...suffered chest pain after cross-country skiing a few weeks ago. It wasn't a heart attack, his wife Susan Bowyer said, but Bowyer is still undergoing tests.The P-G is also reporting that he's on "indefinite medical leave" from his afternoon radio show.
This volume celebrates Phillip Johnson's leadership in the intelligent design (ID) movement. Scholars who have known Phil best and worked with him most closely assembled in April 2004 at Biola University to present him with a collection of papers in his honor. I wish I could have been there to offer my congratulations and thanks in person. Instead, I have the privilege of writing this brief foreword from Washington.Here let me help out and list what Rick says about evolution:
Since the publication of "Darwin on Trial" more than ten years ago, Phillip Johnson has provided extraordinary leadership for an extraordinary cause, namely, to rid science of false philosophy. The importance of the cause is clear: what could be more important than showing that only a shallow, partisan understanding of science supports the false philosophy of materialist reductionism with its thoroughly unscientific denial of formal and final causes in nature and its repudiation of the first cause of all being? As the decline of true science has been a major factor in the decline of Western culture, so too the renewal of science will play a big part in cultural renewal.
Johnson's extraordinary leadership also is clear: rather than fall into the trap of building a cult of personality around himself and his own considerable intellectual talents, he has instead helped raise up and promote a whole group of intellectual leaders in the cause of scientific renewal. This kind of selfless Christian leadership is a shining example to us all, young and old.
Speaking of the young, I personally wish to commend Phil for the great help he has given me in my efforts to inject a renewed and unbiased understanding of science and its practice into the curricula of our public schools. There is much more for us to do, but working with Phil's colleagues at Seattle's Discovery Institute, we have begun the difficult fight for removing the stranglehold of philosophical materialism on textbook science.
Phil, I congratulate and praise you for your tireless work to return science to a sure philosophical grounding in the nature of things as they really are. Please know that during your Biola celebration, I was with you and your colleagues in spirit. As much as I was delighted when I first heard about this celebration in your honor, I am again delighted now that the proceedings from that celebration have appeared in book form.
I have a question for the innocent life crowd: how come none of the proposed laws anywhere, as far as I can tell, believe that a woman should be tried for the murder of her child if she gets an abortion? Indeed, there is no penalty in the South Dakota law for the woman at all. She isn't even charged as an accessory. Does that make sense? She could be tried for first degree murder for leaving a newborn baby to die on a church doorstep.In another, later blog entry, he links to a video in which anti-abortion protestors are asked that same question. (Note: there must be a lot of traffic around that site - I haven't been able to see the video myself.) Digby reports that most of the protestors say they've never thought about it before.
So I think we need to have this discussion. Let's debate it out in the open and "air both sides" because from where I sit it's the "pro-lifers" who haven't thought this thing through. Nobody says they can't agitate against abortion and stand out there with their sickening pictures and try to dissuade women from doing it. I will defend their right to argue against abortion forever. But when they use the law to enforce their moral worldview they need to recognize that they can't have it both ways. If fetuses are human and have the same rights as the women in whom they live, then a woman who has an abortion must logically be subject to the full force of the law. It would be a premeditated act of murder no different than if she hired a hit man to kill her five year old. The law will eventually be able to make no logical moral distinction. Is everybody ready for that?I wonder who'll be first to speak up and declare that a woman who gets an abortion should be tried for murder and a woman who plans on getting an abortion should be tried for conspiracy to commit murder. How about a woman who doesn't know she's pregnant and loses the baby due to something she did, shouldn't she be tried for negligent homicide?
Governor Ed Rendell leads Lynn Swann among Eagles fans 57 - 26, but Swann leads Rendell among Steelers fans, 50 - 36.Anyone have the phone number for Franco Harris?
 | You may have noticed a new ad on the right of this blog. It's a free ad for Bruce A. Kraus who is running in the special election on March 14th for City Council in Pittsburgh's third district. Consider the ad and this post as my own endorsement for Kraus. But don't just take my word for Bruce A. Kraus being the best person for the job. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette called him "the best choice in the city's special election." |
And, as Lou of Lou's List put it when describing the endorsement of Kraus by a caucus of local progressives from a broad array of groups:But if the voters of District 3 are bewildered by so many names, they need remember only one. Bruce A. Kraus is an articulate, intelligent advocate for his community. He would bring a balanced package of skills, views and values to public service.
The self-employed owner of an interior design firm, Mr. Kraus engages his city both as a resident and as a businessman (he's president of the South Side Chamber of Commerce). Although a registered Democrat, he did not receive the party hierarchy's nomination. That's a good thing, though, which should afford him some independence on Grant Street, like that of Councilman Bill Peduto, who is supporting him in the race.
But in the end, Bruce Kraus won a strong consensus among the group. Kraus offers the strongest background of community involvement of any candidate, has reached out to all neighborhoods of District 3 during his campaign, and offered the most professional and engaging presentation. In my opinion, he is the candidate most able to gain the widespread support necessary to defeat the committee-endorsed candidate and to be a strong proponent of necessary change.
If you're at all interested in having a more independent vote on City Council -- one that is not machine-driven -- and one that will be a plus for the city no matter what district you live in, please help support Bruce A. Kraus
You can contact his campaign here, or email me at lupinaccim@aol.com to help.
You can also attend a fundraiser tonight (I'm heading over there right now):
Support BRUCE A. KRAUS For City Council
Folino’s Restaurant
1717 East Carson Street
Monday, March 6
6 to 9 p.m.
• Complementary Glass of Wine
• Complementary Hor’dourve Table
Cash Bar Will Be Available
Donation: $25.00
There is another factor, though, that needs to be considered. Santorum has found himself increasingly on the wrong side of the conservative base that has been responsible for electing him again and again. He not only supported liberal Sen. Arlen Specter over the staunchly conservative Pat Toomey in 2004, but Santorum actively worked toward Specter’s re-election. Santorum has endorsed the idea of raising the minimum wage by $2 over two years, and refused to rule out raising taxes to offset the cost of Social Security reform.Uh-oh.
To make sure that this happens, Santorum needs to change philosophies. The current strategy seems to be to attract moderates, likely resulting from the fact that many pro-life Democrats that previously voted for Santorum will abandon him to vote for Casey. Santorum seems to feel that he must give them another reason to vote for him.That's right - the true Conservatives in this state are worried that if Rick Santorum becomes too moderate, he could loose his senate seat.
This strategy, in fact, will only exacerbate the problem. The more moderate Santorum tries to become, the more disenfranchised conservatives will feel. This will create a dream scenario for Casey and a nightmare for Santorum. Santorum simply needs to get back to basics. More talk about tax cuts, strong anti-abortion statements, and many, many more events with Toomey.
''My gut tells me ... this is a bad one and a big one,'' then-federal disaster chief Michael Brown told the final government-wide briefing the day before Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29. "I'm concerned about ... their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe,'' Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall. "The Superdome is about 12 feet below sea level.... I don't know whether the roof is designed to stand, withstand a Category Five hurricane,'' he said. "Not to be (missing) kind of gross here,'' Brown interjected, ''but I'm concerned'' about the medical and mortuary resources ''and their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe.''
The largest known giver to a controversial charity founded by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum made its $25,000 donation as the senator was working to win as much as $8.5 million in federal aid for the donor's project in Delaware County.Oh oh.
Federal tax records show that Preferred Real Estate Inc., the developer of the Wharf at Rivertown project in Chester, wrote the check to Santorum's Operation Good Neighbor Foundation in 2002.
But good-government experts were troubled by the appearance of a developer giving money to the senator's charity at the same time it was lobbying for federal dollars. Unlike a campaign contribution, checks to a charity can be written by a corporation and are not subject to any limit.I don't know about ALL of Washington, but it certainly looks like Lil Ricky is for sale. A few more details really need to be exposed on this side of the state:
"It's a neat window into how Washington works," said Gary Ruskin of the Congressional Accountability Project, one of several watchdogs troubled by the potential conflicts when a member of Congress also solicits funds for a charity he runs. "It shows that, more and more, Washington is for sale."
The Operation Good Neighbor Foundation - a charity that Santorum established in 2001 with the aim of helping faith-based groups and others battling poverty and social ills - already is under fire for spending considerably less on aid and more on expenses than the Better Business Bureau and other charitable watchdogs recommend.One big happy family.
Also, several campaign aides are on the payroll or connected with the charity, including Santorum's campaign finance chief, lobbyist Rob Bickhart, who's been paid $75,000 by Operation Good Neighbor in salary and whose company also receives rent from the charity.
These are troubling times for all of us who love this country, as surely we all do, even the satirists. You may poke fun at your mother, but if she is belittled by others it burns your bacon. A blowhard French journalist writes a book about America that is full of arrogant stupidity, and you want to let the air out of him and mail him home flat. You hear young people talk about America as if it's all over, and you trust that this is only them talking tough. And then you read the paper and realize the country is led by a man who isn't paying attention, and you hope that somebody will poke him. Or put a sign on his desk that says, "Try Much Harder."I question whether Garrison Keillor actually "loves this country." He's a Democrat Kerry-supporter and as Ann Coulter says:
The idea that the Democrats have any meaningful interest in America's national security is a joke...So that settles that, I guess.
The Feb. 27 issue of the New Yorker carries an article by Jane Mayer about a loyal conservative Republican and U.S. Navy lawyer, Albert Mora, and his resistance to the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. From within the Pentagon bureaucracy, he did battle against Donald Rumsfeld and John Yoo at the Justice Department and shadowy figures taking orders from Dick (Gunner) Cheney, arguing America had ratified the Geneva Convention that forbids cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners, and so it has the force of law. They seemed to be arguing that the president has the right to order prisoners to be tortured.Why can't Keillor see that he's only helping The Enemy? He'll be sorry when another 9/11 happens, won't he? Only then will he realize that by spewing such lies, he was aiding and abetting The Enemy - a treasonous act as all right-thinking people know.
One such prisoner, Mohammed al-Qahtani, was held naked in isolation under bright lights for months, threatened by dogs, subjected to unbearable noise volumes, and otherwise abused, so that he begged to be allowed to kill himself. When the Senate approved the Torture Convention in 1994, it defined torture as an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Is the law a law or is it a piece of toast?
The peaceful lagoon that is the White House is designed for the comfort of a vulnerable man. Perfectly understandable, but not what is needed now. The U.S. Constitution provides a simple ultimate way to hold him to account for war crimes and the failure to attend to the country's defense. Impeach him and let the Senate hear the evidence.Impeach him? Yea right!
Poll Finds U.S. Troops in Iraq Urge Pullout
A poll of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq—reportedly the first of its kind—shows that 72% advocate a U.S. pullout within a year, with only 23% for staying as long ”as necessary,” reports Nicholas Kristof in his New York Times column today. Some 29% urge withdrawal “immediately.”
Kristof recently came out for setting a deadline for withdrawal at the end of next year.
The poll of 944 service members was conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College. Recent Gallup and CBS News polls have shown that most Americans at home also advocate the beginning of a pullout.
[snip]
Asked what it would take to “control the insurgency,” those surveyed strongly suggest that it would take doubling the number of ground troops and bombing missions. But as Kristof points out, this is not going to happen at this point. The message he takes from this: “they believe this war to be unwinnable.”
[snip]
Further findings: only 26% percent of the U.S. troops say that the insurgency would end if foreign fighters could be kept out.
More than a third of the soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq received outpatient mental health care within a year of ending their deployment, according to a large new screening study.The next paragraph is just as chilling:
Nearly 6 percent were hospitalized for psychiatric conditions during that one-year period, researchers found in a study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.[Emphasis added]Let's look at the numbers:
The study involved assessments obtained from more than 300,000 soldiers and Marines from May 2003 to April 2004. More than 222,000 of the respondents were returning from Iraq.220,000 is the number we start with as I want to concentrate on only those returning from Iraq.
U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports.Worst. President. Ever.
Among the warnings, Knight Ridder has learned, was a major study, called a National Intelligence Estimate, completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists- and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops.
The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.Oh, dear.
You can read a longer excerpt online here.The Case for Impeachment
Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006. An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine. By Lewis H. Lapham.SourcesA country is not only what it does—it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates. —Kurt TucholskyOn December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form “a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.” Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance of the American citizenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press—nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right. The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.
“To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.” So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?” when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that “somehow it escaped our notice” that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.
Sen. Rick Santorum's charity donated about 40 percent of the $1.25 million it spent during a four-year period - well below Better Business Bureau standards - paying out the rest for overhead, including several hundred thousand dollars to campaign aides on the charity payroll, records show.Here's the website for "Operation Good Neighbor."
The charity, Operation Good Neighbor, provides grants to small nonprofit groups, many of them religious.
The Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance says charitable organizations should spend at least 65 percent of their total expenses on program activities.
In recent days, Operation Good Neighbor Foundation has come under scrutiny, and we welcome the opportunity to highlight the good work the Foundation does to serve those less fortunate. From 2001 to 2005, over 45% of the money raised goes directly for gifts or is in the bank for future gifts. It is important to realize that the Foundation does not have the same ability as better-known charities, such as the Salvation Army or American Red Cross, to raise money without spending much money to do so. Fundraising expenses are close to 37% of expenditures, as these fundraising events are recreational outings such as golf tournaments, and overhead is approximately 18%. The Foundation is pleased to distribute these awards to worthy social service organizations that might not otherwise get such contributions. Furthermore, during an IRS audit obligation, the Foundation learned of the Pennsylvania registration requirement, and is proceeding to meet that obligation.The Philly paper says that 60% is overhead. Ms Bonfiglio says that 56% is "expenditures" and "overhead." So depending on how you define "overhead," it looks like we're quibbling over a difference of 4%. 4% of 1.25 million is what, $50,000? Is my math right here? Am I missing something?
According to one expert, Santorum appears to reap personal benefits from America’s Foundation, the so-called leadership PAC controlled by Santorum, which has raised some $5 million from wealthy donors and business PACs over the last five years. The stated purpose of America’s Foundation is to support other GOP candidates, but the Prospect found that the committee spends considerably less on direct candidate aid than comparable PACs, and considerably more on operating expenses -- declaring hundreds of small- to medium-sized meals and purchases by Santorum or his political staff to be “campaign-related.”Hmmm...sound familiar?
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.And:
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.But then we knew that this would happen before the invasion, didn't we?
A controversial counter-terrorism program, which lawmakers halted more than two years ago amid outcries from privacy advocates, was stopped in name only and has quietly continued within the intelligence agency now fending off charges that it has violated the privacy of U.S. citizens.Are we really surprised about this? An administration that does what it wants when it wants, flouts the law while doing it, questions the patriotism of those who disagree, and then wraps itself in the flag (and sometimes drapes that flag on the cross) when it's finally forced to explain itself would not be above such a childish shell game.
Research under the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness program -- which developed technologies to predict terrorist attacks by mining government databases and the personal records of people in the United States -- was moved from the Pentagon's research-and-development agency to another group, which builds technologies primarily for the National Security Agency, according to documents obtained by National Journal and to intelligence sources familiar with the move. The names of key projects were changed, apparently to conceal their identities, but their funding remained intact, often under the same contracts.
A few months ago, the Pittsburgh City Council voted 6-3 on an ordinance that’s got some local (and nearly local) folks annoyed. While the title reads, “Public Safety at Health Care Facilities,” and the text is very general about “health care facilities,” it’s really about what goes on in front of the city’s abortion clinics. The ordinance sets up boundaries, of sorts, for the people who protest outside of the clinics. Since it was passed, the outer limits of the zones were spray painted onto the sidewalks of Liberty Avenue. If you walk down that side of the street, you’ll see them.I wanted to see exactly what happened outside the clinic every Saturday morning. It was an odd experience. The "streetcorner counsellors" and the "clinic escorts" all knew their jobs and did them with practiced precision.
Abstinence group loses federal grant over 1st AmendmentSo when do we get back the rest of the taxpayer $$$ given to them?
A Pittsburgh-area organization dedicated to abstinence education has lost $75,000 in federal funding as part of a settlement of a lawsuit alleging that the group's activities violated the First Amendment.
The Silver Ring Thing, based in Moon, has received more than $1 million in federal funding over the past three years.
The group -- which operates worldwide -- advocates abstinence through lavish three-hour sound-and-light productions and $12 silver rings, which signify a pledge to remain virginal until marriage.
In May, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the federal government in U.S. District Court in Boston, charging that it was allowing the Silver Ring Thing to use public tax money for primarily religious purposes. The suit charged that there was no secular component to Silver Ring Thing activities, which violated federal standards for faith-based organizations and the First Amendment.
[snip]
She said that the ACLU is currently suing another Pennsylvania organization, Firm Foundation, for its lack of secular options in a jail work release program in Bradford County.
The flap over Sen. Rick Santorum's unorthodox $500,000 mortgage for his family home in Leesburg, Va., took another twist yesterday when a leading watchdog group filed a formal complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee - charging that the loan from a private bank was an illegal gift because Santorum did not meet its stated guidelines.And here's press release from CREW and the pdf file of the complaint itself.
The complaint by the Committee for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, alleges that the mortgage from Philadelphia Trust Co. is a gift in violation of Senate Rule 35, which says that senators can receive loans or other banking services only on terms "generally available to the public."
"One of the things about Mike is, in the years I've known him, he's never lobbied me for anything, never asked me for anything, never did anything that was related to my professional capacity."Notice the room for political wiggles. Lil Ricky is talking about Mike here when he says, "He's never lobbied...asked for...did anything..." and so on. It leaves open whether any of his friend Mike's business associates ever lobbied, asked for or did anything, doesn't it?
The articles in the Daily News and the American Prospect, reported by Will Bunch, noted that officers of the Philadelphia firm had contributed to Mr. Santorum's campaign, but they also noted that there is no evidence that Mr. Santorum, who is a member of the Senate Finance Committee, had taken any official actions to benefit the firm.They donated about $24,000 to the campaign. But it's naive to think that while there's no evidence that Lil Ricky took any official actions to benefit the firm, he did nothing to benefit the banking industry as a whole. I mean what's the alternative? In this Senate with this party in control, Rick Santorum did nothing to benefit the banking industry? And whatever benefits the banking industry as a whole would inevitably "trickle down" to individual banking concerns, right? Everyone takes care of everyone else, but in a way that no one's hands are dirty.
[Santorum's] campaign spokesman said that the interest-only loan was made in 2002 at a "market-driven rate," 5 percent annually over its five-year term, at the end of which it will have to be repaid or refinanced.I'm not a banker, but doesn't this mean that Rick only has to pay 5% of $500,000 per year (or about $25K) for each year between 2002 and 2007? Then all he has to do is to find a way to pay back the half mil in November 2007, when he's either 10 months out of the Senate making beaucoup bucks on the Conservative speech-making circuit or still in the Senate, still on the Senate Finance Committee where refinancing the loan would be easy as pie.
1. (a)(1) No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall knowingly accept a gift except as provided in this rule.So if the loan isn't generally available to the public, then Santorum can't accept it because it's a gift.
...
(c) The restrictions in subparagraph (a) shall not apply to the following:
...
(19) Opportunities and benefits which are
...
(E) in the form of loans from banks and other financial institutions on terms generally available to the public
An investigation into the private and public finances of Rick Santorum suggests that the Senate GOP might want to reconsider making him its ethics czar.Interesting - I wondered what exactly it was about. Seems that Lil Ricky's maybe got some ethics issues to deal with. Take a look:
The Prospect decided to heed Santorum’s advice by taking “an honest look at the family budget” -- his family budget. What we found is that Santorum’s exurban lifestyle is financed in ways that aren’t available to the average voter back home in Pennsylvania -- namely a political action committee that lists payments for such unorthodox items as dozens of trips to the Starbucks in Leesburg, a number of stops at fast-food joints, and purchases at Target, Wal-Mart, and a Giant supermarket in northern Virginia. Although a Santorum aide defends those charges as legitimate political costs, good-government experts say the expenditures are at best unconventional, and at worst a possible violation of Senate rules, and the purchases appear to be unorthodox when compared with other senators’ filings. Santorum’s PAC -- a “leadership PAC,” whose purpose is to dispense money to other Republican candidates -- used just 18.1 percent of its money to that end over a recent five-year period, a lower number than other leadership PACs of top senators from both parties.Uh-oh.
Initially, according to Loudoun County property records, the purchase was financed with a $405,000 mortgage from a conventional lender, Westminster Mortgage Company. But a year later, the couple refinanced for $500,000. That was not unusual in the fall of 2002, when many homeowners were refinancing to take advantage of plunging interest rates, while also cashing in on the rising equity in their homes. What was curious was the source of the increased mortgage. It was a new private bank catering to “affluent investors and institutions” -- whose officers have contributed $24,000 to Santorum’s political action committees and re-election campaign -- called Philadelphia Trust Company.Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty.
While bank executives and directors have donated to Santorum’s campaign or his political fund since the firm’s founding in late 1998, and Crofton is the chairman of a charity run by Santorum, there is no evidence that the senator -- who sits on the Senate Banking Committee -- took any official actions on its behalf.That's a bad thing, right?
But government ethics experts said that even if Santorum didn’t take any action on Philadelphia Trust’s behalf, the mortgage deal carries the appearance of special treatment, which would violate the Senate ethics rules that Santorum is now charged with reforming. “Anytime he gets something that a regular person couldn’t get, that’s an improper gift,” says Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who now heads the Washington-based Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Sloan said the senator’s unconventional mortgage is the latest in a series of actions -- including his role in the so-called K Street Project to place Republicans in lucrative lobbying jobs -- that show “he’s seriously ethically challenged.”
Around the same time that the couple became Virginia homeowners, Karen Santorum entered into an unusual working arrangement with the Pittsburgh political consulting firm that has provided all of her husband’s media work. From 1995 through 1998, Brabender Cox -- the company that handled nearly $10 million in media buys for his two Senate campaigns -- paid a retainer to the senator’s wife. John Brabender, a firm principal who is godfather to one of the couple’s children, told reporters that he paid her roughly $4,000 a month for “client development,” although the exact amount was never disclosed.John Brabender is usually the guy John McIntire talks to when he's interviewing someone from the Santorum campaign. I've even called in when Brabender was on once. Perhaps John can ask Mr Brabender about the $4000/month "client development" deal he's made with the Senator's wife. By the way, four grand a month turns $48,000 per year. If the Senator's already a client, what's the four grand for?
But Santorum the conservative social critic is merely the latest incarnation of a political survivor. His views on abortion were once somewhere between pro-choice and ambivalent, and in 1990 campaign literature he noted that he had “returned to my Church after a period of absence.” Santorum has also written that his view on abortion was influenced by his 1988 marriage to then-law student Karen Garver. Last year, the Philadelphia City Paper revealed that when Garver met Santorum, she had been living with the founder of Pittsburgh’s first abortion clinic.Rick Santorum...Seriously Ethically Challenged.
So here's my challenge to rightwing bloggers who assail the media for liberal bias (and to journalists who think it's all a he-said-she-said pissing match): Back up your claims. With concrete examples of bias. And without the tautological crutch that any story critical of the administration is proof of liberal bias. [emphasis in original]He's posted some results. He writes:
So while the crickets chirped, I waited for the inevitable tide of rightwing blog posts and emails proving me wrong and demonstrating, once and for all, that pervasive claims of liberal media bias are indeed true. No such luck. All I've gotten so far is a trickle of posts, which I attribute to one of three things: either rightwing bloggers weren't aware of my challenge, they didn't think it warranted a response, or they lack the evidence to back up their claims.He's skeptical of the first as the post was linked to a number of high visibility sites. Of the second, he writes:
I'll grant that the second possible explanation for the dearth of reactions, namely that my post simply didn't merit a response, is perfectly plausible. Just because I issued a challenge doesn't mean I should automatically expect a response.And he concludes:
Still, to my mind, the third option seems the most likely, i.e. that there really isn't evidence to undergird the assault on the media on the part of the right.It's a good read. Sure to flummox the more conservative readers of this blog. But if you do have evicence of liberal bias in the media, I am sure Peter Daou would love to hear from you.
Because ladies' private parts are oh so delicate -- until they are not. |  |
I Enjoy Being a Girl (Part I)
Ski Jumping: "...not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view"
From Shakespeare's Sister (via feministing via Newsday):
I Enjoy Being a Girl (Part II)Both Johnsons are among the best ski jumpers in the world. Alissa is ranked ninth among the top women who compete, about 141 spots higher than her brother sits in the men's rankings. But only 16-year-old Anders is preparing to compete for the U.S. Winter Olympic team this week in the Alps north of Turin. Not because Alissa can't fly far. But because women ski jumpers aren't allowed in the Olympics, for reasons older than the hills.
Though the top men and women competitors in the world routinely fly off the same 90- and 100-meter jumps and the very best women train on the 120-meter hills, the only Winter Olympic events in which women are not allowed to compete are ski jumping and Nordic combined, which is a combination of cross-country skiing and ski jumping.
[snip]
"People always ask what it feels like to ski jump," she said. "And I say, 'It feels like you can fly.'"
To anyone acquainted with the history of women's sports, the thudding excuses the women ski jumpers are given for their exclusion from the Games are sadly, ridiculously familiar. Gian-Franco Kasper, head of the International Ski Federation, has said, "Ski jumping is just too dangerous for women. Don't forget, [the landing] it's like jumping down from, let's say, about two meters to the ground about a thousand times a year, which seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view."
[snip]The international federation will take another vote this spring on whether women should jump in the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. And Alissa said, "So far, we've been told every excuse in the book. That it's too 'dangerous' for girls. That there aren't enough of us. That we're not good enough. That it would damage our ovaries and uterus and we won't be able to have children, even though that's not true. It's so outdated, it's kind of funny in a way. And then it's not."
ITALY’S highest court has ruled that a man who raped the 14-year-old daughter of his girlfriend can seek to have his sentence reduced because the girl was not a virgin.
[snip]
In 2001 Marco T. was convicted by a court in Cagliari, Sardinia, of sexual violence and threats against his partner’s daughter, and jailed for three years and four months. The judges refused his request to have the sentenced reduced on mitigating circumstances that the crime was less serious because the girl had already had several sexual partners.
Italy’s highest court said yesterday that the Cagliari judges were wrong and should reassess the decision because the girl “since the age of 13 had had many sexual relations” so could be assumed to have a “more developed” personality than one might expect.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as President?And six in ten answered "disapprove."
"Real election reform is needed in accurate counting of votes through voter-verified paper ballots. House Bill 1318 will impede some Pennsylvanians' ability to vote and distracts from the truly needed election reform contained in legislation such as Senate Bill 977 and House Bill 2000."Please join Gov. Rendell and spread the word!
House Bill 1318 requires voters to present an original form of photo or non-photo identification at every election. Voters unable to produce ID would be allowed to vote using a provisional ballot that could possibly be contested and not counted.
House Bill 2000 and Senate Bill 977, two bills calling for a paper audit of electronic votes, remain in legislative limbo.
"It is unconscionable that the Pennsylvania House and Senate believes that it is okay that a registered voter could show up on election day and not be able to vote because of a lack of 'proper' identification, but in the same breath the same career politicians discount the need to for a paper audit of a voter's electronic vote to ensure that their vote counted."
If you could see him the split second AFTER you shot him, then you could see him the split second BEFORE you shot him. So either Cheney could see the guy, and shot him anyway (which completely contradicts what Cheney's people have been saying for 5 days now), or Cheney couldn't see the guy and he's now lying to the nation in order to incur our sympathy.
"The image of him falling is something I will never be able to get out my mind," Cheney said, somberly. "It was one of the worst days of my life."
Nice.
2. How close was Cheney to his victim?In the report Cheney also notes that Whittington was at a lower elevation than him, and that's why he got hit in the face. From the GPS coordinates given I did a 100ft circle around that to see the changes in elevation and they are less than 1 Foot.
Veteran hunters and shooting experts said Thursday that they still did not understand how the vice president injured his fellow hunting partner so badly if he was actually 30 yards away as Cheney says.3. Why was the "designated witness" someone in a car over a football field away?
"It just doesn't add up," said John Kelly, a quail hunter from New York with more than 36 years of experience. "With a shotgun, the pellets spread out the further you get, and for that many pellets to hit such a small part of this man's body means Mr. Cheney was far closer" than the 27-meter distance cited.
4. Was the reason why Armstrong was used as the "designated witness" because Cheney was trying to hide his own Lewinsky?Armstrong said she saw Cheney's security detail running toward the scene. "The first thing that crossed my mind was he had a heart problem," she told The Associated Press.
This is Armstrong admitting that the first evidence she saw that alerted her that something was wrong was the Secret Service running to help. And that she thought it was Cheney who was in trouble.
This says, to me at least, that she did not see the accident at all.
Sirius radio's Alex Bennett just broke a rumor that the delay in reporting the news that Cheney shot an old man in the heart was due to an effort to hide or spin Cheney's female companion.
Pamela Willeford (shown right), ambassador to Switzerland and -- yes -- Liechtenstein, was part of the hunting excursion with Cheney and Whittington. And according to Willeford's account, Cheney and the ambassador were side-by-side when the shooting of Whittington took place.
The vice president's Secret Service detail had to decide what to do with Willeford by way of perhaps covering up her relationship with Cheney, and thus the delay in reporting the news.
The rumor goes that Lynn Cheney isn't happy with Cheney's close relationship with Willeford.
Again, just a rumor.
***MISSING WHITE WOMAN ALERT***5. Why didn't the White House Doctors send a trauma victim to the nearest trauma hospital?
name: Pamela Willeford
race: white (duh...)
age: 50ish
sex: f (duh...)
occupation: US Ambassadress to Switzerland
last seen: Sat. 2/11/06, on a ranch in Texas, in the company of the V-POTUS
details: Ms. Willeford is missing after an incident involving firearms and alcohol. SHE MAY BE IN GRAVE DANGER. Please report any information immediately to the authorities.
6. What role did alcohol play?
I have every reason to believe the White House docs in Cheney's traveling ICU have excellent trauma medicine skills.
So I have all the more reason to ask what they were thinking of when they decided that the 78 year old victim of severe gunshot wounds needed the slow ambulance ride to the local non-trauma hospital - rather than the fast chopper ride to the trauma center?
[snip]
At the smaller hospital there would be fewer prying eyes- and it's possible some of em knew a doc there who could be counted on. Once they went to the big hospital- the chances of keeping it covered up evaporated.
The sheriff’s report does not address this question. The report does not indicate that the sheriff’s office ever took a breathalyzer test or any other blood-alcohol test. Moreover, the report indicates that although the sheriff’s office was contacted at 5:30 pm on Saturday night, they waited until 8:00 am the next morning to interview Cheney.7. Why didn't Cheney go to the hospital with the man he shot? Wouldn't you?
The report does claim that when Harry Whittington was finally interviewed on Monday, the interviewing officer said Whittington “explained foremost there was no alcohol during the hunt.” Today, Whittington’s doctors said again that they had “no comment” about whether blood tests have revealed any alcohol in his blood.
The sheriff’s report doesn’t address the question. That’s why McClellan needs to.
FRANKEN: And you have to ask yourself the following questions. Why didn't he go to the hospital if-he went back to the ranch and had dinner. Now, if you are so worried-he said that he didn‘t get the story out because he wasn‘t sure how serious this was.
If you are so concerned about how serious this is, you go to the hospital. He said-when he was asked by Brit Hume in this very softball interview, you know, did you go on—in the ambulance, he went, well, no. There wasn‘t enough—it was very crowded, and they didn‘t need another body.
Well, the—he—there‘s plenty of vans that he could have gone to the hospital in. So, it begs the question...
SCARBOROUGH: You are making a good point. You are making a good point, that, had I shot somebody, had you shot somebody, we certainly would have rushed to the hospital, even if we were vice president of the United States.
President George W. Bush's job-approval ratings have fallen off slightly from January 2006, according to a recent Harris Interactive poll, while Congress's ratings have remained about the same.The actual numbers aren't anything to cheer about. 40% positive/58% negative.What this means, of course, is that if you or anyone you know thinks Bush is doing a good job, you're in the minority.
Any benefit President Bush may have gained from his State of the Union speech didn't last long enough to be measured in the latest poll, as Mr. Bush's ratings are now 40% positive, down from a positive rating of 43% in January, and 58% negative, up from 56% negative.
Some of the 60 previously unpublished photographs that the US Government has been fighting to keep secret in a court case with the American Civil Liberties Union.Gee, I wonder why.
Although a US judge last year granted the [ACLU] access to the photographs following a freedom-of-information request, the US Administration has appealed against the decision on the grounds their release would fuel anti-American sentiment.Again, any wonder why? A better way to make sure "anti-American" sentiment isn't "fueled" would be to NOT TORTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Such civilized thoughts, I guess, are lost on the more fervently patriotic among us. Lucky us.
Some of the photos are similar to those published in 2004, others are different. They include photographs of six corpses, although the circumstances of their deaths are not clear. There are also pictures of what appear to be burns and wounds from shotgun pellets.Please, no Cheney jokes here. This is torture. This is serious. And it was done in our name.
