Wednesday Mashup Part 1 (11/10/09)

From the “rush to judgment” files, I give you the following from Irrational Spew Online (with the 101st Keyboard Kommandoes deciding that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused gunman in the Fort Hood shootings, was just some terrist lurking under everybody’s nose but enabled by those damn liberals and their political correctness)…

There is a reason the Pledge of Allegiance asks us to pledge to our country “under God.” The best American tradition has never required people to surrender their first allegiance as a condition of citizenship.

Note to Maggie Gallagher: the Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, and the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge in 1954 by President Dwight Eisenhower (so basically, the “best American tradition” has been in place for only 55 years of our history, and has thus far withstood numerous court challenges – I doubt that the phrase will ever be removed, but we’ll see).

I was also amused by this story from The Hill, which tells us the following…

A brash, young political newcomer is causing a fuss in GOP circles in the race against Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.).

…

“He’s offending a lot of people,” said attorney Will McBride, who opted out of the race last week. “He’s rubbing people the wrong way. He needs to be a little more professional in his approach to reaching out to local leaders in our party.”

Numerous others confirmed the widespread bristling at Gutierrez’s early maneuvers.

“He’s pissing people off a lot,” said a leading local GOP operative.

“He’s very pushy and is an unknown commodity, and people are jealously guarding their prerogatives.”

Sounds like a guy who needs my support – here’s a link to his web site (I’m just trying to encourage the worst opponent for Grayson here).

And in other news of Repug congressional candidates announcing runs for Congress, I give you the following (here)…

The former prosecutor and major in the Marine Reserves announced his candidacy for Congress.

Dean Malik has climbed the steps to the Bucks County Courthouse many times as a former deputy district attorney and private attorney.

When he stood on the courthouse steps Tuesday afternoon, it was for an entirely different reason – to announce his plans to run for Congress as a Republican in the 8th District against Democrat Patrick Murphy. Malik had his parents, wife and children beside him, and a small crowd of smiling supporters standing on the sidewalk in front of him.

The 38-year-old major in the Marine Reserves positioned himself as the opposite of Murphy, saying he supports a strong national defense and the deployment of more troops to Afghanistan.

“It should have been done months ago because the military has been asking for it,” he said.

Murphy opposed the surge in Iraq and has not said whether he thinks more troops should be sent to Afghanistan.

Republican Bucks County Commissioner Charley Martin stood in the background, near the doors to the courthouse, with his arms crossed and a smile on his face.

Wonder if Malik will have the same “semi-open mind” as Martin? And of course Malik’s campaign, if the Courier Times story is any indication, will be big on the typical rah-rah wingnut “red meat” about God, guns and liberty which, while nice sounding in theory, usually ends up stomping all over that pesky stuff like civil liberties and privacy rights.

The impression I got of Tom Manion when he ran against Murphy last time was that he was a fundamentally good man who was put into the position where he had to play crappy political games which, commendably, he thought were beneath him (I could be wrong, but that was my hunch).

I have a feeling, though, that Malik will have no such hesitancy; again, I’d love to be wrong, but the Repugs seem to be mistaking the relative squall of support they received in the recent New Jersey and Virginia congressional races (helped out by candidates with issues, especially Creigh Deeds in Virginia) for a hurricane that will blow away all Dem incumbents (though I will acknowledge that the Repugs are subject matter experts when it comes to hot air).

And finally, this Hill story tells us the following…

The ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee on Tuesday night accused the White House of withholding information on the Fort Hood attack.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) said administration officials delayed briefing members of Congress about the alleged gunman, raising “red flags” about what the White House was hiding.

“When they withhold information, you always start asking questions,” Hoekstra told Fox News. “That’s what raises red flags. What do they know that they don’t want us to know?”

God, Hoekstra is an idiot; as noted here, he attacked Obama previously when the administration chose to release information on the “enhanced interrogations” conducted under Former President Nutball, and Hoekstra was also, notoriously, the source of Joke Line’s misinformation on FISA in which Klein/Hoekstra claimed that the Dem-sponsored bill (which, horribly, ended up passing) gave terrorists the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Fortunately, Dem Silvestre Reyes responded as follows (here)…

“I am disappointed that some have rushed to the news media with unfounded information in order to gain headlines,” he said in a statement. “I hope that my colleagues will refrain from speculation, pray for those who were affected by this tragic incident, and let investigators do their work.”

And I would be inclined to give Reyes more of an “attaboy” for that, were it not for his horrible vote here.

Patrick Murphy Speaks Out For H.R. 3962

The following Guest Opinion from Dem PA-08 U.S. House Rep Patrick Murphy appeared in the print edition of the Bucks County Courier Times last Sunday; for some reason I cannot comprehend, the paper didn’t think it was important enough to publish online at that miracle of technology (snark) known as phillyburbs.com…

A Bucks County woman recently lost her job as a copy editor, along with the health insurance that covered her and her husband. She shopped around on her own, but was turned down by insurers because of a pre-existing condition: pregnancy.

Instead of celebrating this wonderful news, they’re terrified about how they’ll afford maternity care without coverage. I support health insurance reform because, in a nation like ours, this should never happen to middle-class families.

Over the past eight months, I’ve listened to thousands of constituents – doctors, patients, folks with insurance and without – about reform, and I’ve heard the same question repeatedly: How will this impact my family? How will it affect Medicare? How are we going to pay for it? I’d like to address those questions and explain to you why I support the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

First, this bill finally prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

What does that mean? If your job offers health insurance, you get coverage regardless of your health. But today, if you aren’t offered coverage through work, or become unemployed and need to buy your own, you’re turned down if you’re pregnant, have cancer, or are diabetic, among other reasons.

Mr. Bogie from Tinicum (Township, Bucks County) told me of his otherwise healthy wife who was denied coverage because she took blood pressure medication. An insurer can also charge higher rates because of those conditions or a host of other reasons, including being female or being a victim of domestic violence. Reform would put a stop to this, too.

Many folks who have insurance report that they’re happy with it, but too often that coverage is taken away when it’s needed most. Today, an insurer can look for any excuse to terminate your plan should you become “too expensive.”

Jay Doroshow from Langhorne never expected to be uninsured, but as soon as he was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease, his insurance company kicked him off his plan. Reform would end this practice, putting you, not insurance company CEOs, in the driver’s seat. As the American Medical Association said in its endorsement, reform “empowers patient and physician decision making.”
What about folks on Medicare? Reform opponents have targeted their worst scare tactics at seniors, when in fact reform strengthens Medicare and improves benefits. It finally closes the “donut hole” that leaves seniors like David Jones from Warminster paying over $4,000 out-of-pocket for prescription drugs. David worked hard and saved his entire life, but when he developed Crohn’s disease, his medication bills began piling up; he now falls into the donut hole by April every year.

Seniors will also have access to lower-cost prescription drugs, as the government will now be able to negotiate with manufacturers to get better deals on medications. And Medicare beneficiaries will have free preventive care services to help them stay healthy and active. This is why the AARP has wholeheartedly endorsed this bill.

The bill also cracks down on Medicare fraud that drains billions from the system. It includes a bipartisan bill I introduced, the Improve Act, which closes a major loophole in Medicare fraud. My legislation finally gives law enforcement the tools they need to track down scammers and protect taxpayer dollars.

Finally, I support reform because the bill meets two basic requirements I laid out months ago: it does not add a dime to the federal deficit – in fact, it reduces the deficit by $129 billion – and it lowers our national health care spending. Pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and other industry groups – who will see millions of new customers – are contributing hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for insurance reform. And a portion of the bill is paid for with a surcharge on only those with annual incomes over one million dollars, which would impact less than 0.3 percent of households.

It has been 16 years since Congress’ last attempt at reform. Since then, over 700,000 people have died because they lacked access to affordable coverage, and premiums continue to rise four times faster than wages. We simply cannot afford to fail again.

For these reasons, I stand with nurses (ANA), doctors (American Medical Association), the AARP, and my constituents to support long-overdue health insurance reform.

To contact Congressman Murphy, click here.

Monday Mashup (7/13/09)

Just trying to take care of some stuff before I get out of here for a few days…

The Bucks County, PA Courier Times ran a letter yesterday from local Repug Party chairman Harry Fawkes criticizing Patrick Murphy over alleged improprieties with defense contractor Kuchera Systems and co-owner Bill Kuchera; the firm was barred from doing business with the Navy in May.

For the record, Courier Times reporter Gary Weckselblatt told us the following in this story…

Kuchera Defense Systems Inc., a family-run business from western Pennsylvania, supported Murphy with $9,200 in donations to his campaign.

…

On March 6, 2008, both men gave $2,300 each to Murphy. Lisa Kuchera and Lena C. Kuchera also gave Murphy $2,300 each on the same day, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog group that tracks campaign donations.

Murphy did not respond to several requests for comment Friday.

Murphy, who received $28,750 from PMA’s lobbyists and their spouses, previously said he donated that money to charity after the revelations of an FBI probe.

He has obtained at least $5.6 million in congressionally directed funds known as “earmarks” for PMA clients, including one that partnered with Kuchera.

Someone please explain to me how Murphy has personally benefitted from this relationship (of course, I can expect evenhanded impartiality from Fawkes the same day Sarah Palin is elected president – maybe I’d better not joke too much about that, though, since stranger things have happened…and by the way, kudos to Patrick once more for taking the lead on trying to repeal DADT).

(Oh, and one more thing – it’s particularly hilarious for Fawkes to compare Murphy to former congressman Mikey Fitzpatrick, given that Patrick returned the $28K in PMA money, whereas Mikey…well, check this out.)

I also found this item from phillyburbs last Friday…

(Thumbs Up) To state Rep. Steve Santarsiero, D-Bucks, and three of his colleagues for a package of reform bills that would make state government more “open, honest, transparent and responsible with tax dollars.”

So says state Rep. Richard Mirabito, D-Lycoming, who introduced bills that would establish a searchable Web site to track state expenses over $1,000, and restrict the awarding of contracts that would yield a financial payoff for public officials or their families.

Santarsiero, a former Lower Makefield supervisor who represents the 31st Legislative District, introduced a bill jointly with State Rep. Paul Drucker, D-Chester/Montgomery, that would require lawmakers to contribute 1 percent of their salary toward the cost of taxpayer-funded health benefits.

“I think our colleagues understand that it’s only fair that we contribute toward health-care costs, particularly in these tough economic times,” Santarsiero said.

The Courier Times also notes that 1 percent is a pretty low number, which is true. However, cleaning out the Harrisburg patronage trough is something that, if it is to be accomplished at all, will have to be done in incremental steps like this one.

And in a wholly other vein, I came across this from conservative celebrity Ben Stein in the New York Times yesterday (his main talking point here is that President Obama is trying to accomplish too much on the economy, health care, energy, and the wars – as if Obama actually has a choice, I say to myself)…

I don’t believe we need to do something radical about energy, but even assuming that we do, why do it right now? Do we need to take one of the few sectors that is working like clockwork through the recession — oil refining — and wring its neck by making it pay for pollution “cap and trade” credits? Why attack a healthy industry when so many other sectors are ill? What is all of this anger at Big Oil, which has not done anything blameworthy, all about? Why endlessly beat up the companies that keep the country going?

Apologizing for energy interests in this country (ExxonMobil in particular, noted here, in which the former “Ferris Bueller” star claimed that the mega-energy giant “needs a hug”) is familiar territory for Stein; also noted in the prior post from March of last year are remarks from Robert A.G. Monks, the longtime shareholder activist who holds 100,000 XOM shares through a family trust, who said ExxonMobil is “unwilling to acknowledge that they live in a world where they are accountable.”

More to the point, though, Paul Krugman tells us the following from here today about the economic and climate crises; in the latter case, you can consider this as more or less in response to Stein’s claim that a policy of “cap and trade” credits would “wring the neck” of Big Oil…

At this point, the central forecast of leading climate models — not the worst-case scenario but the most likely outcome — is utter catastrophe, a rise in temperatures that will totally disrupt life as we know it, if we continue along our present path. How to head off that catastrophe should be the dominant policy issue of our time.

But it isn’t, because climate change is a creeping threat rather than an attention-grabbing crisis. The full dimensions of the catastrophe won’t be apparent for decades, perhaps generations. In fact, it will probably be many years before the upward trend in temperatures is so obvious to casual observers that it silences the skeptics. Unfortunately, if we wait to act until the climate crisis is that obvious, catastrophe will already have become inevitable.

This Wikipedia article on Stein tells us, among other things, that he basically “blew off” the warning signs concerning the economic calamity we current face when those signs appeared in 2007. Unlike our economy, though, there is no chance of a “do over” when Stein is proven wrong once more concerning the gradual melting of our planet.

(And with that, I now take my leave – I’ll plan to reappear once more in about a week.)

Update 7/17/09: And speaking of Stein, this positively screams for a blogger ethics panel (h/t Atrios).

Update 8/8/09: Awww, what a shame – not! (here).

A “Tortuous” Cheap Shot On Patrick Murphy

(I know I just used this graphic a few days ago, but it fits again.)

This item made the “Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down” section of the Bucks County Courier Times last Friday while we were away, but it was too pathetic to ignore….

(Thumbs Down) To Bucks County Congressman Patrick Murphy, who seems to have lost the will or the ability to speak for himself. Pretty much every time a reporter calls Murphy for comment, we hear from a “spokesman” instead.

The latest non-comment came in response to a question about Murphy’s reported attendance at two CIA briefings on so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, otherwise known as torture. Our reporter called Murphy because of the firestorm raging over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s allegation that the CIA “lied” during briefings she attended with lawmakers.

It would be nice to hear from Murphy on that raging national issue. His perspective would be appreciated, given his attendance at the CIA meetings and his experience in Iraq.

Instead, Murphy’s spokesman confirmed only that Murphy attended “a number of intelligence briefings + but cannot disclose what was discussed.”

No surprise there. Doesn’t seem like the congressman cares to disclose much of anything to constituents via his hometown newspaper.

WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!

This is truly sad even by the wretched, Dem-liberal-progressive-bashing standards of this newspaper.

Let’s back up for a minute and try to establish a chronology, OK?

In September 2002 (according to an interview with Rachel Maddow), Pelosi said that she was told that “enhanced interrogation techniques” were being considered by Bushco, and there was a legal rationale in place for these techniques (here), and this (NY Times content) tells us that she was told in 2003 that those techniques were being used.

And it bears repeating again that the briefings in which Pelosi and others learned of this were confidential; the only recourse for Pelosi and/or others who may have objected was to bring their concerns directly to a White House that considered Congress a subsidiary of sorts to the executive branch anyway.

And was Patrick Murphy serving in Congress at that time? Uh, no – he was deployed to Bosnia in 2002 and Iraq in 2003 with the U.S. Army (as noted here).

Who was serving in Congress at the time, representing PA’s 8th Congressional District? Why, that would be Repug Jim Greenwood, who, as noted here, served as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in which he “led investigations and held hearings on a variety of issues within the vast jurisdiction of the Committee including corporate governance, bioterrorism, port and border security.” So, if anyone was also likely to be briefed on the techniques Pelosi mentioned, it would be Greenwood (or, at least, he should have been given his leadership position).

Why doesn’t the Courier Times follow up with our former House rep to find out if HE wants to “disclose much of anything to (his former) constituents via his hometown newspaper” instead?

The “Last Throes” Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”?

Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post tells us here that he’s fed up with “the antiquated arguments against gays serving openly in the military,” recycled in a Post Op-Ed today by James J. Lindsay, Jerome Johnson, E.G. “Buck” Shuler Jr., and Joseph Went.

This is a particularly timely subject because, as noted here…

The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported (U.S. House 8th District PA congressman Patrick Murphy) will be the new sponsor of the measure to repeal the policy on gays in the military.

When the president of the Center for Military Readiness testified against repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, Congressman Patrick Murphy went after her assertion that gays in the military would be detrimental to unit cohesion.

During the House Armed Services Committee hearing last July, Murphy, an 8th District Democrat, told Elaine Donnelly “In essence, you’re arguing that straight men and women in our military aren’t professional enough to serve openly with gay troops while successfully completing their military mission. + that’s an insult to me and to many of the soldiers.”

I think that’s a nice comeback that twists the typical wingnuttery on this issue.

And by the way, the Courier Times notes that, according to Talking Points Memo, “Congressman Joe Sestak, a Democrat from Delaware County, has asked to be one of the original sponsors of the bill, along with Murphy and New York Democrat Eric Massa.” The paper also tells us that the U.S. and Turkey are the only countries that currently have bans in place.

This prior post about Repug California U.S. House Rep (and former Marine) Duncan Hunter’s defense of the indefensible (as you can see, the “unit cohesion” argument is pretty damn old) contains this link in particular that tells us what other countries have done (or not done) about this (the post is three years old as you can see, but I think it’s still instructive because it gives us a look at what you might call a more “international” mindset).

Also (as noted here), the first American GI wounded in Iraq was Eric Alva, who lost a leg when he stepped on a land mine (Alva “came out of the closet” over two years ago).

Update: Speaking of Patrick (for Bucks County folk), he will be hosting a “Green Energy” workshop at the Lower Makefield Township Building on Edgewood Road tomorrow at 10 AM 2-4 PM (sorry about that – more here).

Cawley’s “Can’t Do” Spirit On The Stimulus

I want to thank Bucks County Courier Times letter writer Paul Lang, Jr. this morning for jogging my memory a bit on a recent quote from one of our illustrious county commissioners (sarcasm intended) – here is his letter…

Regarding county Commissioner Jim Cawley’s quote, “I am far from somebody who is rooting for the (Democratic) economic stimulus package”: This comment is un-American and outrageous. I am an American first and want only the best for this country regardless of political party affiliation.

As a registered Democrat, I voted for Barack Obama. If Cawley’s Republican choice, John McCain, had won the presidency, then I would be cheering and praying for McCain to succeed.

Cawley should never be elected to any office anywhere again. He has shown his true un-American colors.

Paul Lang Jr.
Northampton

And of course, that met with the predictable wingnut comment noise online, which Lang should wear as a badge of honor, actually.

I believe the reason why I missed this is because the original quote from Cawley appeared in this column by J.D. Mullane about the current dilapidated state of Washington Crossing Park. And Cawley is entitled to his opinion, I realize, but in his capacity as a commissioner, I think his comments should be neutral at the very least, particularly given the fact that the Repugs are so tolerant of opinions which differ from their own, as we know.

Well, for Cawley’s information, here is a link to an analysis from The Philadelphia Inquirer showing that Bucks County stands to receive millions in school district funding from the stimulus, as well as $600 million from the $48.1 billion in transportation stimulus funds for Greater Philadelphia (affecting many Bucks residents), as well as approximately $318 for highways in southeastern Pennsylvania, $120 million for highways in southern New Jersey, and $193 million for SEPTA (noted here).

And as noted from here, the stimulus provides funding to…

(Protect) 972,000 Pennsylvanians from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

(Match) unemployed individuals to job openings through state employment service agencies and allow Pennsylvania to provide customized reemployment services ($15.4 million).

(Extend) Bonus Depreciation and Small Business Expensing through 2009, allowing businesses that make capital investments to immediately deduct one-half the cost. Small businesses can immediately deduct 100 percent of the cost of these investments.

(Help) law enforcement agencies enhance their investigative response to offenders who use the Internet or other computer technology to sexually exploit children ($1 million).

(Improve) the response to violent crimes against women and to assist victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking ($6.4 million).

But of course, Cawley is “far from somebody who is rooting for the (Democratic) economic stimulus package.”

This is typical for someone who, as noted here, refused to fund an Army Corps of Engineers study of the Delaware River, to the point where Patrick Murphy had to intervene or else Bucks would have lost out on critical federal funds for this project.

And as noted here, Cawley told a group of people gathered in Bristol, Pa. that “county money pegged for a three-hole golf course and driving range can be spent only for recreational purposes” (just what Bucks needs – another golf course), even though the majority of the residents favor a skate park, but with a chunk of the $400,000 going to keep the struggling Bristol Township homeless shelter open (also favored by Bucks commissioner Diane Marseglia, with the third commissioner, Charley Martin, stating that he believes skateboarding is “a fad” – here’s some reading material on this for Mr. “I Have A Semi-Open Mind”).

Finally, this tells us that the Bucks County Coalition for Voting Integrity was denied access to records on the purchase of new county voting machines, as well as the fact that the Bucks County Health Department refused to turn over records of its pool inspections to the Doylestown Intelligencer, which attempted to publish an investigatory report on the safety of Bucks County swimming pools some years ago.

So of course Cawley has to oppose the stimulus because of what it could provide to families and the working middle class of this county; also consider the fact that Cawley’s playmate Charley Martin would never have been returned to office were it not for the intercession of clueless third party candidate Jay Russell working on behalf of the Repugs, as noted here – it’s clear that their grip on county government is slipping anyway.

And if the stimulus succeeds, making it plainly obvious which political party wants to ensure prosperity in Bucks and the rest of this country and which one doesn’t, they’ll lose that grip once and for all.

An Obama Advisory For Spineless Steny

This CNN story tells us that, though Obama will sign the omnibus spending bill that recently passed the Senate with about 9,000 earmarks…

…the president will lay out the new guidelines on earmarks as a not-so-subtle threat that he could veto future spending bills that do not comply with his objectives.

Obama may sign the bill into law behind closed doors rather than make a public show of it, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

“Although it’s not perfect, the president will sign the legislation but demonstrate for all involved rules moving forward that he thinks can make this process work a little bit better,” Gibbs said at his daily briefing with reporters.

White House officials have tried to dismiss the pork-laden legislation as “last year’s business” that Obama is dealing with reluctantly.

Gibbs added that “over the course of the president’s tenure in Washington, dozens of those bills will come to his desk” and Obama wants to make clear “that there will be some new rules of the road” for lawmakers to follow.

As I’ve said before, I really don’t have a problem with earmarks provided that they’re disclosed (and the Bucks County Courier Times tells us here that Reps. Patrick Murphy and Allyson Schwartz will bring about $30 million of earmarked funding back to their respective congressional districts).

However, Obama has clearly signaled that he wants the guidelines on obtaining earmarked funding to change, which is his right as far as I’m concerned.

Of course, that’s not going to quell the umbrage in the ranks (back to the CNN story)…

Top Democrats, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, have suggested lawmakers do not appreciate being dictated to on an issue that is a congressional prerogative.

Asked last week about the administration’s plan to put forth guidelines to overhaul earmarks, Hoyer said flatly, “I don’t think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do.”

He paused and quipped to reporters, “I hope you all got that down.”

(And of course, the story contains the typical “Repugs trying to make an issue out of nothing because they have no clue” whining about Obama supposedly going back on his earmark pledge, with Eric Cantor and John Boehner passing out the crying towels, as it were.)

I realize that Hoyer, a fixture in the House for 28 years now and a prolific fundraiser (how do you think he’s been able to last for so long?) isn’t going to care about what I have to say (also because he’s not my rep – Patrick Murphy is), but I’m going to say it anyway.

Hoyer embodies much of what I truly detest about politics, including the Democratic Party (yes, I support them on balance, but that doesn’t mean I like everything they do, which I most certainly don’t).

As noted here, Hoyer flipped out at fellow Dem House Rep Jim Moran for the latter’s statements against AIPAC, including the entirely accurate observation by Moran that “AIPAC has not represented mainstream American Jewish opinion and…the organization’s Middle East policies, while in direct alignment with the Bush administration, have been counterproductive to Israel’s long-term security” (and by the way, no one solicited Hoyer’s opinion – he slammed Moran on his own).

Hoyer also helped the Repugs here with their little faux outrage party about Rep. Pete Stark’s criticism over the Republicans’ blockage of the SCHIP bill in October 2007 (making Stark the issue instead of pointing out that Stark was correct in noting that nonstop funding of Dubya’s Not-So-Excellent Iraq Adventure was somehow “off the table” but SCHIP was something for the chopping block…Stark used indelicate language, sure, but he made a good point).

And just for good measure, Hoyer ensured retroactive telco immunity in the FISA sellout from last June (here).

So what does Hoyer have to say about the Repugs? Well, as noted here…

Outgoing President George W. Bush’s greatest success in eight years was protecting America from any further terrorist attacks since 9/11, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com on Monday.

Uh, Steny, I have a question – is Rush Holt apparently the only member of Congress who remembers the GODDAMN ANTHRAX ATTACK, which took place about four weeks after 9/11? Perhaps this will refresh your memory.

Oh, and did you know that Hoyer’s AmeriPAC actually donated $10,000 to Republican Kay Granger of Texas, in the course of helping many Dems including Patrick Murphy, as noted here (h/t Down With Tyranny)? Anybody have any idea of how that happened?

Though I’m sure Hoyer will never read this, I would like to remind him anyway that the voters of this country didn’t elect him to the Presidency last November; they elected Barack Obama (who, last I checked, still enjoyed a favorability rating in the high 60s, more than twice that of Congressional democrats). Maybe Hoyer doesn’t think Obama can “tell him what to do” (interesting to see Steny’s display of fortitude now that a Dem is finally running the executive branch), but the voters tell every politician what to do (or should anyway), including him (something Hoyer seems to have forgotten, which I guess will happen considering that Hoyer was sent to D.C. along with The Sainted Ronnie R way back when). And what I believe the voters are telling Hoyer, along with the rest of Congress, is to shut up and toe the line for the new president, who deserves the same chance to be successful as the one you gave his predecessor, who ended up being hopelessly overmatched because he was never equipped for the job to begin with.

And I hope Hoyer got that down.

Steve Looks Out For Our Kids

This story in the Bucks County Courier Times today tells us that…

State Rep. Steve Santarsiero wants to prohibit Internet use by anyone convicted of committing a sexual offense using the Web.

The statistics are sobering. One in five girls and one in 10 boys are sexually exploited before they reach adulthood.

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Youth Internet Survey shows that one in five children ages 10 to 17 has received unwanted sexual solicitations online.

With that in mind, state Rep. Steve Santarsiero, D-31, hopes to introduce a bill early next month aimed at keeping sexual predators off the Internet. Specifically, Santarsiero’s proposal would prohibit Internet use by anyone convicted of committing a sexual offense using the Web and those required to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law. The bill also would require all other convicted sex offenders to register with Pennsylvania State Police and reveal any online identities and Internet accounts they might have, including e-mail addresses, personal Web sites, online community memberships and chat room aliases, he said at a press conference Monday in Lower Makefield.

…

Joining Santarsiero was Lower Makefield police Chief Ken Coluzzi, who called the proposal “a great piece of legislation.”

“Obviously it is hard to monitor sex offenders until they do something wrong. + But we can keep these predators away from our schools, why not keep them away from our children when they are home,” Coluzzi said.

Santarsiero calls his planned bill, the Pennsylvania Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act (PA e-STOP) which he said would protect children surfing the Web from online sex offenders.

(By the way, I have a message for the Courier Times copy editor in charge of this story; I corrected three misspellings of Steve’s last name. Can you please watch that next time?)

I like the fact that this bill puts the onus on the offender, as opposed to former U.S. House Rep Mike Fitzpatrick’s infamous Deleting Online Predators Act, which instead put the onus on kids, as well as libraries and schools, that may be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, as noted here (it was hard not to escape the conclusion that the real aim of Mikey’s bill was to try and shut down social networking sites which could be used for political fundraising and organizing; the 2006 bill marked one of my infrequent disagreements with our incumbent 8th District U.S. House Rep, as noted here).

Sanity In Response To FOCA Agitation

As a Roman Catholic who lives in a fairly moderate area of Bucks County, PA (though the county itself definitely trends “culturally conservative,” with new voter registration only recently favoring Democrats over Republicans), I should tell you that I am continually bombarded from the pulpit with entreaties against abortion under any circumstances, which I realize is totally consistent with the policy of the Catholic Church (though not with all parishioners, including yours truly). I believe that, though there is most definitely a spiritual component to this argument that should be respected, there is also a medical component which should be respected as well concerning the health and well being of all parties involved, which I realized is too nuanced apparently for the Church to support.

With all of this in mind, I should also tell you that, a few Sundays ago, we as congregants were implored in an unusually aggressive manner (for our church, anyway) to fill out cards to be sent to our two U.S. Senators (Bob Casey and Arlen Specter) and our U.S. Congressional Representative (Patrick Murphy) urging them not to support the Freedom of Choice Act (two Sundays prior to that one, a priest from the group Priests For Life spoke and conjured all kinds of desperate scenarios in the event that the FOCA was signed into law, with rhetoric such at that used here to be pretty typical of what was said at the homily).

Well, imagine my surprise as I read this story…

The U.S. Catholic Church’s crusade against the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) has all the hallmarks of a well-oiled lobbying campaign. A national postcard campaign is flooding the White House and congressional offices with messages opposing FOCA, and Catholic bishops have made defeating the abortion rights legislation a top priority. In the most recent effort to stop the bill, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia sent a letter to every member of Congress imploring them to “please oppose FOCA.”

There is only one hitch. Congress isn’t about to pass the Freedom of Choice Act – because no such bill has been introduced in the current Congress.

At a time when the United States is gripped by economic uncertainty and faces serious challenges in hot spots around the globe, some American Catholics are finding it both curious and troubling that their church has launched a major campaign against a piece of legislation that doesn’t exist and wouldn’t have much chance of becoming law even if it did. To many critics, it feels like the legislative equivalent of the dog that didn’t bark.

What’s more, not only has the FOCA not been introduced or voted on, it has never even made it out of the committee where it originated (as the story tells us).

And we also learn the following…

A Freedom of Choice Act was introduced in the 108th and 110th Congresses (from 2003 to ‘05 and ‘07 to ‘09, respectively) by Representative Jerold Nadler, a New York Democrat. It was developed at a time when the future of (Roe v. Wade) was in doubt because it was unclear if George W. Bush would have the opportunity to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court. But FOCA had a hard time gaining traction – even under Democratic control of Congress…

Congressional Democrats have also been less than enthusiastic about the proposal. A spokesman for Nadler says that while he expects the legislation to be reintroduced, “it won’t be anytime soon.” Even if FOCA is reintroduced in the current Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has indicated she has no intention of bringing it up for a vote. And even if she did, there are not enough votes in Congress to pass the bill.

I don’t know about you, but I feel like I got “played” here more than just a little bit. And I’m not happy about it (I don’t have a link to a Gallup poll on this at the moment, but I recall that the FOCA didn’t even merit 50 percent approval among those polled – this, to me, has all the makings of another “non-controversy” concocted by those clueless “values voters,” like the supposed revival of the Fairness Doctrine).

You know, I would really like to hear what the Church has to say about the “big picture” stuff going on in this country; I realize there’s only so much it can do about our collapsing economy and middle class, to say nothing of health coverage and the climate crisis, but even calling for prayerful intervention could only help, to say nothing of actual advocacy.

But I suppose instances such as this will remain typical of the blinkered thinking of the institution as a whole and many of its supporters, to the point where Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat, is pilloried because he doesn’t march in total lockstep with “the faithful” (and Casey, by the way, most definitely opposes the FOCA; I know, because I asked him about it myself).

Update: And by the way, thanks to one of my “field correspondents” for the following (just to show how far anyone can go with extremism)…

More Crackpot History From Bucks County’s Big Mouth

I realize criticizing columnist J.D. Mullane of the Bucks County (PA) Courier Times for being narrow minded and ignorant is kind of like criticizing snow because it’s white and wet, but every now and then I feel compelled to engage in the tedious exercise of calling him out for his own odious brand of propaganda.

He provides a particularly egregious example today in yet another attempt (my guess is that we’re up to about a thousand at this point) to criticize former president Jimmy Carter for, on this occasion, the “crummy economy. Energy crisis. High unemployment. “Disco Duck’.”

Oh, and Mullane continues…

Worse were the American cars of that era.

Designed with gas economy in mind, they were homely things bearing names that, like the Carter Administration, still evoke mediocrity and underperformance.

(And if you REALLY want to punish yourself, go to phillyburbs.com and find Mullane’s blog; in it, he criticizes President Obama – of course – comparing him to Carter and lamenting the fact that Obama hasn’t done anything about the residents of the midwest who’ve suffered from the recent ice storms, with Mullane considering that hypocritical given that Obama criticized Dubya for his infamous “fly over” after Katrina hit…uh, J.D., those brave people in the Midwest still have their homes, don’t they?)

If Mullane chooses to dislike Carter for his own personal reasons, that is his right. However, in response, I’d like to link to this column that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor a month ago by correspondent Walter Rodgers (I’m including it here in case the link goes bad at some point; this information is too important to be lost for good)…

Oakton, Va. – In this season of new resolutions, Americans would do well to rethink their perceptions of Jimmy Carter. President Carter has suffered the misfortune of having his legacy almost entirely shaped by his political enemies rather than by objective reality or a basic sense of American fairness.

Today, Carter is caricatured as a weak-kneed, sweater-wearing puritan who struggled with lust in his heart, presided over a malaised America, and micromanaged even the scheduling of the White House tennis courts. More recently, he’s taken heat for his blunt portrayal of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.

What an egregiously undeserved reputation. Carter wasn’t just a “good man who got in over his head,” as critics say. He was in fact quite a good president.

He kept us out of endless wars. He protected the Alaskan wilderness (Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D) of Wisconsin once told me that “Carter was the greatest environmental president the country ever had.”) He promoted a visionary energy policy. He countered the Soviet military threat. And since he left office, he has persistently promoted the cause of peace around the world. The landmark Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty he fashioned remains in force today.

Against the backdrop of an unnecessary trillion-dollar war in Iraq, it is instructive to recall how Carter avoided a similar morass when he negotiated the Panama Canal treaties, for which he was excoriated by Ronald Reagan’s Republicans. When he left office, he was able to say with Thomas Jefferson “[D]uring the period of my administration not a drop of the blood of a single citizen was shed by the sword of war.”

In the public mind, Carter continues to be judged as “ineffectual.” Yet he started that treaty ratification process with fewer than 40 votes of the 67 needed. Pentagon generals advised him it would require 100,000 troops, rivers of blood, and untold treasure if the US did not return sovereignty of the canal to Panama.

Carter was keenly aware that retaining US control of the canal, as Reagan demanded, might result in another Vietnam-like conflict. Today, looking at America’s open-ended wars in Southwest Asia, Carter should be thanked for his wisdom and vision.

President-elect Obama, take note: No matter how loud the clamor for war, if your instincts tell you it’s wrong, remember Carter and don’t be stampeded onto unnecessary battlefields.

Carter was truly the prophet without honor in his own land on energy policy. Thirty years ago, he preached conservation and alternative energy. A profligate nation – not to mention Congress and the vested interests – ridiculed him. Today, his ideas are mainstream.

Obama take note: The American public believes it has a constitutional right to cheap gasoline. Even with gas prices topping $4 a gallon in 2008, the bestselling vehicles are still gas-guzzling pickups.

Reagan Republicans disingenuously claimed credit for much of America’s long-range military buildup that helped win the cold war. But it was Carter who proposed deployment of 200 MIRVed MX missiles in hardened silos to counter an unbridled Soviet buildup. (Under Reagan, only 50 were actually deployed.) Cruise missiles and the B-2 Stealth bomber technology were also born under Carter.

To the Russians, the most terrifying weapon the Americans ever deployed was the intermediate-range Pershing missile, which had a flight time of 10 minutes to Moscow from NATO bases in Germany. Carter agreed to deploy that weapons system. The irony is that Carter’s hawkish leanings later in his administration alienated many in the party of George McGovern and, ultimately, Carter was crippled at least as much by Democratic liberals as by Republicans.

Carter was one of the most brilliant presidents we’ve ever had. Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill wrote that Jimmy Carter was the “smartest public official” he’d ever known. Yet he was portrayed as a Southern bumpkin, and he battled other ugly prejudices. Some Northern Democrats simply could never stomach an openly religious Southern Baptist in the White House. Carter talked like Lyndon Johnson, prayed like Billy Graham, and farmed peanuts in the heart of the old Confederacy. These regional bigotries also colored much of the news reporting. Carter was maligned for events and forces over which a president has little control: inflation fueled by soaring oil prices stoked by the Arabs and OPEC.

Obama take note: American politics is as much about bigotries as it is about issues.

The worst thing about Carter is that he was politically tone deaf. But even that’s not true: He simply prized doing what was right over what was popular.

Oh yeah, and that infamous “malaise” speech? He never actually used the word. And his text remains prophetic:

“In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption…. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning….

Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources – America’s people, America’s values, and America’s confidence.”

When we consider the record of the past eight years, Carter’s performance – and his vision for America – positively shines. So, let’s make a national New Year’s resolution: Stop denigrating Carter.

Oh, and by the way, J.D., concerning one of your blog posts, you might want to think about running the spell check first before you publish another post criticizing the “Obma” stimulus plan.