it too seriously. To them, today’s announcement is another sign that our government has gone soft, and one more inducement to undertake aggressive action against the United States.

From Jihad Watch, who channels Cheney:

Sadly, the path President Obama is taking to achieve his vision of a world without nuclear weapons fails to address the real nuclear threats from terrorist entities. Dithering on the part of the Democrat-led government in Washington offers a leadership opportunity for the Republicans.

Hot Air is disconcerted that the U.S. won’t respond with a nuclear attack if we’re hit with a biologic from a non-nuclear state.

Unless I’ve misunderstood, we reserve the right to nuke the following, whether in self-defense or otherwise: (1) nuclear states, (2) non-nuclear states that are in violation of the NPT (i.e. Iran), (3) non-nuclear states that attack the U.S. with bioweapons, but only if they possess a stockpile large enough to pose a risk of a “devastating strike.” I hope I’ve misunderstood that last one; the idea of Obama explaining to Americans that, yes, 50,000 people may be dead of smallpox but we can’t nuke country X because they don’t have a big enough stockpile of the virus yet is dark comedy gold.

After a century of U.S presidents having a national security policy of “all options on the table” it seems remarkable that even given Pres. Obama’s new nuclear policy parameters that people don’t understand that any president can and will change his or her mind if a situation presents itself and requires a response not previously outlined.

Pres. Obama wants countries to reduce their stockpile, while also sending a signal to Iran and Israel. But no one should assume this is a decision made out of weakness or that it limits U.S. options if provoked.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

Quote of the Millenium (already)

By on 05 April 2010

“I never considered myself a maverick.” – Sen. John McCain

Oh, the ignominy.

The Tea Party is coming for John McCain and it’s causing him to crack.

We’ve watched Sen. John McCain be embraced by the traditional media for the very characteristic he is now saying was never part of his political persona. It defies credulity, because he became a media darling on his maverick status.

Remember when Sarah Palin was picked to share the ticket in 2008 with Mr. McCain? One of the reasons given for her selection was the maverick qualities she has that she shares with McCain.

It’s ironic after all the vitriolic invectives shot Sarah’s way after the 2008 election, McCain had to ask her to come campaign for him in Arizona. I saw a picture with Cindy McCain on the platform with Sarah speaking, John McCain standing behind her, and it looked like Mrs. McCain was going to be ill.

It’s a revolting development for Sen. John McCain to have to contort his political philosophy, as well as his career history, in such a way that he is actually denouncing what made him rise and become beloved by Republicans and even some Democrats, until that ill fated South Carolina primary against George W. Bush that changed him forever. The Tea Party movement is doing the rest.

It’s been an ugly descent. If he actually ends up losing to J.D. Hayworth it will be a historic political implosion.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Pakistan, and the Interventionist Question

By on 05 April 2010

[...] The assault this morning is part of a wave of violence perpetrated by brutal extremists who seek to undermine Pakistan’s democracy and sow fear and discord. The Pakistani people have suffered grievous losses, but they are standing firm in the face of this intimidation — and the United States stands with them. … – Sect. Clinton

As we get closer to August and our commitment to pull back forces in Iraq, our involvement in the region of Afghanistan – Pakistan will come into view. In the last election cycle we saw the rise of Ron Paul and his non-interventionist stance, something neocons abhor, with preemption coupled with tax cuts having ruined Republicanism. As Tea Party members raise the roof on spending in 2010, it makes you wonder if they will join the non-interventionist political streak that began rising through Ron Paul’s candidacy, taking it forward to 2012. It’s not where Republicans want to go, but what have they got left? Meanwhile, the Democrats are deeply sunk into Afghanistan – Pakistan, with the region roiling right now.

The U.S. consulate in Peshawar was attacked today. So, it must be April, for the god of war is on a rampage. Via Bloomberg News:

Taliban guerrillas attacked the U.S. consulate in Peshawar with bombs and gunfire in the heaviest assault on an American diplomatic mission in Pakistan since 1979.

Militants exploded nearly simultaneous bombs at paramilitary police posts guarding roads to the complex, and detonated a larger bomb that damaged the consulate and killed two of its Pakistani security guards. No U.S. casualties were reported.

Guerrillas battled police in “a very coordinated, commando-style attack that involved many people,” said Imtiaz Gul, executive director of Center for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad, the capital. After 14 months of escalated U.S. and Pakistani attacks that have forced the country’s Taliban out of several of their strongholds, violence today “showed that it will take many years to undermine the guerrillas’ capacities,” Gul said by phone. [...]


Graphic via the New York Times.

The graphic above from the New York Times focuses on U.S. drones hitting Pakistan, which the article goes on to delineate in harrowing specifics.

The strikes have become so ferocious, “It seems they really want to kill everyone, not just the leaders,” said the militant, who is a mid-ranking fighter associated with the insurgent network headed by Jalaluddin and Sirajuddin Haqqani. By “everyone” he meant rank-and-file fighters, though civilians are being killed, too. …

[...] “Definitely Haqqani is under a lot of pressure,” the militant said. “He has lost commanders, a brother and other family members.”

While unpopular among the Pakistani public, the drone strikes have become a weapon of choice for the Obama administration after the Pakistani Army rebuffed pleas to mount a ground offensive in North Waziristan to take on the militants who use the area to strike at American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. …

Two of the government supporters said they knew of civilians, including friends, who had been killed by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, they said, they are prepared to sacrifice the civilians if it means North Waziristan will be rid of the militants, in particular the Arabs.

“On balance, the drones may have killed 100, 200, 500 civilians,” said one of the men. “If you look at the other guys, the Arabs and the kidnappings and the targeted killings, I would go for the drones.”

The part in bold above is tucked into this article, bit is a striking bit of truth. The substance of which reminds me of what SecDef Gates said last year about our presence inside Pakistan. From an interview Gates did with Fareed Zakaria back in May, 2009, which I covered:

GATES: They don’t like the idea of a significant American military footprint inside Pakistan. I understand that. But we are willing to do pretty much whatever we can to help the Pakistanis in this situation. I think that we have been willing to do that for quite some time.

Zakaria: Will there be American military advisers in Pakistan now training the Pakistani military in counterinsurgency?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think that remains to be seen. There are some very small number now. But I think it will depend on how the situation develops and the views of the Pakistani government. I would just say we are prepared to provide whatever help in developing this counterinsurgency capability to the Pakistanis that we possibly can. But it’s their country, and they’re sovereign, and we’ll let them dictate the rules.

We’ll likely be digging down into this region for some time to come, regardless of Obama’s pledge to remove resources in Afghanistan in the summer of 2011. Pakistan is quite a different beast than Afghanistan, not the least of it being it’s a nuclear state.

No doubt Bush-Cheney broke Iraq, so we had to stay to fix it; but that goes the same for Afghanistan, which actually goes back to Bill Casey and the Reagan era (though Carter and Zbig authorized the first cash).

Interestingly, if the Tea Party’s so called populist conservatism is taken beyond domestic issue to include thinking about national security, you have to wonder if they’ll stay true to fiscal conservatism, or turn tail and run back to Bush Republicanism and support the industrial military complex of Cheneyism.

As we look forward to 2012, if there is a credible challenge to the two parties who traditionally duke it out, no matter how unlikely it is that an outsider candidacy could win, it would be a positive development if there was a continuing discussion about how we get enmeshed in countries so deeply, spending billions of dollars we have to borrow. It’s quite possible that Afghanistan is the last we’ll see of this type of U.S. interventionism with so many troops at play. A smarter, smaller and more surgical attitude is likely on the horizon.

Then the question becomes what leader can make the Pentagon culture adapt, and if people rising up will force the change, or if it will be our teetering financial deficit that will finally bring it to a halt.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Winston Group & Gallup Stack Polls for Tea Party

By on 05 April 2010

–updated–

Polling is a powerful tool, so it’s important to let the experts do the job. However, when you have The Hill trumpeting the latest polling by the Winston Group, as well as Gallup labeling a group of Tea Party activists “fairly mainstream” when they tilt over 20 percentage points hard right, which I’ll explain in a minute, you’ll pardon me if I demure. It’s not exactly exhuming the Pumas, it’s worse. But first the rhetorical data from The Hill:

Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey.

The findings provide one of the most detailed portraits to date of the grassroots movement that started last year.

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal. [...] (emphasis added)

It’s classic that The Hill calls the Winston Group “Republican-leaning.” They go on to quote David Winston: “It’s a good sample size. … It will certainly give us an initial base to follow where these folks are.”

Who is David Winston?

President, The Winston Group

Career Background

Director, Strategic Information–Republican National Committee; Senior Fellow for Statistical Policy Analysis–The Heritage Foundation; Director of Planning, Speaker’s Office, U.S. House of Representatives; Polling Editor–PollTrack of PolitcsNow–former political Web site of ABC, Washington Post, and National Journal; President, The Winston Group, a GOP polling firm.

Know your source.

Unfortunately, people rarely look further than the numbers or the political tale being spun.

Gallup has been caught notoriously over-sampling Republicans in the past. Considering that, it’s still interesting to look at some of the data compiled. Tea Party members mostly have no college or some college, though one should consider all of the blue collar workers with trades and craft talents without whom this country would fall apart. Most Tea Party members are employed and also white, which we’ve seen in other polling. The one number that is extraordinary and should be a wake up for both parties is that 34% are in the 30-49 years-old age group. Meaning they’re going to be in the voting pool for a very long time and they’re disaffected with politicians of both big parties.

All in the Gallup poll, Tea Party members are 87% against the Obama-Pelosi health care bill, 37% above the national average; with 65% also being “pro (selective) life,” which is close to 20% higher than the national average.

Gallup calls this overwhelmingly rightward tilt “fairly mainstream.” That conclusion comes with very powerful spin, which certainly isn’t neutral by anyone’s objective standard.

To add a word about the Rasmussen poll, one part of it seems clear, while other parts reveal a general lack of understanding about Tea Party views. For instance, even with people who are not focused on women’s issues, Americans across the spectrum support Roe v. Wade, which Tea Party members do not, something that isn’t fully understood, because the media is squeamish on this issue, forever tilting against women’s rights issues. With the LA Times also falling for today’s spin on the Winston Group and Gallop’s polling, it’s no wonder people are confused, even uninformed about the rightward tilt of Tea Party members. However, the Tea Party PR about taking on the current political power in Washington clearly resonates. There is damning information that the Obama White House I’m sure is finding very hard to digest.

Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President.

If you look at other polling since the health care bill passed, it’s safe to posit that the health care process, as well as the legislation itself, is where these numbers likely originate.

Read full story · Comments { 62 }

Karzai’s Contempt

By on 05 April 2010

Netanyahu has a political brother. Pres. Karzai doesn’t like tough love either. From the Washington Post:

[...] Karzai wanted Obama to publicly praise his plans for a “peace jirga,” the planned meeting of tribal elders and political leaders to discuss reconciliation with insurgents, said the senior Afghan official, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly. Karzai also wanted support for his views on how to reform the electoral law ahead of parliamentary elections in September.
ad_icon

What he got was Obama prodding him to perform. He pushed Karzai to keep two foreigners on an elections commission that investigates fraud; to appoint cabinet ministers based on merit rather than personal ties; and to fight corruption by giving more authority and independence to the corruption oversight agency, among other things. Karzai saw the visit less as a public show of partnership than the United States coming to scold an ineffectual leader, according to his supporters.

“Our most important ally is constantly criticizing us: ‘You’re corrupt. You need to do this and that,’ ” said Hekmat Karzai, director of the Center for Conflict and Peace Studies in Kabul, and a cousin of the president. “You cannot talk down to the Afghans like they’re children or they don’t understand.” …

Robert Gibbs, in a briefing late last week, said the White House was asking for clarification of Mr. Karzai’s show of contempt for the U.S. efforts in his country.

The article goes on to say Karzai called Sect. Clinton, reiterating his commitment to our “relationship,” but that didn’t stop him from wailing that he’d “join the Taliban” if confronted by “foreigners,” in an obvious show of independence for his countrymen.

One can only imagine the chills that went down Ms. Suraya Pakzad’s spine on hearing that cry. In March, Ms. Pakzad was trying mightily to make Americans listen to the urgency she feels in demanding the Karzai government allow women’s rights as human rights be considered in any reconciliation bid with the Taliban. Spencer Ackerman had a very good article, which included a back and forth with Pakzad, last month. (It was in the late 1990s, at the same time I met and briefly talked with Mavis Leno, that Taliban abuse of women came on my radar.)

Once again, mimicking when V.P. Biden was abruptly insulted with settlements in Israel, which created a reaction of recoil, some Karzai loyalists reportedly said people were overreacting to Pres. Karzai’s statements. The Obama administration hearing a lot of that lately.

Karzai’s call of the nationalist made him do it, right? Don’t be fooled by the carefully chosen, very convenient political cover.

Pres. Obama is no doubt hearing Joe Biden in his ear whispering a soft and low, I told you so.

UPDATE: There has been a story swirling, which now gets clarified further with the U.S. now admitting to the killing of Afghan women during a Special Ops raid. Not exactly how you win hearts and minds, something Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has been working day and night to accomplish. Talk about bad press…

After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid. [...]

… On Monday, a senior NATO official denied that there was any effort to tamper with evidence.

“We have discovered no evidence in our investigation that any of our forces did anything to manipulate the evidence at the scene or the bodies,” said the deputy chief of staff for communications for General McChrystal, Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Iraq Bombings Kill 30, 224 Wounded

By on 04 April 2010



Bloody day in Baghdad. From Al Jazeera:

At least 30 people have been killed and 224 others wounded in a series of three car bombings across the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.

Security officials said that the attacks on Sunday targeted foreign diplomatic missions, with blasts occurring near the embassies of Iran, Germany and Egypt.

Major General Qassim al-Moussawi, an Iraqi security forces spokesman, said that two of the bombings occurred in Baghdad’s Mansour district, in the west of the capital, while the third blast occurred in Salhiya district, near the Iranian embassy.

At the Egyptian embassy, the bomber rammed his car into a concrete blast wall, causing a three-metre deep crater in the street.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Connecting

By on 04 April 2010

“… While this may come as a surprise, Jesus wasn’t a Christian, Buddha wasn’t a Buddhist, and Mohammed wasn’t a Muslim. These were Divine spiritual beings who came here as emissaries of truth . . . yet when their truths were organized we saw the horrors of inquisitions, mass murders, crusades, holey wars, and jihads, all in the name of “God.” [...] No one else can intervene for us in our efforts to commune with our Source of Being: We shouldn’t rely on organizations, gurus, rituals, temples, or any other outside sources as the means to make conscious contact with God. …” – Dr. Wayne Dyer (from “Inspiration,” pgs. 209-210)

On this Easter Sunday it’s astounding for the Catholic church to once again be mired in a child abuse scandal, though this one is clearly not like any other. Pope Benedict, once Cardinal Ratzinger, is involved, and now the Pope’s own priest likens the criticism as “more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.” The Vatican walked it back quickly, but it gives you an idea of the PR pandemonium taking place under Pope Benedict, who has been disgraced by his involvement in the cover-up of crimes so heinous that any humble person would be rendered prostrate.

Adding insult to moral cowardice, the National Catholic Register has sought fit to opine “Re-Elect Pope Benedict” for their next installment, proving that those making excuses for Pope Benedict and the Catholic church hierarchy are too out of touch to be redeemed. Pope Benedict should not be re-elected, he should resign; at the very least ask for forgiveness and beg mercy from his flock.

On the most holy of days for Christians, where does that leave Catholics? See Wayne Dyer above, whose words should be taken to heart by everyone of faith or having a spiritual dimension that is important to their lives.

As an Episcopalian, I so appreciate the ritual and tradition of my church, but also find great solace in daily meditation that requires no intermediary; the church a gateway to finding further depths of faith that lie beyond. The favorite Episcopal churches of mine, though I so enjoyed Easter and other services at the National Cathedral, are All Saints in Beverly Hills, and a small church in Columbia, Mo., both of which have female priests in charge, proving how wrongly misogynistic many religious organizations continue to be, which no congregation in the 21st century should condone.

There would be no way I could support any religious organization that was so irresponsibly derelict in their duties to their people as the Catholic church has been. But then I’m firmly committed to supporting only those religious institutions that honor women, something the Catholic church does not do, though it is not alone.

Men have no higher holy mandate than women, with the continued support and obedience of women in congregations that require our subservience only proving worthy of our forfeited support. Women alone can’t change the church, whatever denomination that denies our leadership, but we can move it forward forcefully with the help of good men who will join us, though it will likely take a generation and maybe more.

In the absence of equality, women can choose other than the church.

The truth is that there is no conduit, no church needed to connect to what’s beyond that which can be proven. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, and refuse the guilt that immoral manipulators use to draw you near.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

CNN Exhumes Puma for Tea Party Story

By on 03 April 2010

Shannon Travis, a “CNN Political Producer,” has done a story with the headline: Disgruntled Democrats join the Tea Party. It reads, in part:

They are not typical Tea Party activists: A woman who voted for President Obama and believes he’s a “phenomenal speaker.” Another who said she was a “knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal.”

These two women are not alone.

Some Americans who say they have been sympathetic to Democratic causes in the past — some even voted for Democratic candidates — are angry with President Obama and his party. They say they are now supporting the Tea Party — a movement that champions less government, lower taxes and the defeat of Democrats even though it’s not formally aligned with the Republican Party. [...]

As I’ve written, there are many, many disgruntled Democrats and Independents, but they are not joining the Tea Party in any numbers. Trying to concoct a story that says otherwise through a silly and hyperbolic headline and an interview with a couple of people strains credulity. Remarkably, inside the article itself it says that only 4% of Tea Party members are Democrats, the rest Republicans, though I even find that number high. What about Independents?

Which brings me to another issue, wondering when traditional media and others are going to give full voice to Independents? This is especially important since their numbers are growing faster than both Dems and Republicans.

And by the way, even those people who are infuriated, including dozens who have emailed me, none have said they wish they’d voted for McCain-Palin. So, the one person in the CNN piece who said she “regrets voting for Barack Obama,” well, she’s in a class all her own; one that rekindles the unhinged fringe brand from 2008.

UPDATE: Well, that didn’t take long. Soon after I wrote this post a response was posted on my Facebook page. Puma didn’t die, they’re “morphing.”

“we never passed away, we’re just morphing. some to tea party’s, some waiting for the democrats to be the party they once were, some independent until further notice.” – Amy Michelle Petunia

Read full story · Comments { 121 }

Easter Weekend Free For All: People are Pissed Off Edition

By on 02 April 2010
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10c
2 Girls 1 GOP
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorHealth Care Reform


Any topic goes, from politics to food to just fun and games. The floor is yours.

I’m looking forward to a huge indulgence: chocolate. Gelato or candies, that’s the conundrum. I can almost taste it now.

As backdrop you have Pres. Obama calling out Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, with Byron York reaching out to the PT Barnum of wingnut radio to get his reaction.

I asked Limbaugh what he thought about the president’s comments. [...] “I have yet to have a down year at the EIB Network,” Limbaugh responds. “I and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to do what’s best for the country. Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely. I have never seen the media so supportive of a regime amassing so much power. And I have never known as many people who literally fear for the future of the country.”

The “worried about the country’s direction” meme is picked up by the Washington Post.

In the late-March poll, the “angry” population overlapped generally with those who identified as Republicans. They were overwhelming white (94 percent) and conservative (73 percent).

Many of those who listed themselves as “angry” said they felt Congress was operating in a vacuum, removed from the problems encountered by average people struggling against a tepid job market, sagging home values and dwindling retirement funds. About 85 percent strongly disapproved of the way Congress is doing its job.

Much of the language echoed that of the vocal, conservative “tea party” movement, as well as conservative talk radio and blogs. [...]

There certainly is a lot of anger out there and as far as I can surmise it’s justified. It also could build into a voting tsunami come November.

Read full story · Comments { 37 }

Amidst Jobs Report, Obama Slips

By on 02 April 2010

Bad numbers for Obama today, via the latest CBS poll, which shows Pres. Obama at his lowest approval since taking office, with health care part of the picture. So there’s a reason Pres. Obama is making jokes about the polls, while simultaneously hitting the right, but inside the White House no one should be laughing.

When it comes to health care, the President’s approval rating is even lower — and is also a new all-time low. Only 34 percent approved, while 55 percent said they disapproved.

Americans are still worried about the economy, with 84 percent telling CBS they thought it was still in bad condition. However, even that high number represents an improvement: nine in ten thought the economy was bad during the last half of 2008 and at the beginning of 2009, when Mr. Obama assumed the Presidency.

Remains to be seen if the new job numbers will get people’s attention, or if Obama and the Democrats have spent way too much time away from people’s main concern: jobs and the economy. Obama’s most ardently biased fans are trumpeting the news as the best in three years, which it is and is no doubt terrific. However, Via Lynn Sweet, we get a hint as to where the new jobs came from, even as unemployment remains at 9.7%:

Temporary help services and health care continued to add jobs over the month. Employment in federal government also rose, reflecting the hiring of temporary workers for Census 2010. Employment continued to decline in financial activities and in information.

You get a much starker and more honest view from Tula Connell at AFL-CIO:

Although the March report is a big improvement from the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost each month during 2009, job growth is effectively stalled and long-term unemployment is eating away at people’s pocketbooks and the nation’s economy. More than two in every five unemployed workers in this country have been unemployed for more than six months. And the situation is getting worse. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) increased by 414,000 over the month to 6.5 million. In March, 44.1 percent of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more.

When both unemployed and underemployed workers are counted, there are still some 26 million people without full-time work—a 16.9 percent underemployment rate.

Yesterday, both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were quick to preemptively attack the new job numbers, with Michael Steel of the RNC releasing a statement that doesn’t acknowledge anything happened.

“No matter what spin the White House puts on these job numbers, it is unacceptable for President Obama to declare economic success when unemployment remains at 9.7 percent and a large portion of the job growth came from temporary boost in government employment. As Democrats grow Big Government, Americans grow weary of the strain on family budgets, job security and peace of mind. As America’s employers announce the frightening and immediate impact of the Democrat government-run healthcare experiment on their balance sheets, American workers wonder why the only place exempt from increasingly painful belt-tightening seems to be Washington, D.C. In November, the American voters will deliver a few more pink slips – to Congressional Democrats.” – Michael Steele

The only reason Mr. Steele all of people, with yet another story about RNC expense account abuse, and others can get away with this is that the people are fed up with Democrats, who run Washington. That Obama and Democrats passed a health care bill that people didn’t want is another problem.

Republicans are also touting a new CNN poll that reportedly shows an increase in support for Republicans on the economy, with Democrats slipping.

Happy talk about today’s jobs reports is understandable, but the underlying reality is what people are feeling, which is why Democrats are slipping on the economy, while Obama’s numbers start to sag. It’s what you expect in an off-year election season, but watch the trajectory, as it will foreshadow the damage likely to come the Dems way in November.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Why Does Anyone Support Planned Parenthood?

By on 02 April 2010

“I’m not going to speak for what Canada decides, but I will say that I’ve worked in this area for many years,” Clinton told reporters. “And if we’re talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.” – Sect. Hillary Rodham Clinton (via Politico)

At a time when women’s rights are being bargained away by Democrats in health care language, she sits and shrugs; all of this happening with the backdrop of Dr. Tiller’s murderer being sentenced to life in prison. You’d think Cecile Richards would sense the urgency of where women stand right now. However, Ms. Richards is as clueless as Planned Parenthood is rudderless.

If I hadn’t seen this with my own eyes I wouldn’t have believed it. When Cecile Richards said “this is a ‘pro-choice’ country, Chuck Todd stumbled over himself interrupting and challenging her saying “what do you base that on?” Meanwhile, Savannah Guthrie sits there like a potted plant. What is it about the NBC network family that refuses to acknowledge the realities of women’s rights in the U.S., while muting the female anchor, and choosing the man for a Planned Parenthood interview on abortion rights? Russert rarely had a woman on “Meet the Press” to discuss abortion, with this type of interview casting stereotypical of this network.

However, that isn’t the worst of this interview.

The only thing I can say about Ms. Richards is that she sure as hell isn’t her mother. It’s a cruel comparison, but the times today are deadly serious, with Cecile Richards simply not up to the job. We need someone with fire, passion and purpose who isn’t afraid of ruffling feathers.

Where women stand today through the Nelson language in health care was stated most clearly through Guttmacher Institute (which I linked to recently). Ms. Richards is evidently ignorant of the facts, either that or she just doesn’t care.

Abortion: Insurance Coverage Now an Endangered Species

The bill’s restrictive abortion provision is putatively designed to uphold the status quo on the question of federal funding. Accordingly, federal funds—in this case, subsidy dollars for individuals purchasing insurance plans on the new health care “exchanges” that are slated to become operational in 2014—may not be used to pay for abortion coverage (except in extreme cases), but individuals, at least in theory, may purchase a plan that includes abortion coverage so long as the abortion coverage itself is paid for with their own money. (This mirrors the Hyde Amendment, under which federal Medicaid dollars may not be used to pay for most abortions, but states may cover the procedure for their Medicaid recipients using their own funds.)

In practice, however, the complex, politicized arrangements the legislation necessitates militate heavily against the likelihood that many such plans will be purchased—or even offered. Consumers purchasing exchange plans that include abortion coverage would have to make two separate premium payments—one to cover abortion services and one to cover everything else. Insurance companies would have to jump through numerous, unprecedented hoops to estimate the cost of abortion coverage and ensure that the abortion payments never mix with other funds; they also are likely to face extensive public scrutiny and protest around their action. All told, according to an analysis by George Washington University’s Sara Rosenbaum, “the more logical response” for private insurers marketing plans within the exchanges—and eventually in the broader market as well—“would be not to sell products that cover abortion services.”

Ms. Richards is under the delusion that her group’s mere presence at this point in women’s history justifies their existence and excuses their incompetence.

There are a lot of so called “women’s rights groups” out there, with money scarce. I don’t think Planned Parenthood has earned their keep, so I don’t know why anyone would give them money over Emily’s List. NOW and NARAL got played on health care too, but at least they had the passion of purpose to denounce the outcome, including Obama’s Stupak pandering executive order.

After the health care battle, Ms. Richards was simply satisfied that Stupak language wasn’t inserted in the health care bill. She was clearly ambivalent about the Nelson language, nonchalant even, another mid-life menopausal matron unmoved by the carving away of women’s rights.

That’s because Planned Parenthood lives and breathes because of Democrats. They don’t stand up for women, they live to raise money to keep their organization alive. After Ms. Richards’ bumbling on health care I honestly think we could do without them.

Cecile Richards certainly isn’t doing the job needed on behalf of women’s rights. Her performance on MSNBC simply a fundraiser booking. Her goal obviously to look “moderate” and sensible, you know, not too passionate to scare people off, at a time when their fundraising is about to kick in for 2010.

But Ms. Richards has proven she will sell women out in order to keep her donor base growing and the Democratic elite happy, though I’m sure her party card is filled, which after all is what counts to these people.

Ann Richards wasn’t afraid to offend, because she had the courage of her convictions. That’s the type of female leader women so desperately need today.

Unfortunately (fortunately for Obama and the U.S.), she’s currently Secretary of State.

Read full story · Comments { 167 }

What’s Been ‘In the News’

By on 01 April 2010

“In the News” is a section that allows you to post news stories that catch your attention, as well as write diaries (which I particularly enjoy). It also helps me know what readers are interested in. I’d like to encourage more people to post news stories, but also write your own political commentary and opinion with it, too. Think of it as an expanded comment to the story you’re linking to. It’s really easy to join in and don’t be shy to publicize your blog when writing your stories or sharing a blog post.

Below is what’s been In the News that has caught people’s attention lately. I’ve plucked out just a few of what’s been posted, though there are many worthy news stories over the latest weeks (going beyond health care). If you remember one in particular that is missing let me know in the comments.

The diary, “The Pope and the Pedophilia Scandal,” by ‘Jane Austen’ is a must read for anyone who has been a Catholic, as she has, or is incensed by the ongoing nightmare that Pope Benedict is ignoring. Right now the latest headline is “Pope has immunity in abuse trials: Vatican.” The lack of leadership from the Vatican is appalling.

Joyce Arnold’s sinisterly clever “Hot Wings, Hot Breasts and Political Packaging,” was priceless.

Hot Wings: The Health Care Plan signing, packaged in hot, historic rhetoric, with lots of chants and cheers and a bit of profanity. Damn, that’s a winner, let’s get all the cameras in here.

Breasts: The Executive Order signing, you know, the one about women parts and what those parts can produce (with a little help from the less breasty). Nah, no cameras for this.

Read it all, you’ll get it.

A Huffington Post news story got mwfolsom’s attention in “Anti-Defamation League Goes After Petraeus, Calls His Views ‘Dangerous,’” which got everyone’s dander up.

“Ramsgate” linked to a news story in Haaretz that reveals the perception problem with Israel.

The Israeli government passed at least 21 bills aimed at discriminating against the country’s Arab citizens making the current Knesset as being the most racist Israeli parliament since the country’s founding, according to a report released Sunday by civil rights groups. [...] “There has never been a Knesset as active in proposing discriminating and racist legislation against the country’s Arab citizens,” said the report’s authors Lizi Sagi and Nidal Othman. – ‘Current Knesset is the most racist in Israeli history’

Also “In the News” from Ramsgate was Tzipi Livni’s reaction to the Dubai assassination of the Hamas military commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

“Liberalastheycome” got a lot of attention through his “Petraeus on Israel: Bloggers spun my words” diary. Also in focus from “Liberalastheycome” was the Iranian martyr Neda, whose fiancé visited Israel. The comments are very interesting, however, because they immediately turned to the issue of Israel-Palestine, which was not the focus of his news dairy, but is always in focus when Israel is mentioned around here.

“Lake Lady” gave Pres. Obama some advice, as only a Missourian can, that he finally heard in “It’s past time for President Obama to show some presidential leadership.”

A new contributor, “stuffed animal,” went on quite a rant in “It’s All About Veronica,” who represents a surge in Independent voters I’m hearing from these days. Also hailing from my native Missouri, I recognize the edge.

I am a Left-leaning Independent voter, but I have little respect for the political Left. Strange as it may sound, I feel a stronger connection with the rural Conservative voter who predominates in my home state of Missouri. Mind you, I don’t share his narrow-minded views, and I harbor no illusions about him: this voter can be extremely xenophobic, sexist, heterosexist, even racist, and he falls for just about any candidate who comes along waving a flag and brandishing a Bible.

The eternal activist “texan4hillary” did a quick hit on Bart Stupak getting primary by Connie Saltonstall.

Psychodrew wrote a diary about “Gays Join Women under Health Care Reform Bus,” which made Memeorandum.
“Noogan” asked a simple question while linking to a serious national security question: Can Obama Assassinate Americans?

“Spincitysd,” who has kept Haiti in the news via the diaries, while keeping us informed of other cultural and scientific news, recently linked to a very interesting development on the right regarding the Census. In “TEA Party Types Shoot Themselves In The Foot–Census Edition,” a report warns that conservatives may ignore, even boycott the Census, thereby delivering a tough blow to the most needed districts, to which “spincitysd” opined:

I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning. The wing-nuts own dementia about the government is causing them to loose representation, thus lessening the impact they have on national politics. Karma IS a blue-eyed, baby-faced bitch.

Justice Thomas and his wife got “djjl’s” attention in “Wife of Supreme Court Justice Thomas Launches Tea Party Group.”

From “democratz,” who is an example of never ending activism, no matter how depressed he may get. A letter to David Axelrod:

… [...] Therefore as the glass appears 1/8 full, as a progressive, which means I get derided as not acceptable on domestic policy and bunched in with a class with right wingers by the Obama administration, I will not vote for anyone for Representative, or Senator in NY in 2010 and no one for representative, Senator or President in 2012. I will go to the polls in 2010 and 2012 and vote for referenda, local and state office and that appears it. If by some miracle which I doubt will happen, if congress and the President enacts a Prescription drug benefit in Medicare Part B, covering 80 percent of all medication cost combining it with doctors visits cost for the purpose of covering the yearly deductible of $130, with only the Medicare Part B premiums to pay and only the Medicare Part B yearly deductible to pay with no means test, no coverage gap, no coverage caps and that the government can negotiate with drug companies to lower the prices. Unless the previous happens and that a strong single source public option gets enacted into law where general taxes pay for all medical doctors visits including dental, hospitalizations, hospices and nursing homes, and procedures like abortions then I will vote for Democrats for federal office. However I imagine the Democratic party has decided to make liberals and progressives look unacceptible to America so the Democratic Party will write off the progressive and liberal vote this November and in 2010. [...]

Marc Rubin hammered Pres. Obama in “The Healthcare bill: giving credit where no credit is due,” linking to his post on Examiner.com.

Kris linked to a story, well, two words: Hillary Helped.

And Mad Kane, who won the Bob Newhart award last year, continually delights us all with her limericks.

Thanks to everyone who contributes “In the News.” We all enjoy your contributions very much.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

SMUT ALERT: Conservatives Against the 1st Amendment

By on 01 April 2010

cross-posted at Huffington Post

First it was a bondage club, now we’ve got NRO publishing a sad story about voyeurism and porn. It should come with a warning label for ignorance and stupidity, especially considering the associated institute that NRO is publicizing. There’s a reason religious conservatives are continually the ones in the news where sex is concerned and it’s not because of the demon porn.

Beware of “institutes” hawking warnings that have solutions attached that hint at carving away freedoms. There’s always something deeper afoot. Take the latest Witherspoon Institute findings on “The Social Costs of Pornography” that is “signed by more than 50 scholars,” which National Review Online is pushing. Before slurping up their political propaganda it’s important to review other writings the Witherspoon Institute has sponsored, including “Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles.” Number 8 reads: “A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.” It goes on (emphasis added):

We call upon our nation’s leaders, and our fellow citizens, to support public policies that strengthen marriage as a social institution, including:

1. Protect the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man with one woman as husband and wife.
2. Investigate divorce law reforms.
3. End marriage penalties for low-income Americans.
4. Protect and expand pro-child and pro-family provisions in our tax code.
5. Protect the interests of children from the fertility industry.

Got agenda?

It’s always the same thing coming from the same people.

But it’s spring, so it’s time for conservatives to target our libidinous notions, but also the gazillion dollar entertainment industry now tapped by Fortune 500 companies everywhere. This season it comes through a common tale of woe, though no matter how many letters I have read over the years the learning curve continues to be circa 1900 where marriage and sex, relationships and reality in the modern era are concerned. From “Anonymous” in NRO:

Imagine a drug so powerful it can destroy a family simply by distorting a man’s perception of his wife. Picture an addiction so lethal it has the potential to render an entire generation incapable of forming lasting marriages and so widespread that it produces more annual revenue — $97 billion worldwide in 2006 — than all of the leading technology companies combined. Consider a narcotic so insidious that it evades serious scientific study and legislative action for decades, thriving instead under the ever-expanding banner of the First Amendment.

According to an online statistics firm, an estimated 40 million people use this drug on a regular basis. It doesn’t come in pill form. It can’t be smoked, injected, or snorted. And yet neurological data suggest its effects on the brain are strikingly similar to those of synthetic drugs. [...]

I can only imagine Kathryn Jean Lopez’s NRO email inbox.

As regular readers are aware, back in the 1990s, I became an expert on dating, marriage and relationships after spending a lot of time traversing the world of personal ads, but also the adult entertainment world. That is a long time ago, but some things never change. I’ll put my expertise up against any “scholar” on this subject any day, especially when filed under an institute that has a conservative agenda.

It’s not that I scoff at the impact of porn, as I know about it intimately, having heard from thousands of people about it. It’s that when I hear what “Anonymous” wrote in NRO, all sorts of warning bells go off. For instance this:

Recently he began to reject my sexual advances outright, claiming he just didn’t “feel love” for me like he used to, and lamenting that he thought of me “more as the mother of our children” than as a sexual partner.

Alert the marriage counselors! Seriously? This is as timeless a marriage cry as there is in human history. Have these people never heard of Freud? Are they ignorant to the Madonna-Whore complex? Good grief.

“Anonymous” whines on:

Then one morning around 2am he called, intoxicated, from his office to announce that he had “developed feelings” for someone new. The woman he became involved with was an unemployed alcoholic with all the physical qualities of a porn star — bleached blond hair, heavy makeup, provocative clothing, and large breasts. After the revelation, my husband tried to break off his relationship with this woman. But his remorse was short-lived.

A man seduced by provocative clothing on someone other than his wife, and large breasts? Who knew?! This is groundbreaking stuff NRO is sharing.

After all these years I still get letters from people, many women, on this subject. Recently I got one from a woman I’ll call “Julie.” She is recently engaged, but also found out that her fiance has a porn fetish. Therapy, etc., but she was asking whether she should postpone the wedding. The answer is far simpler: walk away. This isn’t a symptom of coming problems, this is an alarm bell of an impending disaster.

This type of thinking is what prodded me to do a radio show and write on the subject “It’s all the woman’s fault” (essays here and here).

In her email, “Julie” revealed an obvious worry that had her thinking about postponing the wedding. Her instincts were screaming at her, but her head refused to listen. She knows what to do but isn’t doing it. Ego kicked in, the excuse being “love,” to cause her to do nothing, though she was smart enough to email me. (Let’s hope she’s reading today.)

There are all sorts of signs of what could possibly cause a man to devour porn or act out sexually. Take Tiger Woods. A military father he adored, a Buddhist mother, but a life filled with strict discipline, athletic rigors and continual rigidity in all things. Man gets married, because that’s what you are supposed to do. Bound up in expectations and strictures since youth, but also obviously not ready to commit to one woman, which is a simple diagnosis not complicated to deduce, it’s not shocking that the outcome of acting out would be so extreme, given everyone is invested in Tigermania, a man who also inhabits a white glove sport.

Check out Ted Haggard, Sen. David Vitter, Sen. John Ensign, as well as the statistics that continue to show that conservatives and the religious are the biggest consumers of pornography.

Consider the Catholic Church, which forbids marriage of priests, ignoring the physical body that the soul inhabits. The denial of the Vatican to respect the body thus becoming ensnared in the physical reality of humanness is at the hub of the Church’s problem

The body will not be denied.

On the other side, too often women are reluctant to deal with sexuality and the reality that the most sedately “normal” male isn’t always what he appears to be. Women becoming girlfriends and wives often ignore the nurturing, love and care required of the animal inside herself, which is particularly true when kids come into the picture. It has become more challenging as we live longer lives.

But pornography isn’t the problem. It’s the excuse for why things go south.

The 1st amendment protects this speech. Men have a choice. Women do too.

Beware conservatives touting the dangers threatening marriage, or women wailing that porn robbed them of their man. Sometimes you marry the wrong person. Sometimes a cad is just a cad. Set him free. The forbidden once realized often loses its luster, and you’ll be done with someone who didn’t deserve you in the first place. Just quit kidding yourself.

Women have choices, including staying invested in their own sexual lives, which requires a partner who desires you. If he doesn’t it’s not the porn.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

NPR Shifts Abortion Language to Neutral

By on 01 April 2010

File this in the category of under the radar and it’s about time.

I’ve been saying for, well, forever, that the so called “pro-life” contingent is only pro-selective life. Many of these same people are against stem cell research, for the death penalty, but also in favor of putting a woman second and a slave to her own body, while some want her not to have control over it.

The graphic below appeared in Newsweek online and was utilized by a young, right-wing group online whose sole purpose is dedicated to stripping women of their right to self-determination. Michelle Malkin trumpeted them recently when she covered NPR’s shift in abortion language.

I’m not aware of any young and aggressive progressive group fighting to maintain women’s rights.

But finally, after decades of having won our freedoms, a move by some in the media to neutral and more even rhetorical ground.



Last week, NPR replaced the wrongly applied “pro-life,” with the term “abortion rights opponents.” Via NPR:

“NPR News is revising the terms we use to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate.

This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work.

On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”. …

This editorial decision gets it exactly correct. A woman considering her own life when making the agonizing decision of getting an abortion is choosing life as much as anyone is. Her own.

Until we get beyond debating that a woman has the fundamental right of freedom over her own body, which should never be denied or debated, let alone served up as a bargaining chip as Democrats did on health care, we’ll never get down to serious prevention. That’s where all sides should engage together. But it can’t happen until everyone realizes that women’s self-determination is not up for grabs or discussion.

Someday someone somewhere will wake up to understand that this will require the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which was put forth as a reaction to Roe v. Wade, but is out of date and out of line with freedoms already won and court decisions already rendered. Ability to pay should have nothing to do with reproductive freedom.

A woman’s individual liberty comes first. All that’s left to discuss is prevention. That’s where we need to focus.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }