George W. Bush's sex ed program

Copied directly from Andrew Sullivan.com:

THEOCRACY WATCH I: There's been a mild and partial debunking of the Waxman investigation into "abstinence-only" programs funded by the feds here. But the broader point remains. Under the guise of sex ed, the Bush administration is using public funds to spread an ill-informed, half-baked evangelical message. Your tax dollars are being spent to tell kids that "a 43-day-old fetus is a 'thinking person,'" that "HIV can be spread via sweat and tears," and that "condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse." This crap is bad enough. Then we find this:

Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."

We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to spread James Dobson's gospel to kids in public high schools. I have no problem with abstinence education. I have no problem with churches teaching kids how to live sexual lives responsibly. But I do have a problem with spreading fear, ignorance and chauvinism with my tax dollars. But when you hand over government social policy to religious groups, what do you expect?

THEOCRACY WATCH II: I missed this quote from Alabama state rep Gerald Allen, who wants to ban public funds for any books "that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." What of existing books by, say, Whitman or Auden or Proust, and other degenerates? We have the answer:
Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed. "I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.

Why not burn them instead? Among the books Allen wants to "bury" are "The Color Purple," "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and "Brideshead Revisited." Public schools would be barred from performing "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof." I used to read these kinds of stories and dismiss them. But in Karl Rove's Republican party, how is this in any way out of place?

I'm seriously going to start calling the Republican party the "Nazi party".

New homeland security chief

Read this hack job of the guy.

Move to the center!

The Democratic party need to welcome everyone - left, right, and center. But our leadership needs to move to the center. At least that's what the nation's Democratic governors recommended today:

Democratic governors, determined to grab control of their party, said Thursday they will jointly support moderate candidates from outside Washington to lead the Democrats.

No sitting governor is interested in heading the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites), said the governors who gathered for the first major meeting of party officials since widespread Democratic losses in the presidential and congressional elections last month.

The Democratic governors said their party must move geographically from Washington and philosophically to the middle to attract moderate voters. That move starts with the party leadership, they said.

"This for us is our moment to push an agenda that in my view is centrist and that speaks to where most people are," said Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who added that the governors will be interviewing prospective candidates in the next few weeks.

We are the party of the people, right? Why not move to where most of the people are? And it's nowhere near Michael Moore.

Any other year, John Kerry would have been destroyed by George W. Bush. He's liberal! The only reason why he came close was because Bush has been such a disaster.

Meanwhile, the only Democrats who have had success in the past 30 years are moderates like Clinton, Warner and Granholm. Take it from them!

Are they really the Greatest Generation?

In the spirit of Christopher Hitchen's new book (where he trashes Ghandi and Mother Theresa), I offer this:

Is the World War II Generation really the Greatest Generation? Did we win the war because of their courage, or because of a combination of courage and the superior strategy of the Greatest Generation's fathers and grandfathers who served as officers and directed the war? In fact, we probably won the war because we had the most man power and the most natural resources to supply our armies. Therefore, we owe our freedom to the generation that secured the land. Maybe James Polk's generation was the greatest!

Many people enlisted in the army to fight the Germans, but was their enlistment a result of some combination of government propaganda, lack of other viable jobs, and boredom, or was it really a momentous moment of courage? Could it be that the evil of Hitler's regime is so extreme and disgusting that it has caused us to reflexively assume that the our soldiers were infinitely valorous? After all, the Greatest Generation did firebomb Dresden and other civilian centers. We did drop the A-bomb in Japan. Both of those actions might have been strategically correct, but the death of millions of civilians certainly doesn't make for a charming vignette in a Tom Brokaw book.

What makes a generation "great", anyway. Is everyone in the Greatest Generation "great"? Or just some people? Since it was the men who did the fighting, is it only the men of the Greatest Generation who are "great", or are the women also "great" by association? Sure, the women sacrificed by making rivets...but does factory labor really qualify them for the Greatest Generation? Do you have to risk life and limb to be in the Greatest Generation? If so, what about the cooks who served in the army? Should we exclude them?

And hey - wasn't the Greatest Generation the generation that the resisted the civil rights movement? Weren't the children of the Greatest Generation the ones who rebelled against their uptight racist parents to form the New Left and bring society forward out of the dark ages?

These are some radical ideas, and I'm generalizing (because it suits this exercise).

The defeat of Hitler was this country's greatest moment, and perhaps the greatest thing any country has ever done in the history of the world. It was due to the courage of our soldiers, the brilliance of their commanders, and the strength of American industries. But the idea of the "Greatest Generation" is probably the "Greatest Generalization" I've ever heard.

Fascism in the US?

That's what one Unitarian Universalist minister from Texas is arguing. I don't buy it. I think the pendulum has swung towards the religious wackos and jingoistic nuts for a few years. As soon as Iraq is seen as another national embarrassment (ala Vietnam), the jingoists will quiet down. And the religious nuts? It's hard to say. I do know that if we deal with them correctly, they'll soon be back to what they do best: publishing books about the end of the world and staying out of politics.

Anyway, here's a link to the sermon. I don't agree with 95% of it, but I found it entertaining to read because I hate nationalism.

Do away with election day

No Mr. Bush, I don't mean turn the US into a dictatorship, although that would "make things much easier" for you.

But why must we vote on election day? Why not make it a 2 week voting period. Democrats have always complained that election day should be on a weekend or made into a national holiday. This solution makes that unnecessary:

Florida's election supervisors, impressed by the success of early voting, proposed dramatic reforms Tuesday that would eliminate Election Day, replace it with an 11-day election season and do away with precincts.
The association of the state's 67 chief elections officials voted in concept at its annual winter meeting in Orlando to informally present the idea to the Legislature and to start rallying support for what its members concede would be a sea change in how Floridians vote.

''I think the voters spoke loud and clear in the general election of 2004 that they want other options than to be limited to 12 hours on a Tuesday to vote," said Bill Cowles, Orange County supervisor of elections and president of the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections. "We should seize upon the opportunity in 2005 to make the changes so we can try it in 2006."

This past election season marked the first time that Florida used early voting across the state and it was a proven success, as some voters waited in line for hours in order to cast their ballot ahead of Election Day.

Election supervisors say the experience showed them they could move away from the traditional Election Day and a precinct structure many believe is outdated. Instead of hundreds of precincts in a county, for example, voters could go to any of a few super-voting sites equipped with enough machines and personnel to keep lines at a minimum.

Don't start dreaming that early voting will bring out that huge group of imaginary Democratic non-voters. They don't exist.

But it's still a good idea. Right now early voting is allowed, but in order to do it, you have to lie on your absentee ballot ("I'm going to be away on business. Yes, that's right. I'm a big business man!"). Instead, we should encourage people to vote early.

Does this open the door to fraud? Possibly - until the we federally mandate sophisticated digital voting rolls (something the Republicans oppose), there isn't much we can do about it. So until then: vote early and often!

Move to the left? (Part 2)

From Joe Trippi's election analysis:

Since the Democratic Leadership Council, with its mantra of "moderate, moderate, moderate," took hold in Washington, the Democratic Party has been in decline at just about every level of government. Forget the Kerry loss. Today the number of Democrats in the House is the lowest it's been since 1928. Democrats are on the brink of becoming a permanent minority party. Can the oldest democratic institution on earth wake from its stupor?

Democrats can't keep ignoring their base. Running to the middle and then asking our base at the end of the campaign to make sure to vote is not a plan. It sure hasn't worked. And to those who say talking to your base doesn't work-Read the Rove 2004 playbook!

This is so completely wrong I can't even begin to describe it. But I'll try.

Here's the short answer:

1. The Democratic party is in decline because we're still losing old conservative Democrats. 2. The "moderate moderate moderate" message has won us our only 2 Presidential elections in the last 30 years. 3. The number of Democrats in the House is low because of redistricting. We screwed it up in 1990, and the NAACP works with the GOP to create 1 majority minority district and 3 surrounding Republican districts. 4. This election was about bases. And ours is obviously smaller.

Now the long explanation:

First of all, the Democratic Party's last real electoral majority was during the Johnson Administration. The new left, minorities, and the old conservative Democrats all voted for him in 1964.

Because of the civil rights movement and the Democratic Party's embrace of several controversial social causes, the conservative Democrats would soon leave the party. Meanwhile, liberal northeastern Republicans began to retire or switch parties. That meant that eventually the Republican Party would be made up of moderates and conservatives, and the Democratic Party would be made up of moderates and liberals.

The American electorate is comprised of roughly 20% liberals, 50% moderates, and 30% conservatives. That means that the battle is over moderates (and it already tilts in the Republicans favor). Whichever party seems more moderate will always win elections. Look at history:

1. Reagan beat Mondale like a drum because Mondale was really liberal.
2. Bush Sr. portrayed Dukakis as an out of touch weak-kneed Massachusetts liberal.
3. Bill Clinton won in 1992 because Ross Perot sapped away the moderate votes from George W. Bush.
4. Clinton won again in 1996 by first moving to the right (after the disastrous 1994 midterms) and then portraying Bob Dole as radical cold-hearted conservative.
5. In 2000, both George W. Bush and Al Gore ran as a moderates. A tie.
6. In 2004, John Kerry was successfully portrayed as a liberal on foreign policy issues ("afraid to use the US military without a permission slip from other countries") and cultural issues.

In short, the last 6 elections have been won by the party that convinced the center to vote for them.

We're not losing because we're moving to the center. We're losing because we're not moving to the center! Besides welfare reform, where have the national Democrats moved to the center? I can't think of anything. Can you? Meanwhile, Democrats like Mark Warner manage to win in red states by running as moderates. Hmmmm....

The truth is, both parties fired up their bases this year and we learned that the Republican base is bigger. Does Joe Trippi actually believe that a single member of the Democratic base didn't turn out last year? I guess we could dredge the ghettos for more black people...but will that really help?

We had a historic opportunity this year. Our base was frothing at the mouth. John Kerry could have given a speech where he told Michael Moore to go to hell and they still would have voted for him.

In fact, that's exactly what he should have done. Michael Moore was this year's unrealized Sister Souljah. If John Kerry had given a major speech where he told Michael Moore to shut up (and made a convincing case in the speech that liberals could have at least listened to), then we would have won this election.

Look. At the end of the day, wouldn't you rather have Joe Lieberman than George W. Bush? Democrats need to realize (like they have in Virginia) that this is probably the best they'll ever get. Mark Warner is probably one of the greatest governors Virginia has ever seen. He has successfully convinced the moderate Republicans to work with him on a Democratic agenda (a massive increase in public education funding, more tax fairness, more spending for mental health, more spending on our public colleges).

Mark Warner is the answer, my friends. In 2001, a drunk fan approached me at a UVA football game and noticed my Mark Warner pin. He screamed, "all the way to the White House! Woo!" We can only hope that those touching and poetic words come true.

Rebuttal of criticisms: The most obvious critique of my argument is that by moving to the center and mimicking Republicans, we don't inspire voters with a distinctive choice. For example, let's say you're a moderate and you have your doubts about the war in Iraq. You can either vote for President Bush, who defends it passionately, or the Democrats, who give a mealy mouthed flip floppy criticism. Passion beats mush any day.

It's a good argument, but it's not the one Trippi is espousing. Trippi doesn't think we need to be "bold", he just thinks we need to move to the left. He's reciting the discredited theory that there's an enormous untapped liberal base of non-voters. For him, it's a matter of simple arithmetic. He thinks that the numbers favor Democrats who excite their base. I disagree. Every major study on non-voters has concluded that they mirror the general electorate in their preferences - they're just extremely apathetic. And seriously dumb.

We should embrace any and all bold ideas. Unfortunately, there's nothing "bold" about liberalism. Liberal politicians take their marching orders from labor unions, the AARP, and teachers' unions. All of these groups fight for the maintenance of the status quo. Not exactly exciting stuff...

The really bold ideas are in the center. Welfare reform was a bold idea. The solutions to our transportation problems are in the center. Fiscal responsibility (an idea that propelled Tom Coburn to victory) is in the center. That's where we need to be. It's where neither party dares tread because their interest groups force them towards the left or the right.

And as much as I hate the mantra of "we need less partisanship", I'm starting to believe it. We need coalitions of moderate elected officials to buck their parties and the fringes and get together on legislation. Of course, it won't happen because the moderates are either dead or redistricted out of office. But that's a topic for another day.

Semantics rule

Stop referring to Bush as "the Bush administration" or "the White House". If Bush decides to do something, we need to blame him.

Enough with this, "the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq".

No: "Bush decided to invade Iraq."

As liberals, we feel like Bush is too stupid to run the country (true) and that other people are making most of the decisions, or at least having an overbearing influence on his decisions (also true). But we needn't let that creep into our rhetoric.

Liberals' propensity to blame others in the administration for Bush's failures has back-fired. People universally hate Ashcroft and fear Cheney instead of putting blame on Bush.

If "the Bush administration" does something, then Bush did it. Enough with this.

If Gonzalez writes a memo that says, "torture is ok", then Bush wrote the memo.

If Rumsfeld fails to bring enough troops to Iraq, then Bush failed to bring enough troops.

If Ashcroft tries to spy on your library activities, then Bush is spying on your library activities.

If anti-abortion groups successfully pressure "the administration" into killing family planning money abroad, then Bush de-funded family planning centers abroad.

If Bush decided to cower like a pansy under the protective blanket of the presence of children for 7 minutes after the WTO was attacked, it wasn't his secret services fault or Andy Card's fault. It was Bush. He decided, "I'm afraid! Help me! Let's run around the country in a jet for 10 hours until it's safe. Then get me a bull horn and let's roll!"

Whenever something politically devious happens, Karl Rove doesn't make the decision. Bush does. Bush personally decided to use a gay marriage amendment to win the election.

Bush and AIDS = Best Friends Forever

Well after Bush's toothless promise to increase AIDS funding and his withdrawal of money that goes to family planning centers worldwide that provide condoms, it looks like Bush has found a new best friend (sorry Condi): the AIDS virus.

Of course, most people in his party believe that AIDS is God's curse on "homersexuals", so it's not surprising that Bush wants AIDS to spread and kill as many people as possible.

How many people have/will die because of Bush's AIDS policies? The hundreds of family planning centers that have closed down in third world countries have a consequence.

Anti-evolution teaching gaining a foothold in the US

Check out this article in the San Fran Chronicle:

The way they used to teach the origin of the species to high school students in this sleepy town of 1,800 people in southern Pennsylvania, said local school board member Angie Yingling disapprovingly, was that "we come from chimpanzees and apes."

Not anymore.

The school board has ordered that biology teachers at Dover Area High School make students "aware of gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution. Their ninth-grade curriculum now must include the theory of "intelligent design," which posits that life is so complex and elaborate that some greater wisdom has to be behind it.

The decision, passed last month by a 6-to-3 vote, makes the 3,600-student school district about 20 miles south of Harrisburg the first in the United States to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools, putting it on the front line of the growing national debate over the role of religion in public life.

It's funny how conservatives keep fighting battles that we thought we'd resolved in the 1800s.

Check out their nutty website.

Anti-evolution teaching gaining a foothold in the US

Check out this article in the San Fran Chronicle:

The way they used to teach the origin of the species to high school students in this sleepy town of 1,800 people in southern Pennsylvania, said local school board member Angie Yingling disapprovingly, was that "we come from chimpanzees and apes."

Not anymore.

The school board has ordered that biology teachers at Dover Area High School make students "aware of gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution. Their ninth-grade curriculum now must include the theory of "intelligent design," which posits that life is so complex and elaborate that some greater wisdom has to be behind it.

The decision, passed last month by a 6-to-3 vote, makes the 3,600-student school district about 20 miles south of Harrisburg the first in the United States to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools, putting it on the front line of the growing national debate over the role of religion in public life.

It's funny how conservatives keep fighting battles that we thought we'd resolved in the 1800s.

Immigration? Que?

From Kausfiles:

Have I mentioned that the great, yawningly obvious political opportunity for an ambitious Democrat is to get to Bush's right on immigration the way Bill Clinton got to Bush's father's right on welfare? It wouldn't be hard. [Won't that cost the Democratic party its future by losing the burgeoning Hispanic vote for a generation?--ed] By that time our immigration opportunist will have served two terms.]

How many people out there are clamoring for immigration reform? A few nutjobs in Montana...but who else? Kaus sometimes misjudges the American people. He assumes that the answer is always to run to the right. How would going to the right of Bush on immigration help the Democrats? Anti-immigrant Republicans are so conservative that they probably considered writing in "Hitler" instead of voting for Bush. These aren't the type of people that Democrats can wrestle from the Republicans. We can only hope that they're so busy hunting squirrels on election day that they forget to vote.

Meanwhile, we can't forget Hispanics. They're swing voters. They'll decide the next 10 elections. Not wackos in Montana.

The hard questions...and the answers

What if Democracy suddenly (and surprisingly) thrives in Iraq? Will George W. Bush be vindicated?

Yes.

What if Bush reigns in deficit spending, refuses to cut taxes again, and enacts "tax reform" that erases some of the stupifying complexity of our tax system?

We should congratulate him.

What if Bush refuses to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court?

Then he's really a compassionate conservative

Of course, chances are, none of this will happen. But what if it does? What if democracy thrives in Iraq? What if Bush decides to appoint some moderate latinos to the Supreme Court. And what if tax reform eliminates some of the corporate loopholes in our tax system that allow rich people to pay less than welfare recipients.

That would be good.

But it's not going to happen.

But it could.

And if it does, all we'll have on Bush is that he's an idiot.

And the Commerce secretary is...

...a man with a mustache:

God will strike down these hellions!

The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over gay marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation's only law sanctioning such unions.

Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. They declined, without comment.

In the past year, at least 3,000 gay Massachusetts couples have wed, although voters may have a chance next year to change the state constitution to permit civil union benefits to same-sex couples, but not the institution of marriage.

It's a bit frusterating when an AP article makes use of the phrase "institution of marriage", a phrase that was used to defend laws against mixed race marriages.