enlarge

Credit: bachmann for congress flickr

But seriously - what's with all the pledges? This isn't a frat party. It's still called the Grand Old one. Can't you just repeat yourself endlessly with identical talking points over and over again without having to always be signing something? Come on.

Anyway, yet another anti-gay marriage pledge was signed by candidates Bachmann and (of course) Rick Santorum. No preamble saying slavery was better for black children this time. Mitt Romney did sign this one because...well...he needs to play down the Mormon thing and look like he's against the wrong kind of Americans. It's very important to his party.

Here are the key points of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM!) pledge from Mother Jones:

• Support and send to the states a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman,
• Defend DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] in court,
• Appoint judges and an attorney general who will respect the original meaning of the Constitution,
• Appoint a presidential commission to investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters,
• Support legislation that would return to the people of D.C. their right to vote for marriage.

My favorite is the implication that people who "support traditional marriage" have been the ones harassed. Poor traditional marriage supporters - they've been bullied. They can't help it, they were born that way. Don't worry, it gets better. If history proves anything the thing with "traditional marriage" is that it changes all the time (see: miscegenation laws).

C&L takes the culture of life pledge

Check out my new post at Jesus General: "That god-fearing patriot from Crooks and Liars has come up with a living will for stem cell research. I hope it catches on. Greater love hath no man than he lay down the life of his family for that of a gooey collection of protoplasm."

Stem Cell Research Living Will

Stem Cell Research Living Will

The Culture of Life Pledge

I hereby certify that neither I, nor any member of my family, including but not limited to: children, grandchildren, cats, dogs, etc. and any "after acquired" family will never, ever, under any circumstances (even with my fingers crossed) take or ingest any form of drug treatment or medical breakthroughs that are in any way associated with or connected to Stem Cell research. I am morally opposed to this type of medical malfeasance that our lord and Savior and Dr. Dobson most assuredly rebuke. I declare that I am of sound mind and body (as so it is hence with respect to the aforementioned family members) as we execute this irrevocable document and thusly said, this document shall not be challenged in a court of law. This is so despite the fact that I or said parties, would either now or in the future, be the beneficial recipient of such a repugnant life enhancing treatment . Only the Devil's greatest tool, i.e. "temptation" could lead us into sinful thoughts of partaking of this reprehensible policy.

____________________________
XXXXXXXX

____________________________
Rest of Family

____________________________
Pets

____________________________
Notary Public

____________________________
Witness

Terror Financing Fines Fall After 9/11

By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Despite the Bush administration's pledge to battle terrorist financing, the government's average penalty against companies doing business with countries listed as terrorist-sponsoring states fell sharply after the Sept. 11 attacks, an Associated Press analysis of federal records shows.

The average penalty for a company doing business with Iran, Iraq (news - web sites), North Korea (news - web sites), Sudan or Libya dropped nearly threefold, from more than $50,000 in the five years before the 2001 attacks to about $18,700 afterward, according to a computer-assisted analysis of federal records...read on

Oh I'm sorry I think this story might be a liberal media plant. Didn't the Bush administration go hard after the terror money?

DOWNLOADS: (691)

PLAYS: (3007)

Embed

Smacking down Sarah Palin must be similar to swatting a gnat sitting on the table with a big "HIT ME HERE" sign on its back. I hate even writing about her, but when the President smacks down her idiocy, it's worth a post or ten.

In his exclusive interview with George Stephanopoulis yesterday, the President was once again asked one of those cutting-edge, everyone-needs-to-know questions, riffing off of Sarah Palin's rant on Hannity's show the day before. For reference, here's Palin's quote:

It's unbelievable. Unbelievable," said Palin on Sean Hannity's program. "No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face, and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'"

Leave it to George to ask the question burning in all of our minds:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to get to some of those broader issues. Because you're also facing criticism on that. Sarah Palin, taking aim at your decision to restrict the use of nuclear weapons. Your pledge not to strike nations, non-nuclear nations, who abide by the nonproliferation treaty. Here's what she said. She said, "It's unbelievable, no other administration would do it." And then she likened it to kids on the playground. She said you're like a kid who says, "Punch me in the face, and I'm not going to retaliate." Your response?

OBAMA: I really have no response. Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues.

Undeterred by Obama's non-response, GSteph presses forward:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the string of criticism has been out there among other Republicans as well. They think you're restricting use of nuclear weapons too much.

OBAMA: And what I would say to them is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not concerned about her criticisms?

OBAMA: No.

I think the President put Sarah Palin's opinion about nuclear weapons in the proper perspective. But there was a troubling aspect to her remarks for me, as a parent.

I've always taught my kids that the scorched-earth 'beat-the-crap-outa-them-if-they-touch-you' approach is fairly barbaric. There are always better, savvier, less violent ways to handle things. Now that they are adults, or nearly adults, I can say my approach seems to have worked. They've never been beaten up, are able to get along with others without a fuss, and actually have the ability to listen to a point of view which might not be perfectly in line with their own.

So is Palin saying that Republicans think the only way to handle an affront is retaliation? Why is that not surprising to me? Ronald Reagan would even have a field day with her. Please, please, let her keep making her case for national bullyhood so the President can keep smacking her down with a smile and absolutely no violence.

I wonder what the so-called Christians who exalt her would say about her denial of Christ's teaching to 'turn the other cheek'. Don't you love her selective Christian "family values"? I know I do.

Oh, I'm sure He will be so pleased to know that He's not really a religious symbol:

The San Francisco Appeals court has ruled that "Under God" is not a prayer when used in the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2002, the court declared that the phrase was unconstitutional. The new 2-1 ruling from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals states it is a "recognition of our founders' political philosophy that a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights [...] Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect."

In a separate 3-0 ruling, the "In God We Trust" was also found to be non-religious; the motto is patriotic and ceremonial.

The ruling itself is not so much an issue with me; I don't have a problem with saying "under God". But I do have an issue with Judge Carlos Bea's reasoning in his decision:

Bea wrote that the pledge is indeed a patriotic exercise, and the words "under God" must be viewed in that context.

"The pledge reflects many beliefs held by the founding fathers of this country -- the same men who authored the Establishment Clause -- including the belief that it is the people who should and do hold the power, not the government," Bea wrote. "They believed that the people derive their most important rights, not from the government, but from God."

Hold on there. Before one starts invoking "the Founding Fathers" in justifying the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, one might actually to do research into the Pledge. Like the fact that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with the Pledge. It was written in 1892 (more than a 100 years after the founding of the country) by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy. It's a little disingenuous to claim the Founding Fathers as the authority on this, since none were alive when the pledge came to be. As it was originally written, it hardly had the patriotic or religious fervor that Bea ascribed:

I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.(ref. Wikipedia)

It has gone through four iterations before coming to its current state. The phrase "under God" wasn't added, as many of you know, until 1954, and only then as some sort of strange pre-emptive move against communism, as if making schoolchildren say those words inoculated them against communist sympathies.

As for the Founding Fathers' endorsement of the rights of Americans are derived from God, well, that's a disputable statement as well.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1702)

PLAYS: (6606)

Embed

[h/t to Heather.] On Countdown, Keith Olbermann talked about the power of words and why Bill O'Reilly and the Fox News Channel are at least partially responsible for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. As his guest, he had author Frank Schaeffer, who wrote "Crazy for God" about his years in the religious right.

Yesterday, Schaeffer wrote a heartfelt apology apology at Huffington Post for his part in forming the anti-abortion movement. Keith contrasted his apology with the response by Bill O'Reilly, in which Billo blamed - well, just about everyone but himself and Fox News.

Keith spoke thoughtfully about hate speech and how it influences people, then posed this question:

So, what to do? Viewer boycotts mean little. You are already here. You are not watching Fox News channel. Advertiser boycotts are of limited value, most make barely a dent in a company. Besides which, in this economy, an advertiser who found its sales boosted by association with malaria would start breeding mosquitoes.

If there is a solution, it is perhaps an indirect boycott. It is probably your experience, as it has been mine that stores, bars, restaurants, waiting rooms, often show Fox News on their televisions. Don't write a letter. Don't make a threat. Just get up and explain if they will not change the channel, leave the place and say calmly why it is you are taking your business elsewhere.

If you know a viewer of that channel, show them this tape, or just the tape of the attacks on Dr. Tiller that set the stage for his assassination. Fox News channel will never restrain itself from incitement to murder and terrorism. Not until its profits begin to decline, when its growth stops. So, not so much a boycott here as a quarantine, because this has got to stop.

I'd like to add that I already do this, and it really does have an impact. After all, businesses aren't going to anger the few customers they have left.

It's getting even more difficult to find good news these days, but I thought this was worth a mention. I don't know how much of a difference it will make, but I hope it does. Businesses would do well to seek out those graduates and hire them:

When a new crop of future business leaders graduates from the Harvard Business School next week, many of them will be taking a new oath that says, in effect, greed is not good.

Nearly 20 percent of the graduating class have signed “The M.B.A. Oath,” a voluntary student-led pledge that the goal of a business manager is to “serve the greater good.” It promises that Harvard M.B.A.’s will act responsibly, ethically and refrain from advancing their “own narrow ambitions” at the expense of others.

Only 20 percent? Oh well, at least 1 in 5 has scruples!

What happened to making money?

That, of course, is still at the heart of the Harvard curriculum. But at Harvard and other top business schools, there has been an explosion of interest in ethics courses and in student activities — clubs, lectures, conferences — about personal and corporate responsibility and on how to view business as more than a money-making enterprise, but part of a large social community.

“We want to stand up and recite something out loud with our class,” said Teal Carlock, who is graduating from Harvard and has accepted a job at Genentech. “Fingers are now pointed at M.B.A.’s and we, as a class, have a real opportunity to come together and set a standard as business leaders.”

At Columbia Business School, all students must pledge to an honor code: “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” The code has been in place for about three years and came about after discussions between students and faculty.

In the post-Enron and post-Madoff era, the issue of ethics and corporate social responsibility has taken on greater urgency among students about to graduate. While this might easily be dismissed as a passing fancy — or simply a defensive reaction to the current business environment — business school professors say that is not the case. Rather, they say, they are seeing a generational shift away from viewing an M.B.A. as simply an on-ramp to the road to riches.

Those graduating today, they say, are far more concerned about how corporations affect the community, the lives of its workers and the environment. And business schools are responding with more courses, new centers specializing in business ethics and, in the case of Harvard, student-lead efforts to bring about a professional code of conduct for M.B.A.’s, not unlike oaths that are taken by lawyers and doctors.

“I don’t see this as something that will fade away,” said Diana C. Robertson, a professor of business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s coming from the students. I don’t know that we’ve seen such a surge in this activism since the 1960s. This activism is different, but, like that time, it is student-driven.”

It's kind of ironic, in light of Harvard's present financial crisis.

Remember Obama's announcement Monday that insurance companies were going to cut the rate of health care spending? It was all over the news:

“These groups are voluntarily coming together to make an unprecedented commitment,” Mr. Obama said. “Over the next 10 years, from 2010 to 2019, they are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year — an amount that’s equal to over $2 trillion.”

Now they're clutching their pearls, insisting they never said such a thing!

Health care leaders who attended the meeting have a different interpretation. They say they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts.

“There’s been a lot of misunderstanding that has caused a lot of consternation among our members,” said Richard J. Umbdenstock, the president of the American Hospital Association. “I’ve spent the better part of the last three days trying to deal with it.”

Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said “the president misspoke” on Monday and again on Wednesday when he described the industry’s commitment in similar terms. After providing that account, Ms. DeParle called back about an hour later on Thursday and said: “I don’t think the president misspoke. His remarks correctly and accurately described the industry’s commitment.”

The Washington office of the American Hospital Association sent a bulletin to its state and local affiliates to “clarify several points” about the White House meeting.

In the bulletin, Richard J. Pollack, the executive vice president of the hospital association, said: “The A.H.A. did not commit to support the ‘Obama health plan’ or budget. No such reform plan exists at this time.”

Moreover, Mr. Pollack wrote, “The groups did not support reducing the rate of health spending by 1.5 percentage points annually.”

And yet, here's what went up on the lying bastards' industry's faux-grassroots website:

Health care stakeholders came together at the White House today to present ideas on how to lower health care costs and create real savings for American families. President Obama hosted representatives of a group that included AdvaMed, American Hospital Association (AHA), American Medical Association (AMA), America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The six groups submitted a letter to the President outlining a framework for slowing the growth of spending throughout the health care system, making it more efficient and more sustainable. Read the letter that was sent to President Obama.

By reducing the rate of growth in health care spending by 1.5% each year, the nation can achieve a savings of $2 trillion over the next decade. This effort will have a direct effect on the budgets of individuals and families and will also go a long way in ensuring that every American have access to affordable, high-quality health care. Stay tuned for more information on this important initiative in the weeks and months ahead.

Read a complete account of President Obama's remarks at the White House today.

America's Health Insurance Plans released a statement today that expressed strong support for the framework that all the stakeholders have presented. Read the full statement.