Palin Warned by Court

Yesterday, 9/9/08, Newsweek Magazine posted a story (click on title above) on its website about how Sarah Palin was warned three years ago by an Alaskan judge to "...stop "disparaging" the reputation of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten who at the time was undergoing a bitter separation and divorce from Palin's sister Molly."

"Court documents show that Judge [John] Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. "Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse," the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: "Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."

The McCain campaign knew this was coming and launched a preemptive strike: a fallacious ad stating that Sen. Obama pushed legislation that would have subjected kindergartners to sex education. They know this is a lie; that there is no truth to it. Sen. Obama supported legislation that would protect children from sexual exploitation.

John McCain has lost all sense of propriety. He has gotten so desperate to win this election that he has sold his sole to the Karl Rove machine.

Newsweek's story continues: Judge Suddock "...heard testimony from an official of the Alaska State Troopers' union about how Sarah Palin—then a private citizen—and members of her family, including her father and daughter, lodged up to a dozen complaints against Wooten with the state police. The union official told the judge that he had never before been asked to appear as a divorce-case witness, that the union believed family complaints against Wooten were "not job-related," and that Wooten was being "harassed" by Palin and other family members.

But this is not about Michael Wooten; his behavior was apparently pretty dumb. It is about John McCain and whether there are any limits to the slime he is willing to produce in order to gain the highest office in our land. I say there is no limit else he would not have invited onto the ticket with him a person who does not respect the rule of law.

Remember, the State Troopers had investigated Michael Wooten's behavior and disciplined him for it but that didn't satisfy the governor. She wanted his head and continued to go after him. And since she came onto the McCain ticket she has requested that the investigation into her behavior be removed from a bipartisan legislative commission and turned over to the state personnel operation which answers to - that's right, herself - the governor.

The Newsweek story continues: "Allegations that Palin, her husband Todd, and at least one top gubernatorial aide continued to vilify Wooten—after Palin became Alaska's governor and pressured state police officials to take action against him—are at the center of "Troopergate," a political and ethical controversy which has embroiled Palin's administration and is currently the subject of an official inquiry by a special investigator hired by the state legislature."

I don't know about you but I want a president and vice president who can focus on my needs: a healthy economy, good public education, universal healthcare, energy independence, respect for our planet, and a responsible foreign policy; one that doesn't consist only of a strong military (although that's important) but that utilizes both hard and soft power to relate to the rest of the world and that leads by example.

And above all I want a president and vice president who respect the rule of law, accept the judgment of our courts, and when they lose can suck it up and behave like adults. What do you think?

Eve Ensler says: Drill, Drill, Drill

Eve Ensler wrings her hands about how to deal with Sarah Palin, the feminist, in today's Huffington Post. I invite you to read her column (click on the title above), then read my response to it below and then if you agree with me post a response on this blog and share it with everybody you know including the Obama campaign. We have no time to lose.

Eve, I'm an unapologetic, unreconstructed modern feminist who spent the 70s and 80s in the streets and political organizing. My feminist credentials are unquestioned and here's what I think about this situation.


There are feminists and there are feminists. Not all feminists are good people and we make a BIG mistake if we assume that they are.


We're fighting to save the planet, to preserve women's reproductive rights, to save public education, to establish a rational energy policy and to engender a mature foreign policy that isn't just a robust military, (although that is important), but one in which the United States employs both soft and hard power; that leads by example.


If we make the mistake of giving Sarah Palin a pass because she identifies as a feminist we give up the fight. On the other hand if we permit her to dominate this campaign we do the same. We have to take her on without permitting her to appear as the presidential candidate. Treat her for what she is: a demagogue who wouldn't know the truth if it hit her in the face. Treat her just as though she were Karl Rove while remembering that John McCain is the candidate.


Call him out for hiding behind her skirts. Take him on for putting a woman out there to lie on his behalf and name the lies: that she told congress no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere etc. Put it back on McCain. Don't give him a pass on this. Name her for what she is and place the responsibility for her candidacy squarely where it belongs: with John McCain, a candidate who was losing the battle on experience and who threw a hail Mary pass at the 11th hour (putting Palin on his ticket) because he had nowhere else to go.


And finally, remember: McCain-Palen: a Bridge to Nowhere!

Memes and anecdotes to Share

John Aravosis shared this one via Americablog:

McCain-Palin: a Bridge to Nowhere. "It's a catchphrase that will stick right into people's skull once it starts spreading. It ties together that freakin' bridge she was on both sides of (hey, there's ANOTHER metaphor)!" Thanks, John.

This morning McCain said Palin sold that jet on eBay for a profit! Not even. She put it up on eBay but couldn't sell it so she sold it through a dealer at a half a million dollar loss. Geeze, McCain can't event subtract so how in hell will he balance a budget? Oh, that's right. He doesn't have to do it, he just has to say it. Pa dum bum.

Palin sneered at Barack Obama for being a Community Organizer. Guess she's more ignorant than I thought. What else could you call a political neophyte who advocates small government and slams private sector non-profit activists who do the government's job?

I give Palin credit for a good joke: What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick. Pa dum bum.

McCain tried to win with experience and when it didn't work he switched gears to "Change is coming." Well I'd call that some real change. Pa dum pum.

Palin claims she told Congress "Thanks but no thanks to that bridge" but she actually was for it before she was against it and then took the money and kept it.

Mayor Palin left her hometown $20 million in debt. That's $20 million for 7,000 people. Guess she can't subtract either. Pa dum pum.

And finally, if John McCain were to die before the election do you think the Republican party should elevate Palin to the top of the ticket? Your answer will tell you a lot.

Pass it on!

From Nuanced to principled: The Lessons of Pastor Rick, and Why & How Obama & Democrats Should make Abortion a Voting Issue

If you read my blog regularly you know that I respect Drew Weston and won't be surprised that I'm recommending you read his column on Huffington Post today (click on title above). Weston is a Professor of Psychology & Psychiatry at Emory University and I completely agree with his approach to this most freighted of all issues. Basically, abortion should not be a political issue and here's how to talk about it with respect for both sides of the issue.

I took the time to post a response at HuffPo and hope you'll read it and, perhaps, do the same. Below is my response as posted online:

You're on the right track. I suggest that Obama and other Democrats frame answers to hot button issues by disavowing the zero sum game that right wingers use so effectively, eg:

"Abortion isn't a zero sum game and Americans don't have to accept all or none, even on this most difficult of issues. In fact it would be wrong to do so. It is our responsibility as Americans to reach consensus on ways to reduce the number of abortions while preserving a family's right to protect the mother's life and/or health. That might involve some economic support for childcare, healthcare, and it might include new rules for adoption.

The American people understand that abortion is not an either/or issue and we owe them the leadership it will require to achieve the best possible answer to this toughest of questions."

Then, every time his opponent pulls out the zero sum game, perhaps Sen. Obama should begin his reply with, There you go again; relying on the either/or of negative politics. The American people don't agree with that - they deserve real leadership on this issue, and I pledge to provide that to the very best of my ability.

---

Obama Has to Fight to Win

Drew Westin, professor of psychiatry and psychology at Emory University, posted a brilliant analysis of the Obama campaign on today's Huffington Post. I recommend you read it (click on title above) and then send it to the Obama campaign. I've done so and the more they get this message the more likely they are to internalize it: You can't bring a knife to a gun fight and win!

I voted for Barack Obama because I want a new kind of government. Unfortunately we may have to use old politics to win so let's just get over the idea that genteel politics work and get tough! The one advantage a Hillary Clinton candidacy would have had over Obama is that she knows how to street fight and isn't afraid to do so.

Obama needs to stop putting John Kerry on television to represent him and he needs to get a quick response team. Negative attacks should not be allowed to survive even one news cycle. Every time the McCain campaign puts out a negative and/or false attack there should be an immediate response in kind and Obama should follow it up on the stump! Failure to do so will consign us to the ash heap of defeat and we CAN NOT afford to lose!

So send a link to Drew Westin's column to the Obama campaign (http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2), post it on your blog, email it to your friends and family... You get the idea. Obama believes in grass roots movements so let's give him one. Now let's get going!

I've Had It and I'm Flaming Mad

I just read a blog telling of a jerk in St. Cloud FL who has paid for billboards around Orlando reading, "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat." This idiot claims that Pres. Clinton should be blamed for the 9/11/01 attacks and "I believe 9/11 could have been prevented if we'd had a Republican president at the time," Meehan said Wednesday on CNN's "American Morning."

Bisbah, a Florida Blog, has the whole story and you have to read it to believe it (click on title above). There just doesn't seem to be any bottom to the pit these jerks live in. In what world does any American who can read and write actually believe that a Democrat was president when the 9/11 attacks took place? I tell you the Democratic Party has to fight back! If we don't expose the incompetence of this president, publicly blame him for his failure to even try to prevent the attacks of 9/11, we might as well fold up the tent.

I'm so fired up about this I looked this jerk up and sent him a copy of what I posted on Bisbah and here it is:

"Mike Meehan needs to read Vince Bugliosi's new book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. He lays out everything that our REPUBLICAN president DIDN'T do between Jan. 20 and Sept. 11, 2001 to prevent the attacks. Further he posits that after Bush leaves office he should be prosecuted for murdering more than 4,000 U.S. troops by lying us into the war in Iraq.

If the Democrats don't pick up this ball and run with it they deserve the "wimp" label the republicans have tagged onto them. It's long past time for the Democratic Party to expose George W. Bush for the incompetent, lying, sack of crap that he is.

Nancy Pelosi, get off your butt. Put impeachment on the table. It may be too late to achieve impeachment but at least it will re-establish what warrants it. It's time for the Democratic Party to show this country what real gonads are.

P.S. If you'll send me your address I'll send you a copy of the book."

So are you fired up? If so I recommend you send him an email too. Send it to: pleasedontvoteforademocrat@yahoo.com.

An Open Letter to Senator Obama

Senator Obama, I voted for you in the California Primary and want to weigh in on the VP selection.

As I see it, Sen. Clinton is not worthy of the honor, nor would she be a good Vice President. To wit: her campaign held a rally last night in a room two floors below street level where no cell phone or television reception were available. Then her campaign chair proceeded to introduce her as "the next president of the United States." It's clear the intent was to shelter the people in the room from the final results of the SD and MT primaries so that she could make a speech that seemed logical to them. As a result they cheered her on to Denver as she refused even to congratulate you on an historic achievement, being the first African American to earn the Presidential nomination of a major political party, and then seemed to be negotiating a spot on the ticket via the press. Not a good idea.

Her performance was disgraceful and should demonstrate clearly what sort of president or vice president she would have been: one who is willing to hoodwink Americans in order to achieve her ends. It's frightening to think that she would have become the next president if you had not happened along. I am sad because I believe the way she has run her campaign and the disappointing way she has responded to losing has set back feminism.

Senator, I am a 69 year old white lesbian; an unapologetic, unreconstructed, modern feminist who wants to vote for a woman for president before I die and yet I voted for you because I could see that you were the better choice. I yearn for the bottom-up, consensus building approach to government that I believe you espouse and want nothing to do with the top-down, secretive, ego driven government that I perceive Sen. Clinton represents.

I urge you to look elsewhere for a vice presidential running mate and offer a quote to guide you. The late Jimi Hendrix once said, "Knowledge talks, wisdom listens." Please seek a person who shares your willingness to listen.

What Barak Obama Said

Barak Obama's speech of yesterday brought me back to a time when I was the only white member of a small town Ohio church where a firey, liberation theologist sounded a good bit like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright sounds today. Jim Holloman was unafraid to speak truth to power and in that time the words he uttered were viewed as heretical. Today we recognize the truth in what he said as we celebrate the changes that have taken place in the interim and as we continue to struggle for the changes still needed.

What Barak Obama said yesterday could only have been said by him. And it could only have come from his core. I honor, respect, and celebrate his words and commend his speech to you. If you haven't yet heard it click on the title to this column and watch it. You'll see a politician risk it all to speak truth to power. We hold the power of the ballot box, and his willingness to reject the politics of division while holding out a call for unity was gutsy and the right thing to do. It signaled that he wants to be president but not at any cost. That he chooses to live what he advocates: unity above divisiveness.

Barak Obama refused to throw Jeremiah Wright under the bus while he likewise refused to do the same to his own white Grandmother whom he knows loves him as much as anything in the world and who has sacrificed for him over and over, but who once revealed to him that she felt fear when passing black men on the street or who had uttered stereotypes that made him cringe.

We can choose to recognize the truth in his words and accept the possibilities they offer or we can return to the scorched earth politics of the past where the kitchen sink philosophy reigns: throw everything at the wall and something will stick.

Imagine a world where we choose to aid countries with economic development rather than munitions. Where we encourage centuries old combatants to acknowledge their commonalities rather than succumbing to the impulse to fight over their differences. Where we value the health of every person on earth and the earth herself. Where we see the possibilities offered at a time of transition rather than lament the loss of the same old same old...

I choose a future where we talk with one another rather than at one another; where we celebrate the wholesome potential of our country rather than the destructive impulses of earlier generations. I choose to support the candidacy of Barak Obama because we've tried the other way and it hasn't worked; because if we squander this opportunity at a new way of living we aren't likely to have another soon - perhaps not for another generation. I invite you to join me.

Keith Olbermann's response to Geraldine Ferraro's comments are over the top

Keith Olbermann's response to Geraldine Ferraro's comments (click on title of this article) about Barak Obama's candidacy are heart felt and yet over the top. He's both right and wrong, but more important, he missed a chance to call for reason from both the Clinton and Obama campaigns in this divisive contre temps.

I believe that Geraldine Ferraro meant to say that sexism is more deeply ingrained in our society than is racism - but she didn't. I believe that Senator Obama could have taken a pass on this controversy by acknowledging that both racism and sexism are insidious and hateful; and that he wants no part of either.

I also believe that Ferraro's comments emanate from a lifetime of put downs at the hands of men who don't see sexism for what it is - an assumption of entitlement that women must work twice as hard to achieve, and must wait in line for the chance to attain. Let us not forget that black men got the right to vote in 1870 while women had to struggle an additional 50 years for the same - and had to achieve it through a constitutional amendment as opposed to a Supreme Court decision.

Finally, I believe that Keith Olbermann is passionate about what he sees as a blunder by the Clinton campaign - and I agree with him, but I see that both campaigns have bungled this situation and that the Democratic Party may pay a price for it.

My bottom line comes down on the side of Obama because I am concerned that Sen. Clinton insists on using Karl Rovian tactics to fight for the presidency at a time when we are sick of such crap. It is precisely because Barack Obama promises a new way of governing that I voted for him.

Can we not recognize that both Geraldine Ferarro and Barak Obama are right (or wrong)? There is no place for racism in our society. There is no place for sexism in our society and unless we acknowledge and eradicate both from 21st century America we may be consigned to live yet another century filled with hatred and divisiveness - a prospect that I do not want to face.

A Healthcare Proposal

You know, I've been thinking. Since the State of California doesn't seem able to enact single payer healthcare legislation, and now doesn't even seem able to enact a "free market" plan, let's just spit it out: the reason we can't get any changes is because the healthcare industry (Big Pharma and profiteers) is so powerful.

The overwhelming majority of Californians know that profit making should be eliminated from the healthcare system; making a profit on one's health (or illness) is ghoulish. It is counter to every instinct of humanity. So let's attack the issue from a different angle.

First: let's deal with cost containment. I don't have the magic bullet for this one but it seems to me that we could start by mandating that Big Pharma negotiate drug prices with the State and that those prices apply to everyone. And perhaps we should put an annual cap on the amount of increase permitted throughout the healthcare industry.

Second: we must mandate parity between mental and physical illnesses. Illness is illness and it's time we recognized it.

Third: we must mandate that every healthcare provider (or insurer) must accept any Californian who applies for coverage without regard for pre-existing conditions, and they must not cancel one's coverage because of same. In instances of "experimental" treatment, funding should be provided by a special fund administered by the State. The fund would determine what is truly experimental. In a federal scenario this would be the National Institutes of Health.

Fourth: Healthcare "premiums" would continue to be paid by consumers, employers, and the state.

My hope is that not-for-profit healthcare would prevail. It's just not acceptable that for-profit insurers continue paying out 30% of their revenues for administrative costs when we know that Medicare's administrative costs are less than 3%. Profiteers would have to stop fighting their customers over what benefits they are entitled to and probably would realize a substantial saving in administrative costs as a result. Of course it would weed out companies that are not in the healthcare business but whose bottom line is their bottom line.

And that would serve us all.

Colorado shootings and religious abuse

Matthew Murray, a troubled 24 year old Coloradan, who killed four people at a mega church and a youth center and then killed himself was no stranger to Youth With a Mission training center where the killing began. Five years ago, Murray signed up for the program, but was told he wasn't stable enough to travel with other students for field training, according to the Rev. Peter Warren, the program's director.

According to Marlene Winell, a Berkeley psychological consultant, educator, and writer in Oakland with 28 years experience in human services in both community and academic settings, "We don't know exactly what Matthew Murray was going through that led to the Colorado shootings. But he apparently wrote the agonized postings of "Nightmare Child," on ex-pentecostals.com. He was suffering a lot of pain and rage, partly about his upbringing in the church and his continuing frustration with Christians. (Some of this was in May, 2007, when I invited him to contact me for help.)" She never heard from him.

" Matthew Murray, the son of a prominent neurologist, grew up in Englewood, Colo., and was home-schooled in what's been described as a deeply religious family. A computer enthusiast, Murray had only one previous brush with the law — a traffic ticket earlier this year, according to ABCNews.com.

But according to the Joe.My.God Blog (click on title of this post for a link) , "After trying to "go all out for God" and failing, Murray wrote he fell into a deep depression." It goes on, "Last summer, he wrote, "People like us are going to go to hell, according to Christians." He lists several reasons why. Reason number seven is bluntly stated, "I'm bisexual." In other postings, Murray wrote, "...
I can never get a female date. I am at least able to get some male action.""

Later he wrote about confronting his Mother on the issue of his bisexuality. Murray wrote that he told her, "Using drugs, alcohol and having gay sex, I'm just trying to do what any Christian pastor would do. At least I'm not doing meth like Ted Haggard." Murray also noted that the Church forgave Haggard and wrote, "I want to know where was all the love, mercy and compassion for my supposed imperfections?"

It is important to note that Youth With a Mission has been described as "associated with the ex-gay organization Exodus International," which has been criticized by some as a 'cult' and attacked for 'brainwashing' members and promoting anti-gay messages."

Psychologist Winell, who holds a doctorate in Human Development and Family Studies from Penn State and is the author of Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving their Religion, suggests that fundamentalist religion, and in particular fundamentalist Christianity, may bear some responsibility for his state of mind at the time of the shootings. She describes something she calls religious abuse and says it's traumatic, in that it teaches small children they are a) bad and incapable, b) responsible for the horrible, bloody death of Jesus Christ, and c) in danger of burning in hell for eternity. Winell calls this abuse of the worst kind.

According to her website, "Children at an early age do not have the cognitive ability to evaluate this, nor are they given any alternatives. If they are indoctrinated young, the ideas become deeply held assumptions that are very hard to change despite intellectual changes later in life. Hence the secret anxiety and sometimes terror that is too shameful to talk about. (People who convert at an older age are usually in a vulnerable state and the dynamic is similar.)

Winell's website (http://marlenewinell.net) continues, "Fundamentalist, authoritarian religions teach that it is a sin to doubt, to question, to think for yourself. This is the most insidious of many examples of circular reasoning that keeps people trapped in the system. Another is the idea that if the religion is not working for you, it must be you that is not doing it right, and the solution is for you to try harder not to disappoint God."

So, did Matthew Murray kill because he had been indoctrinated to believe his bisexuality was evil and that there was no redemption for him? If so, what do we do about it?

"Our society (the U.S.) venerates "freedom of religion" along with freedom of speech, and therefore turns a blind eye to toxic teachings," according to Winell.

If Matthew Murray's actions were precipitated by religious indoctrination can we afford to shelter such acts under a "freedom of religion" rubric? I say it's time to call out the elephant in the room: fundamentalism is dangerous and should not be permitted to operate in the U.S. any more than in Afghanistan.

A full investigation of the incidents in Colorado should be undertaken including the religious teachings that may have prompted them. And I hope the American Psychiatric and American Psychological Associations will weigh in on this phenomenon. Further, I believe that Congress should investigate this situation. A country that calls itself a world leader should take the lead in protecting vulnerable children from psychological indoctrination/brainwashing regardless of who does it.

Don't Back Down!

I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about what's happening vis a vis our government but this just blows me away:

"In Boulder, two days ago, a rosy-cheeked thirtysomething mother of two small children, in soft yoga velours, started to tear up when she said to me: `I want to take action but I am so scared. I look at my kids and I am scared. How do you deal with fear? Is it safer for them if I act or stay quiet? I don’t want to get on a list.’ In DC, before that, a beefy, handsome civil servant, a government department head — probably a Republican — confides in a lowered voice that he is scared to sign the new ID requirement for all government employees, that exposes all his most personal information to the State — but he is scared not to sign it: `If I don’t, I lose my job, my house. It’s like the German National ID card,’ he said quietly. This morning in Denver I talked for almost an hour to a brave, much-decorated high-level military leader who is not only on the watch list for his criticism of the administration — his family is now on the list. He has undertaken many dangerous combat missions in his service to his country over the course of his career, but his voice cracks when he talks about the possibility that he is exposing his children to harassment.

"Jim Spencer, a former columnist for the Denver Post who has been critical of the Bush administration, told me today that I could use his name: he is on the watch list. An attorney contacts me to say that she told her colleagues at the Justice Department not to torture a detainee; she says she then faced a criminal investigation, a professional referral, saw her emails deleted — and now she is on the watch list. I was told last night that a leader of Code Pink, the anti-war women’s action group, was refused entry to Canada. I hear from a tech guy who works for the airlines — again, probably a Republican — that once you are on the list you never get off. Someone else says that his friend opened his luggage to find a letter from the TSA saying that they did not appreciate his reading material. Before I go into the security lines, I find myself editing my possessions. In New York’s LaGuardia, I reluctantly found myself putting a hardcover copy of Tara McKelvey’s excellent Monstering, an expose of CIA interrogation practices, in a garbage can before I get in the security line; it is based on classified information. This morning at my hotel, before going to the airport, I threw away a very nice black T-shirt that said `We Will Not be Silenced’ — with an Arabic translation — that someone had given me, along with a copy of poems written by detainees at Guantanamo."

This is part of a BLOG post on Firedoglake written by Naomi Wolf, well known feminist author. I'm not sure what to do with it so I'm looking to you for advice.

Please click on the title of this post and read the full account, then post your thoughts here; tell us what to do with this information. Should we act on it? How? And perhaps even more important, how does it make you feel? If you believe this is information that should be shared widely I invite you to forward it to friends and family. If our republic is at risk, the more people who know it the better. Speak out! Don't Back Down!

$400 nets you a computer and one for a needy child

This is the coolest opportunity you're likely to have this year to do some good and get a unique payback. For $400 you can buy a new XO laptop for a needy child and get one for yourself.

TerraPass's Adam Stein writes today about the new XO laptop you've probably seen on television or read about recently. Designed solely for internet use it operates on solar power and is intended to benefit needy children in other countries; even countries where people don't have electricity. I know, I know, you're saying, But what about water damage? And sand or dirt damage? The manufacturers have thought of all that.

But let's just by-pass my sales pitch and go directly to the horses mouth. Click on the title to this post and read Adam's short column. Then click on the link near the bottom of the column and watch a short video blog by David Pogue of the NY Times. He shows you the laptop and demonstrates its near indestructibility. He also explains that for a two week period in November you can buy one and get one for yourself for $400; get a tax break and ensure that a child in a developing nation has access to an education. Such a deal!

While you're at it check out TerraPass. They're the folks who invest in alternative energy. I buy carbon offsets for my car and air travel from them every year (you may have seen the sticker on my car). It's an amazingly inexpensive way to neutralize your carbon use, help protect the planet, and feel good about it. What's not to like?

Lesbian Servicemember Murdered in Afghanistan?

Editor and Publisher Magazine is reporting this week that a woman serving in Afghanistan may have been murdered because she was a lesbian.

"The military first reported that Ciara Durkin, 30, (of Boston MA) who served in the National Guard, had died “in action,” then revealed that she was killed in a “noncombat” incident that was being investigated."

E&P continues, "Her family was told that she had been killed by a single gunshot near a church. They are charging that the military has been dragging its feet in giving them more details. They reject any chance of suicide and suspect friendly fire or murder.


"A new twist emerged today in a Boston Globe article: Her family says she had told them to push for an investigation if anything ever happened to her. She was in a finance unit and may have found some improprieties, according to a story in the Patriot-Ledger, which also disclosed that her family had notified the military about her concerns about her safety three weeks ago."

"The Globe reported that the family wondered if, as a lesbian, she may have been targeted. E&P reports, "She did say to us that she had concerns about things she was seeing when she was over there," her sister, Fiona Canavan, told WGBH-TV in Boston. "She told us if anything happened to her, that we were to investigate it."

Does any of this sound familiar? Does Pat Tillman's name come to mind? I'm not suggesting that Pat Tillman was gay but that our government is perfectly capable of covering up murder in order to avoid scrutiny of its conduct of the war.

If Ciara Durkin was murdered it may have been because she had uncovered wrongdoing or because she was a lesbian. But we must rely on the Dept of Defense's honesty to find out and if the Pat Tillman case is any indication of how things are being done today we will never know. At least Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have demanded an investigation.

Continuing the E&P report, "The Globe article observed: “(Sen.) Kerry said the Durkin family desperately needs answers to three questions: Why has the Army not responded to the Durkin family's request for an independent autopsy? Why, after not responding to the family's request for an independent autopsy, did the Army fail to contact the Durkin family with the Army's autopsy results? The family was told to be available to receive a phone call between 1 and 3 p.m. on Oct. 1, and the Army never called. Why has the Army refused to make Durkin's will and paperwork available to her family, so they can respect her wishes as they plan her funeral and burial?”

A Boston Patriot Ledger editorial declares, "The initial reports of Ciara Durkin’s death in Afghanistan are a byproduct of the Bush administration’s wrongheaded intent to shape the public perception of this fight and the war in Iraq."

The circumstances of Ciara Durkin's death should be made public and any improprieties dealt with post haste. If the motive in her death was sexual orientation it raises questions regarding the impact of Gen. Peter Pace's homophobic statements and provides further ammunition (pun intended) to kill Don't Ask Don't Tell. If she was killed because of shenanigans she had uncovered it signals the depth of corruption pervading the DOD and begs for a full investigation of our Afghanistan operation.

Ciara Durkin's family and all Americans need and deserve to know who/what caused her death. Anything less will signal that the DOD is more interested in covering its ass than in protecting its own soldiers.

Should We Kill ENDA if Transgendered People Aren't Included?

John Aravosis of Americablog has posted a thoughtful piece regarding ENDA, the legislation that would outlaw job discrimination against gays and lesbians. I commend it to you (click on title above for full piece):

"There's a debate raging in the gay community over an upcoming vote on the most important piece of civil rights legislation to the gay community, ever. We are on the verge of passing, at the federal level, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that would make it illegal for an employer to fire, not hire, no promote an otherwise qualified employee or job candidate simply because they're gay. Some are now arguing that if transgendered people are not included in ENDA, the gay community should not support its passage.

"Most Americans, including lots of people in the gay community, do not realize that under federal law it is LEGAL to fire someone for being gay. It is also legal in most states. Contrary to popular belief, "discrimination" is not illegal in America, and it's not illegal under the Constitution. It is only illegal (more or less) if your particular class is specified in legislation. If you read the existing civil rights act, you'll see it lists very specific categories that are covered (race, religion, national origin...). It is not a blanket protection against "discrimination." That is why ENDA is needed. And that is why ENDA is not "special rights" or extra rights being granted to gay people and not other Americans - we are not included under the current civil rights laws, and that's unfair. Currently it is legal to fire someone for being gay under federal law and in most states. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself."

My take on the subject? I see the answer to this debate in the knowledge that many people have come to accept gay and lesbian people as equal to themselves while most Americans are unaware of what a transgender person is and/or how that does or does not relate to homosexuality.

Our country has obviously reached critical mass in support of gays and lesbians while it is clearly not yet ready to accept gender identity as a class to protect. Amercans have not been exposed to nearly enough information nor have they been exposed to nearly enough transgender people to make an informed decision regarding their inclusion in ENDA. Meantime we have a good chance of protecting a substantial percentage of Americans from legal job discrimination.

The question is, Do we go forward to protect 10% to 20% of the American population or do we wait until we achieve critical mass in support of transgender people? My preference is that all sexual minorities be included in ENDA and I'm torn knowing that so many people will continue to be fired, not hired, or not promoted on the basis of sexual orientation if we insist on it.

After much consideration I support ENDA exclusive of gender identity while vowing to work very hard to help educate the American public and Congress regarding gender identity issues. A full 10-20% of Americans should not be asked to continue laboring in economic apartheid until the country is brought up to speed on gender identity when having gay and lesbian Americans treated with equality in the work place may have a beneficial effect on the issue. I say pass ENDA and get on with gender identity education in America.

Want to know where the Speaker stands on an issue?

Several people have asked me where Nancy Pelosi stands on a specific issue and I couldn't tell them so I did some research. She has a website at speaker.gov which carries comprehensive information about her roll as Speaker and how she plans to deal with issues. It includes a blog tilted The Gavel .

Today the site carries her statement regarding the president's speech last night. To read it click on the title to this post. Under Latest News you'll see a link to her statement.

Black and White and Re(a)d All Over:

So much for the liberal media scourge. MediaMatters.org, a web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center which comprehensively monitors, analyzes, and corrects conservative misinformation in the U.S. media, has completed a study of syndicated columnists published by nearly every daily newspaper in the country and guess what?

"The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, "U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices.

"Though papers may be "willing to consider" progressive syndicated columnists, this unprecedented study reveals the true extent of the dominance of conservatives:

• Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.

• In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.2

• The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

• The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

• In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice -- in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.

• In three out of the four broad regions of the country -- the West, the South, and the Midwest -- conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.

• In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week. Only in the Middle Atlantic division do progressive columnists reach more readers each week."

What more can I say except, I wonder why this hasn't been reported in the MSM? Hmmmm...

Note: you can read the complete study by clicking on the title above.

If The Surge Were A Product This Would Be Its TV Ad

'Nuff said (click on title above).

Wife Beating OK; Dog Fighting Not So OK

Here's an interesting piece by Nick Anderson of the Houston Chronicle. It makes a good point that could be made stronger if it recognized the wife beating that pervades professional sports. It's not unusual to read of a professional athlete who was convicted of beating his wife but I can only recall one instance of a league taking notice - a $600 fine and two game suspension for Ron Artest of the Sacramento Kings. Oh but he got a 72 game suspension for fighting fans in the stands. Guess you have to hit your wife during the game to get the league's attention. And how would that work?

U.S. Presidential Candidates' Healthcare Plans in Detail

Today's Huffington Post published a comprehensive, detailed comparative look at the healthcare proposals of all Presidential candidates; Democrat and Republican. It is compiled and written by healthcare professionals whose intent is that we be fully informed regarding whom we're voting for.

If you read it in full (click on title above) you cannot fail to see the stark differences between the parties, and the substantive disparities between the second tier and first tier Democratic candidates. Further, you will gain insight into the priorities of the candidates and their approach to problem solving, willingness to make real change, and realistic proposals for success.

I doubt that anyone would honestly be able to deny that John Edwards offers the deepest, most detailed proposal with Hillary Clinton a close second and Barrak Obama hot on their heels.

Our healthcare problem is perhaps the most intractable domestic issue we face and, I for one, want to be dead certain that my choice for President gets it. That s/he understands the issues involved and is willing to go outside the box to design a system that will rival those of other industrialized nations. It simply isn't acceptable that we continue spending 18% of our GDP on healthcare and still have 47 million people without healthcare coverage, and are way down the list on infant mortality, and life expectancy.

Susan Blumenthal, M.D. says, "While many Americans feel uninformed about the views of their elected officials on scientific, medical, and health research, most seem to understand the importance of providing necessary funds for medical studies. A poll conducted by Research!America in February 2007 found that the vast majority of people in the United States believe that science is very important to our health (86%) and competitiveness (78%) as a nation. Sixty-nine percent of Americans believe that scientific research is critical to our economy, 97% of Americans think it is important for the United States to be a global leader in scientific research, and 91% believe that it is essential in eliminating diseases, such as cancer. It is not surprising, then, that 83% of those polled in a 2006 survey indicated that they were more likely to vote for a candidate who supported increased funding "to find cures for and to prevent disease"."

We are losing people every day. Citizens who choose to live in other countries where they have access to full healthcare coverage via a national healthcare plan funded by their taxes.

I urge you to read this article and share it liberally with your e-list. What we do with healthcare in the next five to 10 years is crucial to the longevity of our population and, I believe, our nation. We've lost credibility throughout the world over the last six years as a result of an indescribably bad foreign affairs posture. We can't afford to continue with our heads in the sand on the most important domestic issue we face.