Astroturf: Environment

President Bush is tackling the real challenges to our environment with focus and clarity. His comprehensive approach cleans our air and water by focusing on proven methods and results.

The President has proposed a Clear Skies initiative that cuts power plant pollution from the three worst air pollutants by 70% while keeping energy affordable for hardworking Americans. This is the most significant step America has ever taken to address this problem. President Bush is also leading the way in providing unprecedented funding for new hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which promise to dramatically reduce America�s reliance on foreign oil while cleaning our environment.

Our forests are another important conservation challenge. Thousands of acres of our most precious wildlife are lost to wildfires every year because of shortsighted government policies. President Bush�s healthy forest initiative has an approach that corrects these mistakes and protects national forests.

This issue is just one more example of how our President is providing the courageous leadership America needs.

Astroturf: National Security

President Bush�s leadership in winning the war on terrorism has been remarkable. After September 11, President Bush acted decisively to rout Al Qaeda, and America is safer as a result. He continues to wage the global war on terror with focus and determination.

America is winning the war on terror. After September 11, President Bush acted decisively to rout Al Qaeda from their hiding places, and America is safer as a result. He continues to wage the global war on terror with focus and determination. Our military proceeded with skill and bravery to liberate the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, and ensure that weapons of mass destruction never find their way into the hands of terrorists.

President Bush understands that we must give our military all the support it needs. He has increased defense spending in all of his budgets to give our servicemen and women the resources and the advanced technology they need to face today�s threats. This President is providing the strong leadership America needs.

Astroturf: Homeland Security

President Bush has taken important steps to secure our homeland including a new Homeland Security Department, focused on protecting the American people. America is safer as a result.

The Department of Homeland Security is protecting our borders, stationing more agents at our borders, increasing security patrols at airports, and enhancing port security to unprecedented levels.

First responders � police, firefighters, medical personnel � are also a critical part of homeland security. The Bush Administration is working with local officials to get them the information they need and increased funding necessary to protect American citizens across the nation.

President Bush is building protections against bioterrorism. The President�s Project Bioshield will help develop new vaccines and protections to guard against chemical and biological attacks.

This issue is just one more example of how our President is providing the strong leadership America needs.

Astroturf: Education

President Bush�s leadership has improved education in America. His No Child Left Behind Act helps kids learn and puts parents back in the drivers' seat when it comes to their childrens' education.

The No Child Left Behind Act sets high standards for student performance and provides the resources needed to meet them. Under President Bush�s leadership federal funding for education has increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003. A large portion of that money goes toward helping high-poverty schools. The funds also go toward efforts to retain high-quality teachers. Local control is another crucial aspect of education reform. The No Child Left Behind Act trusts parents and local school officials to direct resources where they will do the most good for their students. The law gives parents the right to transfer their kids out of failing or unsafe schools and into better schools.

This issue is just one more example of how our President is providing the courageous leadership America needs.

Astroturf: Health Care

President Bush has put forward a bold new proposal for modernizing and strengthening America�s health care system by giving Medicare recipients more health care choices.

The President is right to focus on providing a prescription drug benefit and modernizing Medicare. His plan helps seniors with the high costs of prescription drugs and means more choices and better benefits for Medicare, plus immediate relief for seniors with their prescription costs. That�s the right approach.

Too often, Americans are limited in their choices when their health and the health of their family are at stake. The President�s plan offers patients the choice of the doctor, hospital, or place they want for the treatment they need, as well as, choice of an individual health care plan that best fits their needs.

The President is also working to improve access to doctors. Families across the country are waiting for needed medical attention or traveling great distances to find a doctor because frivolous lawsuits are forcing doctors to close their doors. This is unacceptable and President Bush and Republicans are fighting for a fair system that helps patients, compensates victims, and keeps good doctors practicing medicine in their communities.

President Bush recognizes that we must have quality, affordable health insurance for every American. That�s why he supports tax credits to help individuals buy health insurance and removing the bureaucratic rules on Medical Savings Accounts.

This issue is one more example of how our President is providing the courageous leadership America needs.

Astroturf: Compassion

In his Inaugural Address, President Bush called on Americans to be citizens, not spectators -� to work together to improve their communities and touch the lives of their neighbors. He has followed through on his commitment and citizens in our community are responding.

President Bush�s compassion agenda begins at home by ensuring that every child in America learns the basic skills of reading and math. His work is also ensuring that faith-based organizations are not discriminated against.

The President�s compassion agenda is touching lives across the globe. His unprecedented commitment to combating the AIDS pandemic in Africa and third-world nations is what the world needs to finally turn the tide in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Under his leadership, America is leading the world in feeding the hungry. 60% of international food aid comes as a gift from the people of the United States.

The leadership of President Bush is unleashing the armies of compassion across our nation. I am grateful for his leadership and his call to greater civic duty. This issue is just one more example of how our President is providing the courageous leadership America needs.

Astroturf: Economy

President Bush should be commended for his strong leadership on the economy. He has taken bold action to create lasting economic growth.

The President�s economic growth agenda creates jobs. His economic plan is focused on job creation and helps working families with immediate tax relief. Promoting investment is another critical component in the President�s agenda. Reducing the overall tax burden on small business and eliminating the unfair double tax on dividends spurs investment by individuals and businesses, enabling much needed capital investment and spurring job creation.

President Bush understands that we must save Social Security for seniors and for generations to come. His approach preserves the current Social Security system for those at or near retirement while providing new options for young people.

The President�s plan puts money back into the pockets of working Americans. Accelerating already enacted tax cuts will encourage consumer spending by giving 91 million taxpayers an average $1,126 in tax relief this year, immediately injecting billions into the economy. This issue is just one more example of how our President is providing the courageous leadership America needs.

http://www.georgewbush.com makes astroturf easy.

From the Washington Post:

President Bush's campaign will unveil a Web site today that allows proprietors of online journals - Blogs or Web logs - to "get the latest campaign headlines and inside scoop posted instantly to your site through a live news feed from GeorgeWBush.com!"

Bush's campaign is leaving nothing to chance as his devotees spread his message. The automatic feeds are offered in horizontal and vertical versions.

Campaign manager Ken Mehlman said the site's purpose is "sharing the president's positions and tying them to grass-roots activities so that everyone who wants to, has something to do." The site allows a user to type in a Zip code and find local and national radio talk shows. A letter can be automatically e-mailed to newspapers, and all the supporter has to do is paste in pre-scripted text such as, "President Bush should be commended for his strong leadership on the economy."

Hopefully, this will make astroturf easier to identify, as well as render many righty bloggers obsolete.

Alabama Governor Bob Riley is a very, very bad Republican.

Which is very, very good. Because he's a bad Republican, he's willing to fundamentally change Alabama's tax system so that the wealthiest pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the poor:

The born-again Baptist governor is telling voters in this Bible Belt state that their tax system, which imposes an effective rate of 3 percent on the wealthiest Alabamians and 12 percent on the poorest, is "immoral" and needs repair. "When I read the New Testament, there are three things we're asked to do: That's love God, love each other and take care of the least among us," Riley said in his office in the antebellum state Capitol.

It's hard to believe, and that's the problem. The poor voters he needs to pass his plan don't believe it will help:

[P]olls show the strongest opposition is among black voters, who make up about a fourth of the electorate, and people with incomes under $30,000 -- the very Alabamians who would receive the largest tax cuts. Riley and his emissaries are campaigning hard among black voters, who opposed him overwhelmingly in November. He is encountering distrust embedded in Alabama history.

"Black people in particular and poor people in general have always been very suspicious when somebody in Montgomery says, 'I'm going to help you,' because usually in the end we get ripped off," said state Sen. Hank Sanders, an influential black politician.

It doesn't help that the usual suspects are attacking it in the most vile possible way:

Riley's opponents also have targeted black voters, airing a radio ad on stations with mostly black audiences featuring a man with poor diction warning, "Our property taxes could go up as much as fo' hundred percent," and blaming "Montgomery insiders who have been ignorin' us for years." The ad was paid for by a political action committee whose top contributors are the state's largest bank, a leading insurance company, two timber and paper companies and county farmers federations -- all of which supported Riley last November. The state farmers federation also controls the insurance company, which would lose a large tax break that gives it an advantage over other insurers.

Naturally, they have help from their cohorts outside Alabama: The American Conservative Union, Citizens for a Sound Economy, National Taxpayers Union, Eagle Forum, and Family Research Council.

"If this can pass in Alabama, it could be a precedent to attempt it elsewhere, and muddy the anti-tax message," [Alabama Republican Party Chair Marty] Connors said. Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, who gave Riley as congressman his group's Friend of the Taxpayer Award every year from 1997 through 2002, vowed to make Riley "the poster child for Republicans who go bad. I want every conservative Republican elected official in the United States to watch Bob Riley lose and learn from it."

Wouldn't it be nice if they saw him win? If you think so, you can contribute to the effort.

Dean: Spending limits are for the little people.

No, really. Five months ago, Dean said that he'd accept public funds - and the associated spending limits - and he'd attack any Democrat who didn't:

[I]n a March 7 interview with The Associated Press, Dean committed to accept the taxpayer money. The promise was echoed by a campaign spokesperson.

"We've always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in," he said in March. Dean also said his position was not based on any political considerations, such as the size of the field or how much money he can raise. . . .

Dean warned his rivals not to opt out of public financing.

"It will be a huge issue . . . because I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform," he said at the time.

Of course, that was before his recent fundraising success. Now, he's considering rejecting spending limits himself:

Dean said he still intends to accept some taxpayer money and spending restraints and suggested he has discouraged his staff from considering alternatives right now. But he left open the possibility of following President Bush's lead in rejecting public financing.

"Could we change our mind? Sure," he said. "But I really don't want to do that. . . ."

Dean cited Bush's plans to raise $200 million - five times the spending limit - as a reason for keeping his options open.

"I think public financing is a good thing. The question is what do you do with an opponent who can murder you from March to December?" Dean said.

It's a valid concern - but it was valid five months ago, too, when Dean rejected it.

I'm so very, very petty.

But really, Howard, do you have to spend almost $4,000 on Crystal Rock Bottled Water? For that much, I could drink from the tap.

Shorter John Derbyshire.

It's tragic that his home and family were firebombed, but reporters have yet to ask an important question about Sergio Perez: Is he an illegal immigrant?

I hoped the left would be smarter than the right.

My hopes are dashed. I hate Bush, but he doesn't belong on the same list as traitors and presidential assassins any more than LBJ does. They're not comparable.

Illinois waives soverign immunity.

Via Nathan Newman:

[Illinois] H.B. 469 specifically provides protections to state workers guaranteed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the ADA and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition, H.B. 469 provides state workers with all rights provided under the Fair Labor Standards Act. H.B. 469, which now is known as Public Act 93-414, permits state workers aggrieved by conduct illegal under these federal statutes to bring suits in either state circuit court or federal court.

Previously, the Supreme Court had held that states could not be sued for violations of these laws without their consent.

It's good that Illinois is willing to adhere to the same laws as private employers, however, it's not likely that every state will; rather than wait for them to do the right thing, America needs a constitutional amendment that will explicitly strip the states of their soverign immunity in cases such as these. It wouldn't be easy; another 37 states would have to agree to waive their immunity. But with the right campaign, it might pass, and the states would no longer be able to victimize their citizens in this way.

How the Democrats can boost turnout in competitive Congressional districts.

Assuming it's legal, why not try the strategy below - in competitive Congressional districts, encourage turnout in 2004 by awarding one voter, drawn at random from whose who voted, one million dollars from the Democratic National Committee? Not sure how that would compare to the cost of more traditional methods or how it would play in the press, but it'd get people to turn out.

Vote and win!

Via Edward of VoteLaw:

Osterloh's Voter Reward Initiative would give one randomly drawn voter a $1 million lottery prize, including one in the 2004 election if the initiative passed. Later, voters would get two chances at the prize, one in the primary and one in the general, a carrot that Osterloh predicts will push voter turnout past 90 percent.

OSTERLOH: The Voter Reward Initiative, I have been thinking about that for a couple of years. It's basically a question of what do we do to get voter participation up where it needs to be. People don't vote, they don't realize how important it is, and they are not being taken care of by their government because they don't vote and they are not listened to. I've seen get-out-the vote campaigns that spend a lot of time and an incredible amount of money, and they don't work. So I was thinking, and it came to me: Motivate people to do it. If you reward people for doing their patriotic duty, if you make them want to go to the polls, it would be so much easier. Why not have a system where if you vote, you have a chance to get rich?

OSTERLOH: The only difference between what we would be doing here and what they do in Australia is, there they use a stick, they beat you over the head. Here we'd encourage you. It's not a joke. Once you get the people to the polls, they're going to look at the candidates and they are going to look at the issues, and they are going to vote for those people who are going take care of the needs they consider important. But you need to get them to the polls.

I doubt this would work in Georgia, what with our many lotteries, but it's a neat idea, anyway.

Help! Help! Derbyshire's being oppressed!

Derbyshire: Just cleared the last of a huge e-mailbag following yesterday's blogs about Bishop Robinson.

Bishop Robinson; I will never tire of reading that name with that title. Imagine how it must make Derbyshire squirm!

Reading that much material leaves you with general impressions.

Like reading The Corner!

(To which, of course, there are many particular exceptions.)

Okay, not like reading The Corner.

One that I especially think worth noting is, that the commitment of homosexual activists to free speech is about one millimeter deep. I got a strong impression, time after time, that the reader believed I SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY the things I said. A couple of readers said so flat out. Veiled threats to try and shut me down were common. ("Does Mr Buckley know the kinds of things you say on The Corner? Perhaps he should be told...")

Wait. Since when does Derbyshire's right to speech include a right to a paycheck? I know the right has established a sort of welfare for unpopular conservative writers - how else do you explain The Corner? - but he isn't entitled to a share, especially if his views depart significantly from those of his benefactor. If he advocated, say, a living wage, or a progressive income tax, he'd be fired; why not the same punishment for supporting the internment of gays?

Make no mistake about it: there is a serious, strong current of thought out there that believes ANY objection to homosexuality is "hate speech" and ought to be criminalized--or, if it cannot be criminalized, shut down by any means that come to hand.

Criminalized? That is harsh. You'd think Derbyshire was an openly gay Episcopalian who'd recently made bishop.

You'd also think that if any writer had suggested he be jailed, Derbyshire would have offered that quote rather than the one above. Now, I don't think he's a liar, only so hysterical as to lack objectivity.

I say again: there are many exceptions, and I thank those readers who, after identifying themselves as homosexual, went on to argue with me in a thoughtful and civilized way.

When they're interned, Derbyshire will support giving them bread with their water. Never let it be said that he's without compassion.

But I now know something I did not know 48 hours ago, or knew only vaguely and imperfectly: gay fascism is real, and strong, and determined. If this Political Correctness cannot be stopped, we are going to lose our freedoms.

Translation: "If this trend of accepting gays as equals continues, no one will pay me to call one a 'deviant,' a 'moral criminal,' and a 'passing social fad' whose faith rests on love of 'bright vestments' and who society 'SHOULD, deliberately and consciously, disapprove and marginalize' as criminals. How will I pay the bills then?"

Make war, not sodomy.

Bustamante, Baby!

But what about the children?

Derbyshire helpfully prints the following letter:

I am not Episcopalian, but as a Christian who was victimized by a "gay" ex-husband, I commend you on your insight that this "bishop's" real crime was what he did to his children. . . .

His sin, like Robinson's, was breaking his vows and shattering the emotional health of his daughters, not only by abandonment, but by forcing them to deal with issues beyond their psychological maturation skills.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution offers the following photo:

Rev. V. Gene Robinson, left, listens to his partner Mark Andrew respond to a reporter's question during a news conference after his confirmation. Robinson's daughter, Ella, looks on.

Yeah. She looks "shattered" to me.

At the Corner, they hate gays.

Didn't the righties used to be much better at hiding their hatred of gays? John Derbyshire offers this:

I don't want to bang on about this too much, but I am in a state of black despair about this whole miserable business. Look: I'm an Anglican. I know the hymns and liturgy, I know the history. I grew up with it all. I go into an Episcopalian church as one going to a refuge from noise and money and the damn fool Zeitgeist. I go looking for eternal truth, and expecting to find it. If this church that I grew up with is going to be a club for homosexuals, turning its teachings upside down to accommodate every passing social fad, "celebrating" the "gay" ethos, what is there in it for normal people like me? But now where shall I go? The Roman Catholic church is headed the same way - half the priests are queer already, people tell me. I get e-mails - a surprising number - from people who have left the western Catholic churches and found a spiritual home among the Orthodox. Well, I'm open to the suggestion; but why, in my fifties, should I have to give up the devotional habits of a lifetime? Just losing the hymns would break my heart. And in any case, the Orthodox priesthood, with all those bright vestments and ministrational hierarchies, is going to be just as appealing to homosexuals as the Catholic churches have proved, and will sooner or later go the same way. We have let something loose in our society, and it won't rest until it has occupied the commanding heights and forcibly shut the mouths of all who object - bigots! homophobes! haters! I have never liked homosexuality, nor tried to hide that fact; but all my life I have supported tolerance towards homosexuals as a harmless minority who are just as entitled to pursue their private inclinations as the rest of us. I have always thought that the criminalization of homosexual acts was both foolish, and inhumane, and un-Christian. I am no longer so sure. Perhaps our grandfathers were wiser than us. Perhaps there are some things that we, the normal majority, SHOULD, deliberately and consciously, disapprove and marginalize. But what hope of that now? The toothpaste is out of the tube. To the catacombs!

Update: Derbyshire characterizes his comments as "the failure of a person whole-heartedly to 'celebrate' [the gay] lifestyle." Apparently, the above is charitable for him.

If Kathryn Jean Lopez thinks this reflects poorly on Edwards . . .

Then what does it say of Bush?

More of [Edwards'] money, both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of his total, has come from contributors identified as homemakers or housewives than that of other Democratic candidates.

True. However, Bush received more money than any of the candidates - and three times that of Edwards - from 'Homemakers' and 'Housewives'.

Total Contributions from Housewives and Homemakers

Candidate	Contributions	Contributors
Bush	$3,114,785	1,843
Edwards	$1,065,868	662
Kerry	$865,300	575
Gephardt	$627,400	409
Lieberman	$709,050	496
Dean	$327,763	319
Graham	$308,250	221
Sharpton	$171,050	118
Kucinich	$170,950	124
Braun	$159,550	113

That's what you get when you let the SCLM do your research for you.

Jimmy Carter is not history's greatest monster.

He's the fourth greatest, tied with Jesse Jackson. However, he did beat the serial killer Charles Manson; traitors John Walker, Aldrich Ames, Alger Hiss, and Aaron Burr; assassins Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth; terrorist Tim McVeigh; Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson; Senators Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd; and activists Al Sharpton and Noam Chomsky.

Bush v. Dean.

Sometimes, Dean is useful. For example, compare Bush's donors to his:

Caveat: I did not include donors of less than $200 or more than $2000 in these graphs, nor did I include contributions from sources other than individuals. If the numbers don't add up to their cumulative totals, that's probably why. However, I think you get the idea; remember it next time the RNC talks about how Bush is beloved by the common folk because of his many one-dollar donors.

The RNC didn't mind when John McCain missed votes.

The RNC has been keeping track of missed votes by Democratic presidential contenders. They describe it as "playing hooky from work" and say "Democrat [sic] hopefuls ignore education and homeland security policy to pursue their own ambitions." The SCLM didn't question the spin; they repeated it.

Well, these aren't the first members of Congress to seek the presidency. When he ran for the Republican nomination, John McCain missed 35% of his votes in the 1st session of the 106th Congress and 22% of his votes in the 2nd session. Right now, that's more than the percent of votes John Edwards (21%) and Bob Graham (15%) missed in the 1st session of the 108th Congress. Why didn't the RNC raise the issue when John McCain missed votes?

It's cheaper to be green.

Via Greg of Greenehouse Effect.

And Denise Majette ain't half bad, either.

"I fully support the principle that committed same-sex couples should have the same benefits as married heterosexual couples," said Majette, an Atlanta-area Democrat. "People should not be discriminated against on the basis of whom they love."

Zell Miller is not entirely useless.

[Zell Miller] thought marriage should be between a man and a woman but that he was against a constitutional amendment. "It is premature to discuss constitutional amendments, because no court has challenged the traditional definition of marriage." he said.

Karl's been a bad boy.

Presidential adviser Karl Rove (search) is late in paying his Washington, D.C., property taxes, Democratic sources told Fox News on Friday.

Rove, the president's most trusted political strategist and a member of Bush's inner circle, owes $4,405.03, according to sources.

Scortch that earth!

Turns out John isn't the only candidate who paid his taxes late: John Kerry and Howard Dean have paid late as well:

Between 1989 and 1991, Kerry was assessed $135 in interest and a $14 penalty for failure to pay taxes on time for a property on Commonwealth Avenue in Boston.

City records also show that the Kerrys have been late four times in paying taxes on the Louisburg Square home, as recently as this May. The delinquencies lasted from 14 to 33 days, and resulted in interest and penalties totaling $458.

The Kerry campaign confirmed the delinquencies on the Commonwealth Avenue property but couldn't immediately comment on the Louisburg Square bills, all of which were addressed to Mellon Bank for payment.

Dean, meanwhile, accrued $53 in interest and penalty fees in March 2002 after he was five days late paying the taxes on a piece of land in Jericho, Vt. In 1999, Dean had to pay $61 in interest after he was 18 days late in paying property taxes on his home in Burlington, Vt.

Team Dean got a might testy after this came to light: "It certainly does seem like an effort to deflect attention from the fact that there was $11,000 in late payments in Washington, but I don't think that rises to the level of us slamming somebody else." You know Team Dean, they'd never slam anybody else!

Elsewhere, Washington, D. C., Mayor Anthony Williams added credence to Edwards' claim that he never received the bill:

D.C.'s tax office likely got confused by Edwards' multiple housing deals, according to Tony Bullock, spokesman for Washington Mayor Anthony Williams.

"[Edwards] sold his house in Woodley Park, bought a house in Georgetown and moved into a third house he was renting," Bullock said. "More than likely what happened here is that the tax bill got lost in the swirl of those movements. Our tax office is pretty good but we can't guarantee that we sent the tax bill to the right address. Clearly Senator Edwards had every intention of paying his bill."

Me, I'm waiting for someone to look into Lieberman, Graham, Gephardt, and Bush's tax records. We already know how forgetful Bush can be with deadlines.

Whoops!

But then, anyone can miss a deadline, right?

Either way, Edwards paid up, and according to Jennifer Palmieri, "Sen. Edwards takes full responsibility for any of those bills that were paid late."

Clinton: "Is it the right thing to do? Then fucking do it."

I got your moral clarity right here:

In 1998, Al Qaeda struck the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than two hundred people. In retaliation, Clinton signed a secret Presidential finding authorizing the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden. It was the first directive of this kind that Clarke had seen during his thirty years in government. Soon afterward, he told me, C.I.A. officials went to the White House and said they had "specific, predictive, actionable" intelligence that bin Laden would soon be attending a particular meeting, in a particular place. "It was a rare occurrence," Clarke said. Clinton authorized a lethal attack. The target date, however - August 20, 1998 - nearly coincided with Clinton's deposition about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clarke said that he and other top national-security officials at the White House went to see Clinton to warn him that he would likely be accused of "wagging the dog" in order to distract the public from his political embarrassment. Clinton was enraged. "Don�t you fucking tell me about my political problems, or my personal problems," Clinton said, according to Clarke. "You tell me about national security. Is it the right thing to do?" Clarke thought it was. "Then fucking do it," Clinton told him.

Via Hesiod of Counterspin Central.

Punish the victim.

Student on student harassment is a problem at every school. The only good solution is to establish an environment where the victim may disclose the harassment with the certainty that the harasser will be punished, and that the punishment will end the harassment. This solution requires vigilance on the part of parents, teachers, administrators, and even fellow students. But it is the only good solution.

New York City didn't choose the good solution. Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg, having admitted that "some of the kids who are gays and lesbians have been constantly harassed and beaten in other schools," has decided to remove the victims of this harassment from the general student population and place them in another school:

The Harvey Milk High School, an expansion of a 1984 city program consisting of two small classrooms for gay students, will enroll about 100 students and will open in the fall.

"I think everybody feels that it's a good idea because some of the kids who are gays and lesbians have been constantly harassed and beaten in other schools," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a briefing today. "It lets them get an education without having to worry. It solves a discipline problem. And from a pedagogical point of view, this administration - and previous administrations - have thought it was a good idea and we'll continue with that."

The school, at 2 Astor Place in the East Village, is undergoing a $3.2 million renovation approved by the old Board of Education last year.

On its Web site, the Hetrick-Martin Institute[, a gay-rights youth advocacy group that has managed and financed the program since its inception,] describes the Harvey Milk School as "the nation's first accredited public high school designed to meet the needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth (LGBTQ)."

It says the school "offers LGBTQ youth an opportunity to obtain a secondary education in a safe and supportive environment. � We believe that success requires the ability to respect and value the diverse human community."

The school is named after San Francisco's first openly gay city supervisor, Harvey Milk, who was assassinated in 1978 along with Mayor George Moscone.

Few other than the most desperate victims of harassment would consider this an attractive option. Gay students don't appear from nothing; their only relationship is not with their harasser. They've attended school with their peers since kindergarten. They have friendships and relationships that would be disrupted, if not destroyed, by such a transfer. They have scholastic plans based on the schools they expect to attend. Few would voluntarily choose this; no one should feel compelled to simply to avoid harassment.

Bloomberg says this "solves a discipline problem," but I don't see how. The source of the discipline problem - the harasser - is not punished. They're not removed from their school. Their victim is. How does this discourage harassment? If anything, it encourages harassment by capitulating to the harasser's demands and in doing so confirming the harasser's perception that the victim is different and deserving of punishment.

That said, if it's either this or nothing, this is better. As noted at The Fifty Minute Hour,

Would it be a better idea to implement programs in the public schools to meet those needs [for support and understanding that simply aren't being met in the public school system]? Probably. I think most people, including advocates of the new school, would agree that it would be much better if we could make the New York City Public Schools a place where students of all orientations felt welcome. But that's easier said than done. And while we're trying to do that - and I hope that this school won't make the district abdicate its responsibility to improve the climate at other schools - gay students are at risk.

I hear that, but I wonder: if New York City is willing and able to place the victims of harassment in a particular school, why aren't they similarly willing and able to place the perpetrators of harassment in a particular school? Why are the choices this or nothing, and why are the victims forced to choose? Really, is there any aspect of this solution that considers the well-being of the victims above that of their harassers?

The Democrats are gone, but their votes aren't.

Via BJ of StoutDem:

The Texas AFL-CIO's newletter reports "The House, for its part, conducted business in the apparent absence of a quorum. The decision to concur in Senate amendments to House Bill 5, which among other things purports to make it legal to deny new teachers access to the Teachers Retirement System for the first 90 days of their employment, allegedly came on 101 votes, or one more than a quorum. But Texas AFL-CIO lobbyists witnessed several buttons being pushed on behalf of absent members, in an obvious violation of House rules. When Democratic lawmakers sought to verify whether a quorum was present on the vote, House Speaker Tom Craddick angily denied the motion, ruling that the House rules offer no mechanism for challenging the existence of a quorum on a vote if it appears that 100 lawmakers voted."

Rules? What rules?

Via Lambert of Eschaton, more rulebreaker Republicans:

A Republican effort to redraw Congressional districts in Texas in a special legislative session has failed, the state's lieutenant governor said today.

The bill stalled when a Republican senator, Bill Ratliff of Mount Pleasant, joined Democrats in opposing the measure, saying it would hurt rural areas. Republicans hold 19 Senate seats and Democrats hold 12. Ten Democrats had said they would vote to block a debate, so Mr. Ratcliff's vote gave them the 11 they needed, according to Senate rules, to stymie the measure.

The lieutenant governor has said that in a second special session he will remove the rule that requires two-thirds of the 31 members to agree to bring a bill up for debate, so that support from only a majority of senators will be needed to debate the bill.

Helpful, isn't he?

This is wholly appropriate.

However, Democrats should be ashamed of their behavior at Paul Wellstone's funeral.

Audie Bock: Green, Independent, Democrat, Opportunist

Who is Audie Bock? It depends on when you ask. In 1999, Bock was a Green. In a special election, she defeated Oakland Democrat Elihu Harris for a seat in the California Assembly. Her slogan: "Vote Green, Not Machine." By 2000, she was an independent, and she was defeated for re-election by Democrat Wilma Chan. Bock turned Democrat by 2002, in time to challenge Democrat Barbara Lee for Congress. Her slogan: "Dump Barbara Lee." Catchy! Again, she was defeated.

Well, she's back. Ever the opportunist, Bock is running against Davis: "My party, our party, the party of the majority, is telling us we have to keep him and I think it is a real disaster. I must step forward to offer Democrats an alternative to Gray Davis." Generous, isn't she?

The Democrats do need an alternative to Gray Davis; it's common sense. But they don't need an opportunist. They need a candidate who will call the recall what it is: an attempt to undo an election because the outcome didn't suit the losing party. Unfortunately, it would be hard to argue that while simultaneously running for governor. My solution? Let the candidate campaign on the promise to resign upon victory. Victory for that candidate would then be the same as if Davis himself had resigned. Bustamante would become governor, and the government would proceed as it should.

You can have tax cuts or homeland security, but not both.

So which do you choose? If you're a Republican, you choose tax cuts:

Despite a blue-ribbon task force report warning that more money is badly needed, the Senate Thursday rejected, 54-41, a bid by Sen. Christopher Dodd to dramatically increase the nation's homeland security budget.

The chief reason for the loss was that the $15 billion Dodd wanted for "first responders," such as emergency medical technicians, firefighters and others, would have come from rolling back some of the tax cuts that people with salaries and other compensation of $1 million or more are due to get this year.

Not a single Republican supported this bill.

The rules don't apply to Republicans.

First, they ignore an objection to unanimous consent in order to force a bill out of the House Ways and Means Committee. Then, they ignored a rule they themselves had previously applied to hold Democratic judicial nominees - one requiring at least one vote from the minority to move a nominee out of committee - in order to ensure their own nominee, William Pryor, received a vote.

Republicans will do anything to win, even cheat.

How can you doubt BushCo?

Oh. Ahem.

Uday and Qusay are dead.

Good, say the righties. Not so much because Uday and Qusay tortured and murdered thousands, but because their deaths allow the righties to expand their left wing purity test: Did the left express sufficient joy at the news of Uday's and Qusay's deaths? Were they sufficiently credulous when they learned of the circumstances? The answer, of course, is no. Now for the fun: What does this say about the left?

The Spoons Experience: "Remind me again why it's wrong to wonder whether liberals are really on our side?"

USS Clueless: "[S]ome people just don't want to believe good news when they hear it. A threat to their world-view, and all that. It's just too disillusioning to believe that things may actually go well sometimes."

Hud's Blog-O-Rama: "These people aren't happy unless they can tear down our country and impugn the motives of our leaders. This says more about their own issues than the actual nature of the war itself."

Right Wing News: "I'm going to be interested to see the negative spin that the left tries to put on this - and yes there will be negative spin. If Bush said he liked 'fluffy kittens,' the left would claim that his comment was really a slight to dog owners, that we invaded Iraq to steal their kittens, and that Bush should be impeached for lying about how he actually feels about fluffy kittens."

A Small Victory: "I could have called this, practically word for word. . . . It's getting oh, so very predictable. I think at this point the U.S. could eliminate poverty, stop AIDS and discover a way to make chocolate healthy for you and some people will still find a way to bitch about it or suggest a conspiracy." And: "My soul is much lighter today, thank you, knowing that two evil bastards are no longer breathing. I rejoice because they have killed hundreds - maybe thousands - before they were snuffed out themselves. I would worry about the souls of those who are upset that the two bloodthirsty brothers are dead."

Random Nuclear Strikes: "A few of us knew deep in our bones that the anti-Bush leftwing lobby just couldn't have a single good thing to say about the killing of Saddam's hellspawn." And: "Christ this guys need medication. I doubt I could spend ten seconds in a room with them without having to leave before I started collecting skulls like trinkets. There is opposition, there's rabidly partisan, then there's just plain nuts. These fools are just flat out crazy, when they believe Bin Laden and George Bush are the same, it's proof that any capacity that they may have had to make moral judgements is as shriveled and dead as their twisted little souls. I can't even find pity for them, just indifference if they stepped in front of a moving buss."

See? Fun. Much more fun than simply reporting the deaths of Uday and Qusay.

America returns to "knock and announce."

Via Jeralyn of TalkLeft, the House voted to forbid unannounced searches of suspects' homes. The vote was 309 to 118. Since I'm more partisan than the proprietor of TalkLeft, I'll note that only four Democrats opposed the move; the remaining 114 were Republicans. Of those Republicans, five were from Georgia: Mac Collins, Nathan Deal, Phil Gingrey, Johnny Isakson, and Charlie Norwood.

Remember that in 2004, Georgia voters.

Where's the outrage?

The Republican Party has as much as said that it will silence anyone who airs an anti-Bush ad, and yet there's nary a peep from the right. Compare to the outrage over Gephardt's remark, "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day."

Further, anyone who cares about truth wouldn't claim that Democratic opposition to Republican judges is rooted in anti-Catholic prejudice: "Ads run in Maine and Rhode Island newspapers last weekend show a sign hanging from closed doors under the words 'Judicial Chambers.' The sign reads: 'Catholics need not apply.'"

You know us Democrats. We don't want Catholics in positions of power. Well, except Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle. But only them!

Squires: "I don't prove myself to the party; I prove myself to the individual voter."

Squires again has money concerns. This time it's the millions she'll need to run a statewide campaign to become the first woman in Georgia history to win election to the U.S. Senate.

"I don't think it will be easy," she said. "But . . . if I can't raise money from the people of Georgia, I don't need to be running."

Seven months after popular Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) announced he would not seek re-election, Squires has emerged as the lone Democrat in a race crowded with Republicans.

Best known for publicly calling Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue a racist during a volatile debate on the state flag, Squires said she had no illusions about the uphill battle. She also said she had no doubts about her ability to win, even though she has yet to win the support of her own party leadership.

"Absolutely," the strawberry blonde cheerfully replied when asked if she thought she was electable. Squires said she had been warmly received by rank-and-file voters as word of her candidacy circulated.

"My races have always been grass-roots races," she said. "I have always had to prove myself. But I don't prove myself to the party; I prove myself to the individual voter."

She blames Republicans for running up the deficit and creating unemployment through failed economic policies. And she thinks her populist message will play well with voters if the misery mounts.

"I got into this race because I've become very concerned about the direction of the county," Squires said. "It's absolutely tragic that veterans' benefits have been cut, Social Security has been dipped into to continue to spend, and No Child Left Behind [a major education initiative] has not been funded. I'm a single working parent, and to me those are all prescriptions for disaster."

Congressional Republicans on the Earned Income Tax Credit

[M]any Republicans in Congress say they feel uncomfortable about using the tax code as a welfare system. Welfare ought to be labeled welfare, they contend. "If we want to turn our income tax code into a welfare system, let�s be honest with the American people," Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., said recently. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N. C., said, "When someone is exempt from taxes and still gets a check, it�s not a rebate; it�s public assistance."

Dean v. Defenders: "My job is to make your job as difficult as possible."

More choice words from Howard Dean, via Jeralyn of TalkLeft:

I was a public defender in Vermont during part of Dean's tenure. He was openly hostile to the defense function. He once addressed a meeting of defense attorneys by stating that "my job is to make your job as difficult as possible." He is a man of his word, at least on this campaign promise. He did not want to fund public defense.

But he opposes the Patriot Act! He does!

Why do Republicans still hate retired veterans?

Because Bush wants them to, of course:

Action this year, if the Bush administration continues to oppose concurrent receipt, would be for Republicans to join Democrats in signing a discharge petition by Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., to force a vote on HR 303, legislation that would end the ban on concurrent receipt for all 710,000 retirees who served 20 or more years and have VA-rated disabilities.

Marshall's petition has turned an uncomfortable spotlight on Republicans who co-sponsored HR 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act, but balk at forcing a vote on it because Bush opposes the bill. Only one Republican, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, has signed the discharge petition.

At last count, there were 348 cosponsors and 201 signatures on the petition. Now, there are 352 cosponsors and 202 signatures on the petition. So, basically, there are 150 people who want their names on this legislation, but don't really care if it passes or not. Given that 201 of the signatures on the petition belong to Democrats, and there are only 204 Democrats total, you can guess how many of those 150 are Republican. All of them.