Media whore strikes back

CARACAS, Venezuela Jan 29, 2006 — Cindy Sheehan, the peace activist who set up camp near President Bush's Texas ranch last summer, said Saturday she is considering running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein to protest what she called the California lawmaker's support for the war in Iraq.

"She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won't call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops," Sheehan told The Associated Press in an interview while attending the World Social Forum in Venezuela along with thousands of other anti-war and anti-globalization activists.

"I think our senator needs to be held accountable for her support of George Bush and his war policies," said Sheehan, whose 24-year-old soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004.

Feinstein's campaign manager, Kam Kuwata, said the senator "doesn't support George Bush and his war policies."
"She has stated publicly on numerous occasions that she felt she was misled by the administration at the time of the vote," Kuwata said by phone from California.
But with troops committed, Feinstein believes immediate withdrawal is not a responsible option, Kuwata said.
"Senator Feinstein's position is, let's work toward quickly turning over the defense of Iraq to Iraqis so that we can bring the troops home as soon as possible," he said.

Sheehan accused Feinstein of being out of touch with Californians on the issue.

She said she would decide whether to run after talking with her three other adult children. The Democratic primary will be held in June, and candidates must submit their statements for the voter guide by Feb. 14.

Kuwata said Feinstein and Sheehan appear to have a fundamental disagreement over whether troops should be pulled out right now. "That's why they have elections, and if she decides to file (paperwork to run), so be it," he said.

Sheehan said running in the Democratic primary would help make a broader point.

"If I decided to run, I would have no illusions of winning, but it would bring attention to all the peace candidates in the country," she said.

A long, but good read

By Bruce Bartlett:

One of the things that drives Republicans crazy is the media’s enormous double-standard in how it covers various scandals. While day after day we read on the front pages about how awful it was that a Republican congressman played golf with some lobbyist—as if that is the epitome of unethical behavior—cases of actual criminality by Democrats are buried on the back pages.
For example, on Jan. 12, the New York Times ran yet another article on page one linking Rep. Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, along with two columns about Abramoff on the inside pages. There was absolutely nothing new in any of these articles.
That same day, however, there was real news about a former aide to Rep. William Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, who pleaded guilty the day before to bribing the congressman. The aide, Brett Pfeffer, said that his former boss had demanded a stake in Pfeffer’s business in return for his support. He also alleged that Jefferson had insisted that two of his relatives be put on Pfeffer’s payroll.

Apparently, the FBI has been investigating Jefferson for some time. It has raided his home and wired conversations with him in a sting operation.

So how did the Times handle this hot news? It appeared on page 28. Moreover, the Times couldn’t even be bothered to have one of its own reporters look into the case and instead ran Associated Press wire copy.

Also on Jan. 12, on page five of the second section, the Times reported that a state assemblyman who had formerly headed the Brooklyn Democratic Party was sentenced to jail a day earlier for receiving illegal contributions. The assemblyman, Clarence Norman Jr., faces other charges as well.

On Jan. 23, the Times reported that former Atlanta mayor Bill Campbell is on trial for receiving payoffs of $150,000 from companies doing business with the city, as well as $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions and other gratuities. This article appeared on page 12.

Nowhere in the article was Mr. Campbell’s political affiliation mentioned. I had to do an Internet search to discover that he is a Democrat. Yet the article had plenty of space to discuss at some length what a great mayor Campbell had been.

I’m not saying that these stories should necessarily have been front-page news. But it does seem suspicious when news about Democratic corruption is systematically buried on the back pages, while the front page carries yet another rehash of the DeLay/Abramoff connection containing nothing new.

Ever since Watergate, a key media template has been that the Republican Party is the party of corruption. Thus every wrongdoing of any Republican tends to get page one treatment, while Democratic corruption is treated as routine and buried on the back pages, mentioned once and then forgotten.

Yet any objective study of comparative party corruption would have to conclude that Democrats are far more likely to be caught engaging in it than Republicans. For example, a review of misconduct cases in the House of Representatives since Watergate shows many more cases involving Democrats than Republicans.

Skeptics can go to the web site of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, popularly known as the House Ethics Committee. Click on “historical documents” and go to a publication called “Historical Summary of Conduct Cases in the House of Representatives.” The document was last updated on November 9, 2004 and lists every ethics case since 1798, when Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut attacked Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont with a “stout cane” and Lyon responded with a pair of fireplace tongs.

By my count, there have been 70 different members of the House who have been investigated for serious offenses over the last 30 years, including many involving actual criminality and jail time. Of these, only 15 involved Republicans, with the remaining 55 involving Democrats.
I have no doubt that any poll of the American people asking which party had more frequently been the subject of House ethics investigations would show an overwhelming majority naming the Republicans, when the truth is that Democrats, historically, have been far more likely to have been investigated.

The reason is that the liberal media harp on Republican misdeeds monotonously because to them the subject never gets boring. By contrast, Democratic wrongdoing tends to be treated in a perfunctory manner with no follow-up. This imbalance of coverage, which is unrelated to the seriousness of the charges, naturally tends to make people think Republicans are more corrupt, when a reasonable person reviewing all the evidence would have to conclude that Democrats are much more likely to be corrupt.

Of course, another explanation for the disparate treatment may be that Democratic corruption is so commonplace that it really isn’t “news.” Democrats should consider that possibility before launching a campaign against Republican corruption.

Wage Wars

This is an piece written by Holly Sklar. Trudge though it to get to mine:

Sklar wrote:
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was born on the brink of the Great Depression and died fighting for the right of workers to earn a decent living.

On March 18, 1968, days before his murder, King told striking sanitation workers in Memphis, Tenn., "It is criminal to have people working on a full-time basis…getting part-time income." King said, "We are tired of working our hands off and laboring every day and not even making a wage adequate with daily basic necessities of life."

Two years earlier, on March 18, 1966, King had called for Congress to boost the minimum wage. "We know of no more crucial civil rights issue facing Congress today than the need to increase the federal minimum wage and extend its coverage," he said. "A living wage should be the right of all working Americans."

King did not dream that in the year 2006, he would be remembered with a national holiday, but the value of the minimum wage would be lower than it was in the 1950s and 60s. At $5.15 an hour, today's minimum wage is nearly $4 less than it was in 1968, when it reached its historic high of $9.09, adjusted for inflation.

The minimum wage has become a poverty wage instead of an anti-poverty wage. A full-time worker at minimum wage makes just $10,712 a year—less than $900 a month—to cover housing, food, health care, transportation and other expenses.

As Congressional Quarterly observed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, "In the Lower Ninth Ward and other impoverished neighborhoods of New Orleans, people have long waged battle to make ends meet... That was a nearly unattainable goal in a city where many of the jobs were in hotels and restaurants that paid around the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour."

A low minimum wage is a green light for miserly employers to pay poverty wages to a growing share of the workforce—not just workers at the minimum, but above it. In its 2005 Hunger and Homelessness Survey, the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 40 percent of the adults requesting emergency food assistance were employed, as were 15 percent of the homeless.

A low minimum wage is a green light for greed. Between 1968 and 2004, domestic corporate profits rose 85 percent, while the minimum wage fell 41 percent and the average hourly wage fell 4 percent, adjusted for inflation. In the retail sector, which employs large numbers of workers at or near minimum wage, profits skyrocketed 159 percent.

With the federal minimum wage stuck in quicksand, a growing number of states have raised their state minimums above $5.15—Oregon and Washington are highest at $7.50 and $7.63, respectively. Studies by the Fiscal Policy Institute and others have shown that states with minimum wages above the federal level have had better employment trends than the other states, including for retail businesses and small businesses.

Dan Gardner, commissioner of Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries, says, "Overall most low-wage workers pump every dollar of their paychecks directly into the local economy by spending their money in their neighborhood stores, local pharmacies and corner markets. When the minimum wage increases, local economies benefit from the increased purchasing power."

In the words of Joel Marks, national director of the American Small Business Alliance, "Fair wages are good for business."

Congress itself has taken eight pay raises since 1997, while denying fair pay for minimum wage workers. On Jan. 1, congressional pay quietly rose to $165,200—up $31,600 since 1997. And unlike minimum wage workers, members of Congress have good health benefits, pensions and perks.

Wages are a bedrock moral issue.

It is immoral that workers who put food on our table go without health care to put food on theirs.

It is immoral that workers who care for children, the ill and the elderly struggle to care for their own families.

It is immoral that the minimum wage keeps people in poverty instead of out of poverty.

King would tell Congress to value workers and raise the minimum wage. We need a wage ethic to go with our work ethic.


My turn:

In the Friday, January 20, paper, syndicated columnist Holly Sklar wrote, "We need wage ethics today." She wrote of the "need" to raise the minimum wage in America.

Brace yourself for my opinion, most of you won't agree with it; but please stay with me and let me explain. My opinion is that we should not have a minimum wage. If you want to work for $1.00 an hour, that's up to you.

Let's say that, today, there is no minimum wage. Can you live on $1.00 an hour? That's grossing $40.00 a week, after taxes, about $29.00 a week. I spend more than that on gas. I know I won't work for $1.00 an hour, so I won't take the job. If you won't take it either (and perhaps no one will) guess what? Whoever is hiring at $1.00 an hour is going to have to up their rate. The employer will have to raise their rate and perhaps their prices to compensate, but eventually they will be paying an acceptable wage and selling at acceptable prices. That's how the economy works. Costs go up, prices go up.

I used to work for minimum wage. I did that for about 1 month, then I received a (small) raise.
I continued to work there about 4 months total. That wasn't cutting it so I got a new job. It was second shift and a farther drive, but the pay was worth it so I made the switch. Will I ever work for minimum wage again? No. I can't pay the bills on it, so I won't do it. I'm betting you wouldn't take a job that didn't pay you enough to pay your bills either.

Sklar does not mention that most people don't work for minimum wage for long, either.

Now let me tackle her math. She states; "A low minimum wage is a green light for greed. Between 1968 and 2004, domestic corporate profits rose 85% while the minimum wage fell 41% and the average hourly wage fell 4%, adjusted for inflation. In the retail sector, which employs large numbers of workers at or near minimum wage, profits skyrocketed 159%."

The only way for profits to be up is for people to be spending money. Minimum wage may have stayed low or dropped compared to inflation; however, wages must have gone up somewhere or no one would have had the money to spend which increased profits. Low minimum wage is not a "green light for greed," it is a speed limit. If you want to work for $1.00 an hour, that's great for the company that hired you! They are going to do well because you are willing to work for $1.00 an hour.

Sklar does not mention that most of those working for minimum wage are teens who don't need the money, but want it. If the minimum wage is forced up, the cost of business goes up, which raises cost for consumers. You then make more, but you spend more, so not a lot has happened by raising the minimum wage.

Pollution worse for Blacks.

This is from BET (Black Entertainment Television, you know, kinda like WET. . . White Entertainment Television)


I like where he says: "But Katrina showed that racism is alive and well in America". No shit!! When you try to say 'Poor blacks, oh, POOOOOR blacks!!!" you are supporting racism!! The only reason racism is alive and well is because of the blacks out there that WANT it.


"Pollution is worse for us". Welcome to Chocolate town.


What about: "Some charge that the Bush administration has made matters worse by creating new policies, like the Clear Skies Act and the Healthy Forest Initiative, that allow utilities and industries to pollute more." Care to elaborate? No? Oh, is that because you have no cause? That by stating the facts, you would show that you are a MORON?!


Oh, and the writer mis-spelled 'discernible'


Posted Jan. 18, 2006 – If you thought Hurricane Katrina was a once-in-a-lifetime fluke, think again. Concerned environmentalists say that unless the United States gets real about the threat of global warming, African Americans and other people of color can expect a repeat of disasters like Katrina.

“When you look at the trends and put them all together, it’s undisputable that the sea levels are rising,” says Ansje Miller, director of the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative (EJCC). “Warmer seas mean more intense hurricanes…. You’re going to have intense flooding like we have never seen before. Katrina is really the hurricane of the future.”

Bad News for Blacks
Environmentalists blame the fierce new storms on global warming – the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Scientists attribute the phenomenon to gases produced by fossil fuels like gasoline, petroleum and coal. Though critics dismiss global warming as junk science, reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have continually found a discernable human influence on world temperatures.

That’s bad news, especially for African Americans. Citing Katrina as a case-in-point, some environmentalists say global warming impacts minorities and the disadvantaged harder than other groups. If global warming gets worse, many African-American communities will be more vulnerable to breathing ailments, insect-carried diseases and heat-related illness and death. But asking Black folks to give up gas-guzzling SUV’s and other bling is a tough sell.

“It has been ingrained in our heads that to be anything, you must have everything,” says EJCC steering committee member Nia Robinson. “Because some of us have a big car and a nice house, people aren’t seeing that racism still exists. But Katrina showed that racism is alive and well in America. Now that people have that idea, I think we’re in a really critical stage to organize, educate and mobilize people.”

Pollution Worse for Us
Relatively, Blacks are environmental Good Samaritans. Per capita, we emit approximately 20 percent less carbon dioxide than Whites – well below 2020 targets set by the U.S. Climate Stewardship Act. Not only do we use more energy-conserving public transportation, we spend considerably less per capita on energy-intensive material goods.

Yet Blacks are exposed to worse air pollution than Whites in every major metropolitan area. Some charge that the Bush administration has made matters worse by creating new policies, like the Clear Skies Act and the Healthy Forest Initiative, that allow utilities and industries to pollute more. President Bush enraged environmentalists when he opted out of the Kyoto protocol global warming treaty, saying it would harm the U.S. economy.

Critics say the result of these policies could be catastrophic. “By mid-century, we’re looking at the entire Antarctic ice shelf melting,” Miller says. “That could send warmer water throughout… which will have a freezing effect in the Northern European countries. We’re already looking at a number of low-lying areas being completely submerged by sea-level rise. It’s kind of scary.”

Toward a solution, Miller says America must conform with international protections while reducing fossil fuel use. She hopes that the U.S. begins aggressively fining polluters and investing the resulting funds towards sustainable alternatives.

“Katrina showed us that we don’t know how to deal with (environmental disasters),” Miller says. “We really need to make sure that we have mechanisms, escape routes and policies in place that are going to protect those who are most vulnerable.”

Whoever said 'Separation of Church & State'?

We hear it all the time; Separation of Church & State. Does it say this in the United States Constitution, or, more specifically, the Bill of Rights? The answer is no.

The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere does it state that government shall rule to keep religion out of state matters either. My question is this: Who was the first person to say 'Separation of Church & State'? Or whoever said it was the government's job to keep the theory of intelligent design out of school? If the state can allow the teaching of evolution, then why not intelligent design? It can easily be argued that the study of evolution is a religion. (I'll give those who don't agree with me a moment to calm down.)

Think about that for a moment, unless of course you've turned the newspaper into a crumpled mess on the floor for the cat to play with at this point.

Intelligent design says that something was smart enough to make everything work together. He/She put the earth just the right distance from the sun, made the conditions just right, set the ball rolling with animals and made humans dominate, then sat back to watch what would happen.

Evolution says that something happened, all of the makings of life suddenly existed, and life was made where no life was before. Different species developed over millions of years out of slime in a pond, only one got smart, and there you have life as we know it.

I don't see the problem with throwing both of them out there and letting our kids draw from their parents' teachings and their own brains (oh, I forgot, we don't want them to use those while in school, just to do what they're told). Hmm, maybe if presented with both, kids would lean towards intelligent design.

Why doesn't anyone ever bring up the part in the First Amendment that states; 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'? This sounds like prohibiting to me!

Looking for attention. . . perhaps?

When I read the headline to this story, 'Judge to decide if Jesus exists', first thought that entered my head, was; 'Who wants to sell something? Who has the agenda?'



An Italian court is tackling Jesus -- and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.

The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.

The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.

"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli told Reuters.

Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona", or impersonation.

"The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala," Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.

A court in Viterbo will hear from Righi, who has yet to be indicted, at a January 27 preliminary hearing meant to determine whether the case has enough merit to go forward.

"In my book, The Fable of Christ, I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He must now refute this by showing proof of Christ's existence," Cascioli said.

Speaking to Reuters, Righi, 76, sounded frustrated by the case and baffled as to why Cascioli -- who, like him, came from the town of Bagnoregio -- singled him out in his crusade against the Church.

"We're both from Bagnoregio, both of us. We were in seminary together. Then he took a different path and we didn't see each other anymore," Righi said.

"Since I'm a priest, and I write in the parish newspaper, he is now suing me because I 'trick' the people."

Righi claims there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of Jesus, including historical texts.

He also claims that justice is on his side. The judge presiding over the hearing has tried, repeatedly, to dismiss the case -- prompting appeals from Cascioli.

"Cascioli says he didn't exist. And I said that he did," he said. "The judge will to decide if Christ exists or not."

Even Cascioli admits that the odds are against him, especially in Roman Catholic Italy.

"It would take a miracle to win," he joked.



Did you see it? Go up a little bit, and you'll see it. . . "In my book. . ."