Sarah Palin, Too Little Too Late

Since I've already discussed her absolute lack of qualifications to be vice president of the United States, (except of course for her membership in the PTA as noted elsewhere) I won't comment much more about the Too Little part of this article. What is really tragic is that she will be Too Late. Too Late for the Bush whitehouse where she would have fit right in. The more I read about the Wootengate fiasco the scarier it gets. There are a multitude of articles available about this, but the one with the most cogent arguments is from talkingpointsmemo.com

Getting Real About Palin

The final paragraph of the article sums up the problem for us:

We rely on elected officials not to use the power of their office to pursue personal agendas or vendettas. It's called an abuse of power. There is ample evidence that Palin used her power as governor to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. When his boss refused to fire him, she fired his boss. She first denied Monegan's claims of pressure to fire Wooten and then had to amend her story when evidence proved otherwise. The available evidence now suggests that she 1) tried to have an ex-relative fired from his job for personal reasons, something that was clearly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, though possibly understandable in human terms, 2) fired a state official for not himself acting inappropriately by firing the relative, 3) lied to the public about what happened and 4) continues to lie about what happened.

These are, to put it mildly, not the traits or temperament you want in someone who could hold the executive power of the federal government.

Look again at that opening sentence: "We rely on elected officials not to use the power of their office to pursue personal agendas or vendettas. " Like I said, she would have fit right in with the Bush/Chaney/Rove/Libby/ etc. ad nauseum gang.

So Who's the Celebrity?

I think it is very appropriate that the first interview with the republican ticket was given to People magazine. I love the picture of the two wannabe first families right next to the following headlines.

• Ryan Cabrera: Ashlee Will Be a 'Great Mom'
• Johnny Depp Rocks Out for a Good Cause
• Friends Remember Dr. Dre's Son
• Amy Winehouse Cancels Paris Performance
• David Duchovny Has Addressed Rumors of Sex Addiction

Do you think McCain is trying to convince us that in spite his millions and his so-many-he-can't-remember-them-all houses, he is really just one of the folks? Don't underestimate the power of the mob. Remember that GWB won because he pulled off the guy-you-would-like-to-have-a-beer-with image.

In my previous post on this subject I did neglect to give SP credit for her leadership experience as the point guard on the Wasilla Warriors basketball team. Don't get me wrong. I'm a great fan of women's basketball. Some of my very favorite people play the game, but somehow I never saw it as preparation for the White House.

McCain Throws the Election

I knew McCain and his ilk were desparate, but this is absolutely crazy. His most effective criticism of Barak Obama has been his lack of experience and now, if he wins, a 72 year old heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world will be a person whose primary experience is being mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of about 8400 people. She has no experience, she has no credentials, she has no credibility, she has nothing to justify her as a candidate for Vice President of the United States except that the McCain people hope that some of the dissaffected Hilary supporters will vote for her just because she is female. Oh yes, she was Miss Wasilla of 1984.

If you take a look at the City of Wasilla webpage for today (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/) these are the two lead stories:

Former Wasilla Mayor Picked for Vice Presidential Run
CNN and Fox News are reporting Senator John McCain has picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate on the GOP ticket for the White House! More...

Baby & Me Lap-Sit Program at the Library
Baby & Me Lap-Sit is a new one-on-one program for an adult and baby (ages 4-18 months). The program will be held of Fridays at 10:30 am at Wasilla Public Library. Registration is required.

As a former public librarian, I fully recognize the value of the Lap-Sit programs. In fact I have conducted some myself and they are quite a learning experience. And I don't mean for the babies. But I can conceive of no situation where any of the mayors of my town, which is bigger that Wasilla, would ever be considered as candidates for the vice-presidency.

Here is the bio of the current mayor of Wasilla. Peruse it at your leisure to discover the political nuances that would prepare here to be next in line for the most powerful job on the planet.

Mayor Dianne M. Keller was twice elected to the Wasilla City Council, Seat B.
She was previously appointed to serve a one-year term from 1996-1997, and was
elected to serve a full term from 1997-2000. Her Council term ended in October
2002 when she ran for and became the Mayor of Wasilla. Dianne was re-elected as
Mayor in 2005 and will serve until 2008.
The Mayor is an active
member of our community. She has been a member of the AML Legislative Committee
from 1996 to 2004, and the Alaska Conference of Mayors from 2002 to present.
Mayor Keller also chairs the Mat-Su American Red Cross leadership committee and
formerly was a Board Member for the Greater Wasilla Chamber of Commerce in
2005.
In addition, she is a member of the Alaska Resource Development
Council, Mat-Su Resouce Development Council, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
Alaska Miners Association, the Mat-Su Youth Court, a member of the Alaska Moose
Federation, and Chair for the Statewide Moose Safety & Rebuilding Task
Force.
The Mayor was appointed to serve the State residents on the State
Emergency Response Commission (SERC). She is also an active supporter of the Boy
Scouts of America and donates regularly to the Blood Bank of Alaska.
Mayor
Keller was born and raised in Anchorage and has lived in the
Matanuska-Susitna valley since 1983. She and her husband Dave have lived in
the city since 1992 and their son Seth was born in Wasilla in 1994.

After Obama's acceptance speech which should have removed all doubts about his ability to lead and after the Bill & Hilary shows of the previous nights in support of Barak Obama removed all doubts about who they are supporting the repubs really needed to pull out their big guns to counter the momentum of Obama's campaign had coming out of the election. So the first thing they do is time the release of McCain's running for the day after the convention to take away some of the headlines and talking head time. That's pretty transparent but all's fair in presidential politics. But this is absolutely ludicrous. I'm sure Mrs. Palin is a very fine woman, but she has no business being nominated or agreeing to this nomination. The Bush/McCain team continues to make a mockery of the American political system. McCain likes to be known as a maverick, but this is just plain old ordinary stupidity.

Having Your Cake and Eating It Too

The Bush so-called "Justice Department" is getting to have things both ways. First they violate the rules then they claim that resolving that problem would violate the rules. First one attorney general, who should never have been approved, gets his hirlings to fill all the available US attorney slots with card-carrying conservatives in clear violation of civil service laws. Then the next attorney general covers for him, first acknowledging that people were hired in violation of the law but refusing to remove them because they did nothing wrong and in his words, "Two wrongs do not make a right. People who were hired in an improper way didn't themselves do anything wrong."

That is the kind of convoluted thinking we have come to expect from bush appointees, but one always hopes that one of these days we will get an attorney general who believes justice is more than just the name of his department. Thank goodness we only have to suffer through this for another 160 days.

This will probably just become another bullet point in all of those coming lectures about why George Bush will go down in history as one of America's worst presidents. And for some reason there are still fools out there supporting him. How can they do that, are they blind, stupid, or just plain evil. I don't see any alternatives.

You're a liberal something, but your not a Christian.

Just in case you were wondering whether or not you can be liberal and Christian, the all-knowing Rick Santorum has given us the last word. Referring to Barack Obama, the ousted, but out-spoken former senator from Pennsylvania said,

You're a liberal something, but your not a Christian.

The comment is reported in a post on a beliefnet blog, Santorum: Obama's Faith Is "Phony"
Blogger Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of beliefnet, says, "Santorum, known for overtly connecting his fath to his politics, said the Democrats' current efforts to be more faith-friendly are "a charade... I dont think it's sincere at all." Obama's efforts to talk about the importance of faith in his life is "phoney--absolutely disingenuous. I think he's a complete phoney. . . (At the end of the attack, he added that of course it would be inappropriate for him to judge the authenticity of Obama's faith, as only God could do that.)"

Santorum went on to question whether liberal christianity was really, well, Christian. "You're a liberal something, but your not a Christian." He continued, "When you take a salvation story and turn it into a liberation story you've abandoned Christiandom and I don't think you have a right to claim it."

I wonder if Santorum ever heard about "the truth will liberate (my translation) you. Of course, this is not terribly significant but is reflective of the kind of rhetoric that continual pours out of the mouths of the righteous right.

Someone finally gets it right--Iraq invasion was f*cking stupid

Someone with Whitehouse connections has finally gotten it right about the war in Iraq.

Iraq invasion was f*cking stupid!

David Kilcullen, a counter-terrorism expert from Australia, who is now an adviser to Condoleezza Rice, called the decision to invade Iraq "stupid" -- in fact, he said "f*cking stupid." He goes on to say, "The biggest stupid idea was to invade Iraq in the first place."

Kilcullen's comments are printed by The Washington Independent from a draft copy of A Counterinsurgency Guide for Politicos-Eighth in a Series: The Rise of the Counterinsurgents. This manual is be prepared to help those involved in policy making to have the same kind of understanding that the military does. It is intended for "Cabinet-level" officials and their staffs.

Among the novel concepts included in the manual are:

• negotiations are a two-way street in counterinsurgency


• integrate civilian and military agencies into a concerted strategy


• intervening to support an oppressive, authoritarian or abusive government against an insurgency is extremely problematic


• it is folly to intervene . . . unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the affected government will cooperate


• and a really novel idea (at least for the Bush Whitehouse) RESPECT PEOPLE

Since this is draft, one must wonder how much of this will make it into the published version. I seriously doubt that the "f*ucking stupid" comment will survive. Of course many of us started saying this (without the colorful metaphor) before the war and have been saying it continuously for years. Of course, I do not have the slightest doubt that it will be ignored by those who make the decisions.

Crimes Against Nature?

This is a little out of the ordinary for me to address a story like this one, but it raised a red flag. NewsOK.com carried a news story entitled Dog sex tapes lead to Tulsa arrest, charges which tells of a women in Tulsa who was arrested for "crimes against nature" which included beastiality. Specifically she and a friend were charged with performing various sex acts with dogs. Let me state emphatically, that I in no way condone this kind of behavior. My question is,

Why is it against the law?

Why are there even statutes on the books that address this kind of
behavior? Is it repugnant? Yes. Is it disgusting? Yes. Is it
stupid? Yes. Is it unsanitary? Most likely. But is it criminal? I
don't think it should be. But obviously it is in Tulsa. I wonder how
many other cities or states have laws covering "crimes against nature."
Apart from global warming and pollution, how do you commit a crime against
nature?

I was especially disturbed that the Tulsa DA's office was recommending that the dogs be "taken away from the suspects and be put down." They want to kill the dogs because the stupid people had sex with them. What possible reason can they have for doing that? This case has ACLU, SPCA and PETA written all over it.

Supreme Court Gets It Wrong, Twice. Oops, THRICE

Historically the Supreme Court has swung between the extremes of too much or too little power. Early in its history, it could make all the pronouncements it wanted to, but had no means to enforce its decisions. For the past few decades there have been many complaints about an "activist" court or "activist" judges, meaning of course that the complainer did not like the court's decision on a particular issue. Because the court had an obvious liberal slant up until the Bush appointments, most of those charges had come from the right. Now the shoe is on the other (left?) foot and the liberals are making the charges about "activist" judges. Of course, they are not using those words, but the complaints are the same.

So at this point I get to add my complaints. The court has made three critical decisions in the last few days, two along straight 5-4 ideological lines and one 5-3 with one recused. First they decided that using capital punishment for those convicted of child rape is "cruel and unusual" punishment, second they decided that the 2nd amendment includes the right of self-defense, and third they reduced the punitive damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill from $2.5 billion to $500 million. It is my firmly held conviction that they are wrong on all three.

A strange thing is happening here. I am actually siding with the conservative element of the court on the capital punishment decision. Don't get me wrong. I am opposed to capital punishment. I am in full agreement with the sentiment expressed by the child who asked, "Is capital punishment when we kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?" I am absolutely convinced that violence is never an appropriate response to violence. However, I am just as convinced that if we are going to use capital punishment for any crimes, the crime of child rape ought to be included. I do not understand the logic of the majority which does not see the violence of rape used against the most helpless in our society as being worthy of the highest level of punishment. It is a rare set of circumstances which has me agreeing with Justice Samuel Alito when he said, it means the death penalty would be barred

"no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's prior criminal record may be."

Things are back to normal on the handgun decision. I am firmly in the camp of the liberal justices. Justice Scalia, speaking for the majority says, "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right." I've read the 2nd amendment many times. It is one of the shortest of the Bill of Rights, only 27 words, and I find nothing that guarantees a right of "self-defense." This is judicial activism at its best.

I am in complete agreement with Justice Stevens that "there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Justice Stephen Breyer, states it even more clearly:

"The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens _ namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But, self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern.

"The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves."

And finally there is the most clear-cut example of judicial activism in favor of corporate America. Of course no one should be surprised that a Bush dominated court would protect the profits of his paymasters. The reasoning behind the decision to cut the punitive damages by 80% is that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses. Just for the record, the $500 million amounts to four days worth of profits for Exxon.

Justice Ginsburg, in dissent, declared that the court was engaging in "lawmaking" by concluding that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses. She concluded that this was a "new law made by the court should have been left to Congress."

I find it saddening that the oil-man president's court will not stand up for the rights of children to be safe from rape but will stand up for the rights of oil companies not to be held accountable for their actions.

Worth a thousand words

You gotta admit, they've got balls

I am constantly amazed at the chutzpah of the radical religious right. After years of totally ignoring or at most giving lip-service to the biblical demand about caring for the poor, an issue has finally arisen that makes them take the side of the poor. I was made aware of this when I received an "action alert" from the chief of modern day pharisees, Richard Land of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Only last year, Land used as an excuse for not supporting some of the evangelical green efforts, that his "constituency" had not come to any consensus on the issue of globlal warning.

Land is quoted in Christianity Today as saying, "I don't think there is anywhere near that kind of consensus on the issue, at least among the evangelicals I know. … They're not ready to accept it is a settled fact that human beings are the major cause of global warming."

Apparently since then, he has reached his own conclusion that stopping global warming is not biblical. Here are some excerpts from the alert:


Tell Senate to Reject Climate Change Bill that Would Hurt Poor, Economy

Dear Friends:
Alarmists (emphasis is mine not Land's) are calling all senators to board their global warming train this week in Washington to avoid what they consider to be a looming climate catastrophe, despite warnings that it could wreck our economy, destroy jobs, and harm the poor.

I need your help to stop this train before it leaves the station!

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote this week on a bill to mandate massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by electrical, industrial, and transportation sectors in a vain attempt to reduce the unfounded threat of cataclysmic global warming. The hype and good intentions driving this train would yield devastating consequences.


What is even more troubling is that poor people in this country and around the world would suffer the most as the rising costs of all goods make mere subsistence increasingly burdensome and millions of people in underdeveloped regions of the world would find it even more difficult to have the cheap and abundant energy they need to escape their desperate circumstances.

All this would come with an almost immeasurable reduction in global climate temperatures. This is a price too high for a policy based on science disputed more and more each day by thousands of scientists and climatologists.

Christians have a responsibility to practice environmental stewardship. But any action should first consider its impact on God’s most prized creation, human beings.

Thank you for joining me as a voice of reason to stop this bill before it crushes livelihoods and liberties.

In His Service,
Dr. Richard Land
President
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention

By using words and phrases like alarmist, unfounded threat, science disputed he shows that he is cavalierly dismissing the overwhelming evidence and support for the reality of this crisis from the scientific community. Even NASA has released a report acknowledging both the high probablility that global warming is caused by human activity and can be controlled by human activity. But it comes as no surprise that Land and his ilk align themselves with the "do-nothing, status quo" party on this issue, since they effectively wedded themselves to the repubs many years ago. The names Land, Dobson, Perkins, etc. have become synonomous with other sycophants of the radical right, religious or otherwise.

The alert directs readers to a website called We Get It! A blurb from the page proclaims

Caring for the environment and the poor – Biblically
Imagine…one million Christians standing together
to shed Biblical light on one of the biggest
cultural issues of our day…
Honoring our Lord Jesus Christ as creator and
sustainer of this wondrous world…
And impacting the lives of millions of the
poorest people here and around the globe.
That’s what the We Get It!
campaign is all about!

And guess who's names show up as being among those who "Get It."

Dr. Daniel Akin, President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Singer Pat Boone
Congressman Paul Broun
Senator Tom Coburn
Dr. James Dobson
Senator James Inhofe
Dr. Richard Land
Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America

What a collection. I thought I had gotten over my shame at having the two most ill-informed men in the Senate be from my state and yet here they are, Inhofe and Coburn. You remember Inhofe, he's the one who said on the floor of the Senate in 2003 that "man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Good old Oklahoma reasoning. Right up there with Sally Kern.

Along with them the campaign is supported by
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention
Family Research Council
and believe it or not
Wallbuilders ( I guess since David Barton was thorougly discredited as a historian he is seeking a new platform as a climatologist) They even quote Barton as if he were some sort of expert on something, saying that proper care of creation and the environment will "come not from government-implemented programs but rather from unfettered free-market solutions." I guess I was mistaken. He can be just as wrong about the environment as he was about American history.

But the new and most despicable element in the appeal of these groups and individuals is their professed concern for the poor. I can only conclude that in light of their previous apathy or even hostility toward issues involving the poor, both here and abroad, it is not hard to see that what they really mean is that they don't want to have to give up their SUVs and big houses and consumptive lifestyles. I was particularly appalled by that reference to "cheap and abundant energy." When has anyone in this group that is so closely tied to the oil barons in the White House ever been concerned about the energy needs of the poor.