Howard Dean on Democratic Values:
“We all should speak about our values. I think one of the mistakes we’ve made is to not understand that most Americans believe that moral values include making sure that kids don’t go to bed hungry at night. The Republicans are cutting the school lunch program. We want to make sure that everybody in America has health insurance. That is a moral value. The Republicans are kicking people off their health care. We ought to talk about our values. …I’m a Democrat because of my moral values. I believe that we can’t leave anybody behind. We are the party of America’s values.”
That is a thing of beauty. (via dnc.org).
Looks like the Government Accountability Office may just right another wrong, this time regarding the FDA’s decision to not make Plan B available without a prescription.
A congressional audit released Monday cited “unusual” steps in the FDA’s initial rejection of over-the-counter emergency contraception, including conflicting accounts of whether top officials made the decision even before scientists finished reviewing the evidence.
The FDA is reconsidering the decision on the pill, sold under the brand Plan B.
The GAO’s report found many interesting details regarding Plan B’s FDA process, including the fact that FDA scientists “overwhelmingly backed over-the-counter sales of the Plan B brand for all ages” and that FDA officials knowingly chose to ignore the scientists’s advice.
Fortunately, the FDA is re-reviewing the decision, and Health & Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has been petitioned to give a final, unbiased decision. And that decision has got to be straight-forward. Plan B needs to be available without prescription for anyone woman who wants it. Studies have shown that unwanted pregnancies will go down drastically. Women who are raped or the victim of incest, but are too frightened to contact authorities, can use this as a form of emergency contraception. Our society as a whole will benefit from Plan B being available.
The Rude Pundit can be quite fun to read. But as you dig through his biting humor and scathing attacks, you find someone who is very intelligent about politics, and willing to do much more research than I ever would. For example, take President Bush’s speech where Bush quotes “Democratic leaders” who made statements supporting the war in Iraq.
But who were those Democrats? What was the context for the statements that Bush quoted? Leave it to the Pundit to track down the details! Put into context, the three statements obviously do not mean what Bush wants us to think they mean. For example:
The second quote is from Senator Carl Levin, who was not really beatin’ the Iraq war drums when he said, on CNN’s Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer on December 16, 2001, in answer to Blitzer’s question about whether or not Saddam Hussein was a terrorist: “I agree, but exactly the way Senator Kyl put it. The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as he is in power. But that does not mean he is the next target. And the commitment to do that, it seems to me, could be disruptive of our alliance that still has work to do in Afghanistan. And a lot will depend on what the facts are in various places as to what terrorist groups are doing, and as to whether or not we have facts as to whether or not the Iraqis have been involved in the terrorist attack of September 11, or whether or not Saddam is getting a weapon of mass destruction and is close to it. So facts will determine what our next targets are.“
(Emphasis is mine)
Ah, now in context, Levin was actually not endorsing the war we got into at all. Levin wanted proof, proof that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks (which we now know they were not) and proof that there were weapons of mass destruction (ditto). This is not the smoking gun Bush seems to think it is. Instead, it’s more proof that Democrats only voted for the war because Bush manipulated intelligence to make it seem like Iraq was a threat.
Posted on November 15th, 2005 by Biffster |
1 Comment »
ColoradoPols has an interesting article regarding Angie Paccione’s problems raising funds for her run at Marilyn Musgrave:
Early reports are that the fundraising behemoth EMILY’s List has indicated that they are unlikely to back Paccione, and more importantly, the Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Campaign is not likely to support her with the same passion that they backed Stan Matsunaka in 2004. Paccione is apparently getting frustrated at the lack of support she has received thus far after expecting much stronger backing all around.
This is bad news for pretty much everyone. Musgrave may be the most conservative, dangerous Congresspeople in the state. She need to be removed from office yesterday. I was really hoping that Paccione would be the person who could beat her. And Angie could; she is a very intelligent, personable candidate who should play well to the constituency. But she needs money.
One question I have: Why are groups like EMILY’s List not endorsing Paccione?
If there’s any doubt whether Alito can be partial regarding Roe -vs- Wade or not, Alito’s own words from the past should dispel them.
Documents show Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was pleased about anti-abortion efforts he backed while working in the solicitor general’s office.
Alito wrote in 1985 that he was proud of his Reagan-era work helping the government argue that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”
Alito wrote the comments in a document while applying to become deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. He said he was proud of his government work helping to “advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly.”
Ignore the lip service Alito is trying to give to his respect for long-held precedent. He will try to reverse R-v-W the first chance he gets. One more reason for the Dems in the Senate to re-find their spines and filibuster this neanderthal thug.
Anyone who has read this blog for any amount of time knows that I am a firm believer in Free Speech. I will fight for anyone’s right to say what they believe, even if I don’t agree with what they have to say. There are times, though, that I wish people would use common sense. One example: one should just know that isn’t appropriate to hold a demonstration at a funeral. But apparently the wackos at the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka aren’t all that big on common sense.
A Kansas-based anti-gay group is expected to show up at a Greeley church to protest services for an Evans man, killed while serving with the US Army in Iraq.
[...]
Greeley police confirm protesters from Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka (Kansas) obtained a “parade” permit, and five to ten people are expected to picket along a sidewalk across the street from MacKenzie’s funeral.
On the one hand, this will once again show the world just how insane these people are. On the other hand, it’s a funeral. Who the fuck protests at someone’s funeral?
How do you handle the current attempt by religious zealots to introduce creationism bundled as Intelligent Design into public school curricula? Well, if you live in Dover, Pennsylvania, you vote the entire school board out of office! “All eight Dover, Pennsylvania school board members up for re-election have been booted out after introducing intelligent design to the science classroom. In their place are a number of those who campaigned against the policy.”
This is absolutely fantastic news. To those school board members in Kansas who voted ID into the curricula, take a look at this story and start sweating. You may not hold onto your jobs long enough to see this policy take effect!
Let me re-iterate my stance once again: if you must teach Intelligent Design in public schools, it should be taught as a religion course, not a science course.
Good news abounds from election day this past Tuesday. First up is Maine, where voters overwhelingly endorse a gay rights law. By a vote of 56% - 44%, Maine chose to not repeal an anti-discrimination law. This vote clearly shows that Maine residents believe that people are people, and should not be treated differently because they are different.
Hopefully this level-headed view of this issue will propogate throughout the rest of the nation.
The law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and education. It defines sexual orientation as “a person’s actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression.”
The law says it is not intended to redefine marriage, which a separate state law defines as the union of a man and a woman. But opponents of the law, led by the Christian Civic League of Maine and the Maine Grassroots Coalition, argued during the campaign that keeping the gay rights law on the books would pave the way for legalizing same-sex marriage.
Maine Won’t Discriminate, which led the fight to retain the law, countered that the law had nothing to do with marriage. Supporters said discrimination against gays and lesbians is a fact of life in Maine, so the Legislature did the right thing by amending the Human Rights Act to ban such practices.
Voters who backed the law said they did so because discrimination is wrong, regardless of the basis for it. “People have the right to be who they are” without worrying about losing a job or an apartment as a result, said singer Kattie Webber of Farmingdale.
There’s a very good article up at Yahoo! News detailling the origins of Intelligent Design. It’s a pretty fair article, though reading through it I still don’t understand how anyone could not see ID for what it is: creationism with a new name.
The article wraps up with a description of a lawsuit being argued right now. The arguments for both sides are pretty well-put:
The parents, who claim that ID is creationism in disguise, contend that such a requirement is religiously motivated, thus violating the constitutional separation of church and state and the Supreme Court’s ban on creationism in public schools.
Attorneys for the school district argue ID is not a religious belief but a valid scientific theory and that the school district intended only to expose students to views critical of and differing from evolution. The case, in its sixth week, may influence how biology is taught in public schools around the country.
I still maintain my vehement disagreement with the school district in question. ID most definitely is a religious belief, and if it is going to be taught in public schools at all should be taught as such.
(edits made in italics)
This probably should’ve been expected: Colorado voters approved referendum C, but not D.
“The real focus of their efforts was to pass C,” said Ciruli. Referendum D was some extra bonding to make up for past cuts, “icing on the cake,” said Ciruli.
Ciruli said at least some conservatives may have decided to support C but not D because they didn’t want to give the state any more money. He said some voters feel strongly that the state shouldn’t go into debt.
Colorado tends to be a very moderate state. Everything balances out. We vote for Republican federal legislators but Democratic state legislators. We vote more tax money for schools, but a taxpayer’s bill of rights. It shouldn’t be surprising that we voted to fix TABOR and the state budget, but voted against taking the state into debt.
All in all, I’m quite happy. Referendum C was the important part. Getting that passed is a very good thing.
