I heart the Constitution

As I assumed, Kucinich's resolution to impeach Bush is being all but ignored by the mainstream media.

Nancy Pelosi has said repeatedly that the Democrats in the House do not want to pursue impeachment against President Bush, stating that the trial would be distracting, divisive, and likely unsuccessful.

I can understand that Congress doesn't want to create the distracting media circus so close to an election. However, ignoring the illegal and unconstitutional behavior of the Bush Administration is essentially approving of the administration's actions. If the next President takes office and decides not to waste time with following the Constitution, how do we reign him in? We've already created a precedent that these actions are allowable. Future Presidents need to be aware that we as Americans take our Constitutional rights seriously, and that we will rise up against any President who fails to uphold them.

If you would like to encourage the House Judiciary Committee to move on the resolution to impeach Bush, please contact the Committee. They must approve the resolution and send it to the House for a vote.

The Lone Voice

At this very moment, Dennis Kucinich is about halfway through introducing 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush, on the floor of the House of Representatives.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/9/191519/7181/915/533004

He has been speaking for well over an hour, and none of the major news outlets are covering the event in anyway.

Thank god for good old C-SPAN. If you don't have cable, you can watch online.

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

Only three Presidents have ever had articles of impeachment brought against them.

Andrew Jackson had articles of impeachment brought against him, and was acquitted by a single vote.

Richard Nixon had articles of impeachment approved against him, but these articles where never considered by Congress, as Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

Bill Clinton had articles of impeachment brought against him, as we all remember, but was acquitted of the charges.

pundits have no sense

In watching the returns from the Pennsylvania primary last night, and in reading some of the news stories today, I'm a bit irritated by the response to Obama's "loss" in Pennsylvania. There's been a heavy focus on the fact that Obama spent a lot of money in Pennsylvania, but couldn't win it.

Clinton was always expected to win Pennsylvania. But a few weeks ago, Obama was down 20 points in Pennsylvania. Last night, the spread was only 10 points. That's a pretty large gain for only a few weeks.

And the pundits keep making some sort of connection between who wins a state in the Democratic primaries, and who could win a state against McCain in the general election. As if the fact that Clinton won Pennsylvania means that Obama couldn't win that state in the general election. As if 95% of the Democrats who voted for Clinton wouldn't choose Obama over McCain.

These pundits claim that if their candidate were to lose the nomination, a large number of people would vote for McCain or else would just stay home. This seems absurd to me - this has been one of the largest primaries in history, and after that, I can't imaging that many people would sit out the general election. Even if some did, the numbers of people voting in the Democratic primaries, versus the Republican primaries, has been almost 2 to 1 - even before McCain cinched the nomination.

The argument that when either Clinton or Obama takes the nomination, the other's voters are going to sit out or vote REPUBLICAN is ludicrous.

a more perfect union

Barack Obama made an incredible speech today on race and religion and the unfulfilled promises of America.

This is one of the most honest examinations of the racial conflict that still exists in this country that I've ever heard from any public official.

Below, I quote the core of the speech. The link above has both the video and the transcript. I strongly urge you to take 15 minutes to watch or read it.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

-Barack Obama, Philadelphia, March 18, 2008

the idealist confesses

i am an idealist.

This past weekend, H. and I were discussing the Democratic presidential candidates over breakfast, debating whether Obama is all flash, and why Clinton doesn't inspire. Who could really get more done? Who could actually win the election?

It's made me think, more and more, about why Obama really appeals to me. And what I have to accept is that I am more of an idealist than a pragmatist. I believe in an ideal world where people actually consider the common good. Where we all agree that of course everyone should have health care and a good education and at least make enough money to feed their family without working a 15 hour day. I'm not so much of an idealist that I favor communism - I don't think everyone should live at the same level. But I also don't think that luck of the draw means that you should automatically have a much greater advantage, or if you do, you should share a little of it with those who were forced to start out a few rungs farther down the ladder. (In the form of taxes to pay for services you don't need, or CEOs who invest in better health care for their employees, rather than taking a multi-million dollar bonus).

I recognize that many (most?) people don't think this way. In the US, you take your advantages where you get them, and get as much as you can for yourself. If someone else has fewer advantages than you, well, that's their fault and their problem.

I recognize that most people think this way, but I don't stop hoping that it will change, that the inherent goodness that I believe exists in most people will override the inherent selfishness that also exists in most people. And it's that part of me that Obama appeals to. The part that makes me think that all we need as a country is someone to inspire us towards that inherent goodness.

The small part of me that is pragmatic knows this is unlikely, and knows that deeds are stronger than ideals. But the battered idealist who has seen the inherent selfishness take centerstage these last few years wants to hope, wants it so badly. I NEED to hope, as I've been disillusioned and defeated for too long. I have to believe that someone who inspires that hope, while maybe not meeting our grossly inflated standards, at least will be able to do a little good, and make us stand a little taller.

no such thing as free money

If you're excited about the stimulus package that Congress is passing, because you're going to get a $600 check in the mail, hold on for just a second...

What you might not be aware of is that this "rebate" is actually an "advance." This $600 is coming off your 2008 tax return. This isn't "free money" - it's money you would have gotten in spring of 2009. You're just getting it now.

Bush and Congress are advancing us this money, in the hopes that we'll spend it and "stimulate" the economy. If you're thinking it's "free money" and you were thinking about doing something "fun" with it, you might want to consider paying off your credit card instead.

obama is on a roll

So Senator takes all three of the "Potomac Primaries" - winning, Maryland, DC and Virginia.

If you have friends or family in states that have yet to have their primary (especially Texas or Ohio), please, drop them a line and encourage them to vote for Obama. The Republican primaries are winner-takes-all, but the Democratic delegates are divided by percentage, so every vote counts.

superdelegates supersuck

Currently, Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, 635-630 (out of a possible 3200+).

Democrats need 2025 delegates to cinch the nomination. If you've seen many of the charts of delegates, you've seen that Clinton is currently leading Obama 823-741. What's the deal?

The problem on the Democratic side are the Superdelegates. Dems have two kinds of delegates - pledged, and super.

Pledged delegates are the ones that you vote for in your state elections. They're basically like the electoral college, except they are proportionate instead of winner-takes-all. (If you didn't vote, the ballot has you vote for a candidate, but you also have to vote for delegates in your district, who have pledged to vote for a certain candidate.) Pledged delegates are divided up per district based on the proportion of votes for each candidate in that district. In this type of delegate, Obama is currently leading, but barely.

However, there are almost 800 "superdelegates" (almost 40% of total delegates) - these are Congressmen, Senators, Governors, past Presidents, and other Democratic party bigwigs (including Mayor Daley). These delegates are not pledged to vote for a certain candidate. They are officially "unpledged" until the convention, where they vote for whomever they wish, but they are free to pledge themselves to a candidate before the convention, if they choose.

Let's make this clear. Who the Superdelegates vote for has nothing to do with how the "people" vote. Just because Chicagoians mostly voted for Obama doesn't mean that Daley has to use his superdelegate vote for Obama.

So far, of the 797 superdelegates, 193 have pledged to Clinton and 106 to Obama. There are almost 500 left who have not pledged either way.

In a race this close, the superdelegates make a huge difference. Once the primaries are over, the unpledged superdelegates can look at the situtation, and decide who they want to vote for at the Nominating Convention, and possibly, change the outcome.

Essentially, the democratic members of Congress CAN OVERRIDE THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, and nominate someone that didn't win the majority in the primaries. (Thanks to Americablog.com for the wake-up call).

Why is this the case? The party boss system of nominations was revised to the delegate system in the 1960s. People came out in droves in 1972 to nominate McGovern, who got trounced by Nixon. So the Democratic Party decided not to let the will of the people get too out of control, and created the superdelegate system, to prevent us from nominating someone "unelectable" who was "out of sync with the rest of the party."

So the question becomes, can a non-establishment candidate even get the Democratic nomination? If Clinton and Obama stay neck-in-neck through it all, then our right to choose our candidate is lost. Who are our superdelegates going to pick?

the narrow-minded

I just read a post over at BadAstronomy.com that reminded me of soemthing that happened while I was watching the returns last night.

I watched a little of MSNBC, but mostly CNN. I was rather annoyed by the Wolf Blitzer and company. In analyzing the Democratic returns, they focused a great deal on race and gender. I know they had a lot of time to fill, but for every state they'd tell us how blacks voted, and how women voted, and the times when more women voted for Obama, or more blacks for Hillary, the newscasters or analysists would have this sort of "can you believe it?" tone in their voice. Like they expected that 100% of women would vote for Clinton, and 100% of blacks for Obama. As if that was the only critiera we used to make up our minds.

My roomate was sitting watching with me, and after we made fun of Wolf and Company for a while about this, they did it again, and I looked at the ceiling and shouted "I'm black and a woman! WHAT DO I DO????"

(For the record, I am a white woman. This is called sarcasm)

the best kind of peer pressure

A friend of mine was very aggravated by the fact that people were harrassing her to vote yesterday. She said she even saw people asking strangers on the train whether they'd voted yet, that she felt there was an intent to embarass those who hasn't voted.

I got numerous emails from friends reminding me to vote, and phone calls from the Illinois Education Association, the Democratic Party, and the Sierra Club (??) endorsing various candidates.

While I can understand why someone would be irritated to be bugged by strangers to vote, I personally think it's great. Never in my lifetime have I seen people this excited about an election, and we're only at the primaries! I think this kind of civic awareness is inspiring, and for me, it's hopefully a sign of good things to come. I cannot WAIT for November!

I also really excited that I'll be teaching in a classroom come November (hopefully!) so I'll be able to teach about the election process, which will be really fun!

why i'm voting for obama

With John Edwards out of the race, we're now down to two viable Democratic candidates (with all due respect to Kucinich). I have a suspicion that quite a few Edwards candidates are going to support Obama over Clinton.

Despite the fact that Obama seemed like a looooong shot for the presidency about a year ago, he's looking more and more like a distinct possibility.

I've said it before, but with SuperTuesday coming up, I'll shill for Obama one more time. I know some people feel he's all talk and no experience. In my opinion, experience is no match for intelligence and trustworthiness. I tend to feel that Obama is less jaded, and less likely to give in to "the way things are" because he hasn't been in the high-level political world as long. Life-long politicians seem to have less of the idealism that a younger politician like Obama can still hold on to.

After 8 long, painful, corrupt years under Bush and his administration of life-long politicians, intelligence, idealism and trustworthiness are the three things I am looking for most in a president. An intelligent president can choose advisers that are experienced, who know the things he doesn't, who can advise him well. But without that core of intelligence and moral strength in the presidency, even the most experienced administration will fall apart or fall into corruption.

Why do I prize intelligence over experience? The comparison to Kennedy has been made often, and will become even more common if Obama achieves the Democratic nomination. One of the books I read on Kennedy discussed the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and one of the key things I remembered was that Kennedy and his advisers recognized the mistakes they made during the Bay of Pigs, learned from them, and applied those lessons to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Learning from your mistakes is one of the key characteristics of intelligence. This is something that I trust that Obama would be sure to do.

huckabee and the constitution

hey there my friends and readers! Sorry I've been away so long. I was gone for about a week, in Philadelphia, for a work conference, which didn't really leave any time for blogging - or anything interesting to write about, since I spent 9+ hours a day in a convention center.

I've said many times that Mike Huckabee scares me to death, and numerous people have told me not to worry, that just because he has far out religious views, doesn't mean he'll use those views to make policy.

let me be the first to say, I was right - here's a quote from Huckabee at the Michigan debates:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

I trust that I don't need to interpret that for you? It's pretty clear. This is what we have to fear from one of the Republican front-runners - making the Constitution fit to God's standards. Who wants to live in a facsist religious state?!?! All aboard for the train to Crazy Town!

Weight loss +/- 0 (this is good, considering the crazy amount of free food at our conference)

debates

I attempted to watch the Republican debates on CNN last night, but after about 20 minutes I was giving myself an aneurysm yelling at the screen, so I switched it off. But based on what I did see, this nine year-old's notes on the debate are pretty much spot on. And unintentionally hilarious.

As for the Democratic debates, I found myself liking John Edwards more and more. He has a few lawyery tics that are a little annoying, but I really like the fact that he hasn't taken an special interest money. I think it's sad that he's being totally ignored by the media, between the "Hillary Downfall" and the "Rise of Obama" that are all the media can talk about.

Proof Bush has interfered with climate change science

The House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee just released the findings from a 16 month examination of the Bush administration's alleged political interference with government climate change science.

Unsuprisingly, the main conclusion of the report declares massive corruption:

"The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."

The report includes the following statements (with evidence to support):

White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.

The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues. By controlling which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, the White House suppressed dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with Administration policies.

White House officials and agency political appointees also altered congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change.

There was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change by editing climate change reports. The White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft Report on the Environment that were so extreme that the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate change section of the report.

The White House played a major role in crafting the August 2003 EPA legal opinion disavowing authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Via Bad Astronomy

Why I Support Barack Obama

With Presidential Primary season less than a month away, debate over candidates is launching into high gear.

Personally, I am supporting Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Many people have told me that he won't win, or that he's inexperienced. Here's why I'm supporting Obama:

1. His work as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer, before running for public office, and the 11 years he spent lecturing on constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

2. Iraq War: Obama has always been against our invasion of Iraq, and accurately saw what was going to happen. In 2002 he said, the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences."

3. Education: Obama has many strong plans for education that I agree with and support.

4. Environment: Obama has specific plans to reduce emissions, increase energy effiency, and most importantly, recognizes the importance of this problem and how many different things need to be fixed.

5. Optional National Healthcare: Obama has a plan that would allow uninsured Americans the option of joining a national healthcare plan, similar to the one used by Congress, that has guaranteed eligibility. This plan would not be required - individals can still purchase private insurance (now with gov't assistance) or receive insurance through their employer as they do now.

The only weakness in Obama's record would be his lack of experience. Most presidents lack foreign policy experience when they come to office, and any President who began as a senator lacks the "administrative" experience a governor might have (though we've seen what good that can do.) In my opinion, this type of experience is provided by the cabinet the President selects. A smart President chooses a good cabinet, and there are plenty of available Democrats for Obama to choose for his cabinet (Bill Clinton for Secretary of State! Gore for Secretary of the Interior!). A smart President knows how to choose smart people who aren't going to just tell him what he wants to hear, and knows how to use the council of the people around him. I truly believe that Obama is a highly intelligent, morally grounded man. With a strong Cabinet backing him, the experience will come.

Who do you support? And why?

teach your children well

I was having a discussion recently about whether or not a politician's religion affects how they make policy decisions. Should I really worry about Mike Huckabee, fundamentalist Baptist minister who believes in a 6000 year old Earth and disbelieves in evolution, becoming President? What impact might his religion have on MY life?

Let me give you a concrete example of how the religion of current governor of Texas (a state I do not live in) may soon affect my life.

The current governor of Texas is a fundamentalist who believes in creationism. He just appointed a creationist to head the Texas State School Board.

Next year, Texas is reevaluating its state science education standards.

Funnily enough, the Texas state science curriculum director just "resigned" (read was fired), because of an uproar created when she forwarded an email to her department announcing an author talk about how creationist politics are behind the push to teach ID in schools. According to those who fired her, this topic doesn't fall under her role of DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE. (read the whole linked article, there's interesting stuff there)

So, just in time to revise the science standards, we have a creationist heading the State School Board, and the anti-creationist science curriculum director is out the door. Handy, no?

Is it remotely possible that when the state science standards are revised, they're going to end up deemphasizing evolution and inflating the possibilities of ID? Most likely, especially since there is a board who works on the standards, but whose recommendations can be accepted or rejected by a single "facilitator" who makes the final decisions (no rules about his qualifications, or any information about how the faciliator is chosen).

Why does this matter, do you ask? Well, Texas and California, two of the most populous states, are unique in that they have State Boards who choose textbooks for the ENTIRE state. In most states, the local districts choose their own textbooks. The textbook publishers, therefore, REALLY want to sell their textbooks in Texas and California (since getting the greenlight from one of those states' boards guarantees huge sales), so the standards of those states are the ones that the textbook publishers most adhere to, in hopes of getting picked up there. So essentially, Texas's standards can affect what gets published in all textbooks.

Since I'm a soon-to-be teacher with a deep respect for the scientific method, who also wants the future generation to understand science, I think the religion of this one governor absolutely affects me.

(Big nod to the Bad Astronomy Blog, where the continuing exploits of Texas creationists and those in other states are fairly regularly tracked.)

germans and georgians

Man, you gotta love the Germans. They are truly hilariously weird people.

A German advent calendar for children has become a hot seller since word got out it has a picture of a notorious serial killer on it.

The cartoon calendar shows Fritz Haarmann, who murdered 24 young men and boys in the 1920s, lurking under a tree with a hatchet next to the door for December 1. Below him, Santa Claus hands out presents to children in a festive-looking Hanover.

A local tourism office included the serial killer alongside 23 other celebrities in the northern city, including philosopher Gottfried Leibniz and hard rock band The Scorpions.

Of course, we have our own weirdos right here in the US. Constitution-violating weirdos.

With no rain in sight, Gov. Sonny Perdue is looking for a little spiritual help to get North Georgia out of its drought.

Perdue's office has begun sending out invitations to a prayer service for rain at the Capitol next week.

"Georgia needs rain. The issue at the heart of our drought problems is a lack of rain," Teilhet said. "And there is nothing the government can do to make that happen.

"The governor recognizes that the request has got to be made to a higher power."

Teilhet said the governor's office has invited spiritual leaders from several faiths and dominations to participate in the service.

Way to illegally waste the taxpayers money!

Also, AJC - you mean denominations. Not dominations. I'm pretty sure no leather-clad dominatrix is going to show up for this prayer service.

swinging a fist

There's a saying that goes something like "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

My high school government teacher used that quote in regards to the Bill of Rights. Your rights are only good until they begin to impenge on someone else's rights.

In the ongoing saga of Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church, the question that inevitably comes up is, "Are we restricting their First Amendment Rights?"

I'm a big fan of the First Amendment. I'm willing to lean pretty far to protect it. Porn, the internet, paparrazi, tabloids, even some hate speech (general hate speech vs. directing, threatening hate speech).

But I also believe in a right to privacy, and a difference between public and private figures. The privacy rights of a public figure, when it comes to people protesting against them, are less than those of a private figure.

First Amendment advocates argue:

"I think when speech is a matter of public concern it still has to be protected, even when by social standards it is extraordinarily rude and outrageous," said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh.

University of Maryland law professor Mark Graber said the size of the award -- which included $8 million in punitive damages -- could have a chilling effect on speech.

"This was in a public space," Graber said. "While the actions are reprehensible, the 1st Amendment protects a lot that's reprehensible."

While on the flip side:

For Snyder's claim of invasion of privacy to have succeeded, the jury needed to conclude that the church's actions at the funeral -- and later in a Web posting about Matthew Snyder on its site -- were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," according to the jury instructions.

Albert Snyder also claimed that the church's actions were an intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under the law, to find in favor of Snyder, the jury needed to find that the church's conduct was "intentional or reckless."

What was Westboro's intention, if not an "intentional infliction of emotional distress"? If they didn't intend to upset this Marine's family, what were they doing? Essentially, it's an emotional attack, and that's where Westboro's right to swing their fist ends.

If Westboro wants to protest in front of Congress or the White House, protest against public government figures who are actually to blame, that's the First Amendment. But I don't believe that emotionally devestating a grieving family, who have no ties to or control over the issue being protested, is the First Amendment. It's just a fist to the nose.

phelped up

You may remember my rant on Fred Phelps from a few months ago. If not, the good reverend Phelps is the leader of a "church" in Kansas that goes to the funerals of military men and women who have died in Iraq, to jeer and protest. Their reasoning - the deaths of these people are God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality. Phelps' church has also praised such natural disasters as the bridge collapse in Minnesota, Hurricane Katrina, and the Utah Mine Collapse. Just so we're all clear - the people whose funnerals Phelps' church was protesting weren't gay - apparently their deaths were just a general warning/punishment to America.

However, I'm happy to report:

A jury on Wednesday ordered an anti-gay Kansas church to pay $2.9 million in compensatory damages to relatives of a U.S. Marine after church members cheered his death at his funeral.

I went to Westboro Baptist Church's website as I was writing the above list of disasters praised by the church, to see if the California wildfires were on the list. To my delight, I discovered that http://www.godhatesfags.com no longer exists! Now, it could be that due to the publicity of the awarding of the damages, the website has been inudated with hits and crashed. I can only hope that the loss of $2.9 million, instead means the church can no longer afford to maintain the most horrifically offensive website I've ever seen.

I'll be keeping an eye on this story as it develops.

ETA: Looks like the $2.9 million was just the start. The judge has awarded another $8 million in punative damages.

This judgement (which they likely can't pay anyway) doesn't appear to have fazed them:

Members of a fundamentalist Kansas church ordered to pay nearly $11 million in damages to a grieving father smiled as they walked out of the courtroom, vowing that the verdict would not deter them from protesting at military funerals.

Members promised to picket future funerals with placards bearing such slogans as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."

"Absolutely, don't you understand this was an act in futility?" said Shirley Phelps-Roper, whose father founded the Westboro Baptist Church.

The father who brought the lawsuit is absolutely right:

Appearing on NBC's "Today" show Thursday, Sndyer said that while his son was fighting for freedom for Iraqis, "my son did not fight for hate speech.

"And that's basically what it is," he said of the church's protest. "Everybody's under the impression that the First Amendment gives them the right to do anything, say anything any where, any time. And along with the First Amendment also comes responsibility."

you asked for my opinion... (part II)

I thought this post was deleted by blogger on 10/10, but I just discovered that a draft was saved. Hooray!

As of today, I haven't yet received a reply. I believe they are scared of me.

----------------------------------------------------

Below is the email I just sent to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, commenting on the "survey" that they recently sent me.

Don't ask for my opinion if you aren't prepared for the truth.

Dear DCCC,

Yesterday I received your "Presidential Campaign Strategy Survey."

Was the intention of this "survey" actually to collect information, or is it merely a money-collection tool?

The wording of many of the questions was so hopelessly biased and/or leading, that the questions, and any answers, are essentially meaningless. I've included a few of the worst offenders at the bottom.

If the goal was to scare the "respondants" into giving money and the responses thenselves don't really mean much, then don't waste our time, or waste the donations you're asking us to make, by writing, mailing or tabulating a survey like this. Don't insult our intelligence by pretending to care what we think, while sending us such a biased piece of trash. Just ask for the money straight out.

If the goal really was to get voter opinion to guide policy, then you need to get a new pollster. I could have created a better survey myself, based on watching a couple of episodes of "The West Wing."

I'm returning your survey, but I am not sending any money, as it appears that you don't really know how to use it correctly.

I've been voting Democrat since I was able to start voting 11 years ago. I spent my 20s under a Bush White House, and I've watched this country go to Hell in a handcart. I sincerely hope that a strong Democratic candidate makes it to the White House next year, but it isn't going to happen unless the Democratic party and its affiliates get their acts together.

Good luck with that.