So Far, So Left

Or perhaps our sidewalks are themselves an effort to dissuade panhandlers.

2010-01-08T18:39:00.004-05:00

Mayor Reed has wasted no time addressing the most important issue facing Atlanta: panhandling. From Fresh Loaf:

At Kasim Reed's first press conference as mayor yesterday, he announced — after introducing interim Police Chief George Turner and the new APD structure — that he plans to vigorously enforce the city's existing panhandling laws. The ATL's many panhandlers, he says, are the number two complaint among visitors and a serious drag on downtown's convention-based economy. . . .

Then he delivered a tough sound bite: "Walking up and asking people for money in the city of Atlanta is not OK."

Says the person who's spent a good amount of his career raising money for his political campaigns, which is "walking up and asking people for money," albeit in a much nicer suit.

I am no longer the bleeding heart that I once was with respect to panhandlers, no longer following the command that we "give to those who beg from you", but the approach our city has taken - treating them as criminals - well, contrary what you might have heard about Sodom and Gomorrah, it's that attitude what will get you smote.

Reed's willingness to incur God's wrath notwithstanding, I walk Atlanta often, and I rarely encounter a panhandler who is as much of a problem as, say, the dangerous crosswalks or the patchwork sidewalks. You know, if Reed wanted to make the city more friendly to visitors, he'd work to make the city more friendly to pedestrians - at least then, not everyone who uses the sidewalk would do so because he has to work there.

Milton cuts its conservative ideology tax.

2010-01-08T13:34:00.004-05:00

Is there nothing sacred in the Great Recession?

When Milton became a city three years ago, its founders embraced privatization, paying a company to collect garbage, draw up zoning maps and handle the day-to-day duties of a municipal government.

But the relationship soured when the city needed to cut the budget. Last week, Milton ended its contract with CH2M Hill, a Colorado-based firm, and went to a mostly traditional form of government.

City Manager Chris Lagerbloom said the change should translate into at least $1 million in yearly savings — a significant sum for a city with a $22.9 million budget.

Twenty of 34 CH2M Hill employees assigned to Milton decided to stay, most holding the same jobs. The city rounded their annual CH2M Hill salaries up to the nearest thousand.

I was skeptical of whether this would work, and it seems that my skepticism was warranted. So, it seems that privatization doesn't work for small governments like Milton; it doesn't work for large governments like Atlanta; so why privatize? As far as I can see, it's ideology: privatization is a conservative value, and conservatives were willing to allocate $1 million of a $20 million budget - 5% - to adhere to that value.

The Civil War was fun, let's have another.

2009-05-14T22:23:00.003-05:00

From Jay Bookman:

Larry Peterson of the Savannah Morning News has advanced the story [of Georgia's pro-secession minority] by polling the six GOP candidates for governor. According to Peterson, four of the six support the resolution, one opposes it and the sixth refused to take a position on whether nullification and secession were are good ideas.

These are people running for the highest office in the state, including the three frontrunners for the GOP nomination. The winner of that nomination would in turn be favored to be our next governor.

More accurately, if events take a turn, I guess that person could become the first president of Georgia.

Every time I think the Republican Party can no longer surprise me, they do. They're the Party of War, the Party of Torture, and now, the Party of Secession. No doubt they wondered why they should continue to support war and torture overseas when they could simply re-open Andersonville.

Also via Bookman, I see that John Oxendine is so committed to secession that he has decorated his son's room in "Confederate Gray"; the traditional blue was, I gather, too Union.

Republicans are sad that the rich have been deprived of a $340 million tax cut.

2009-05-11T21:44:00.009-05:00

Oh, woe:

Gov. Sonny Perdue said Monday he will veto House Bill 481, which would have cut the tax on profits of certain investments by 50 percent. His decision led one business association to call on lawmakers to override Perdue's veto when they are next in session and prompted one of Perdue's political acolytes to declare herself "disappointed."

Disappointed? Not that I don't admire Karen Handel's restraint, but conceding that what has been "a cornerstone of Republican economic policy for decades" would bankrupt the state will not win a Republican primary.

What will? A flight of economic fancy! For that, John Oxendine:

But state Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine said late this evening tha he had no such concerns — and urged an override of the governor's veto by the Legislature when it re-convenes in January.

"Cutting capital gains taxes would have encouraged more investment into the state. It is a sad day when this type of legislation gets vetoed by a Republican governor," Oxendine said in a press release issued about an hour ago.

Nothing says "conservative" like an enduring faith in the curative power of tax cuts for the wealthy elite. And I do believe John Oxendine has that faith.

For the first time, a plurality of Americans support same-sex marriage.

2009-04-30T19:15:00.003-05:00

Support for legal gay marriage has increased dramatically over the past three years, and for the first time, those in favor outnumber those opposed, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly half (49 percent) of all Americans in the new poll said they favor legal marriage for same-sex couples, an increase of 13 percentage points since June 2006. But opposition to gay marriage remains widespread, 46 percent said it should be illegal in the new poll, and most in that camp feel strongly about it (overall 39 percent are that opposed).

Notably, majorities of Democrats (62%), Independents (52%), liberals (71%), and moderates (54%) thought it should be legal for gay couples to get married.

For example, AIG might be willing to insure Atlanta against financial collapse.

2009-04-13T22:48:00.006-05:00

Atlanta mayoral candidate Jesse Spikes' love of privatization has withstood both the worst recession since the Great Depression and its cause, the incompetence and greed of the private sector. From his website:

There are many opportunities for the privatization of services now performed by the City.

In my law practice, I have actively supported and participated in the privatization of major services at both the City and County levels. I have witnessed firsthand the cost-savings of privatization . . . and kept a close eye on the quality of service that private companies provided, to guarantee it stayed first-rate. As mayor, I would continue to consider privatization in appropriate circumstances as a way to cut the costs of running our city.

Although he has "witnessed firsthand" the "many opportunities" for "cost savings," he does not name one.

Now, compare Jesse Spikes' gauzy rhetoric to Shirley Franklin's honest response to a recent call for further privatization of city services. From Blog for Democracy:

I understand that there are privatization advocates out there that throw out "projected savings" numbers. That is all very interesting, but at the end of the day the savings opportunity is always quantifiable. A private firm has three potential sources of savings:

cheaper capital (due to scale)

cheaper labor (usually due to non-union labor)

better business processes

When we look at the opportunities in the City, what we generally find is that the City is operating at the peak of the scale curves due to our size (smaller cities usually aren't). Our capital financing capabilities are almost always better than what can be found in the private sector. Our labor is generally cheaper since we do not have collective bargaining in this state so we don't have the type of public sector unions you find in the Northeast and Midwest. That leaves business processes, and our typical approach is to bring someone in to analyze whether there is enough gap between our practices and what a private firm can do to justify privatization. As the examples above demonstrate, the answer has typically been a resounding "no".

Advocates of privatization often make claims that are, as Franklin said, "simply not credible," and Atlanta's next mayor should be no less skeptical of them than Atlanta's current mayor. Certainly, Atlanta's next mayor should not be the one of them.

Because you can never be too tough on crime.

2009-04-07T19:59:00.006-05:00

Last week, Attorney General Thurbert Baker announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for Governor. The most important part of that story is that Baker is black. Slightly less important, but only slightly, is his involvement in Wilson v. State of Georgia.

Far less important than either of those is his promise "to run a tough-on-crime campaign." It's nevertheless interesting in the context of news of America's record high incarceration rate. From the Pew Center on the States:

For the first time in history more than one in every 100 adults in America are in jail or prison—a fact that significantly impacts state budgets without delivering a clear return on public safety. According to a new report released today by the Pew Center on the States' Public Safety Performance Project, at the start of 2008, 2,319,258 adults were held in American prisons or jails, or one in every 99.1 men and women, according to the study.

Per the report, in the past two years, Georgia's prison population increased by 4.6% to 55,205. It is now the fifth-largest in America, following Texas (171,790), California (171,444), Florida (97,416), and New York (62,620).

But more shocking than the number incarcerated is the incarceration rate: 1,024 of every 100,000 Georgians is in prison. It is the second-highest in America, following Louisiana (1,138 of every 100,000).

So America is more "tough on crime" than it has ever been. Georgia is its second most "tough on crime" state. So how much more "tough on crime" does Baker think Georgia should be?

Specifically, how many Georgians should be in jail? How high should our incarceration rate be? What percentage of our budget should be dedicated to the maintenance of those numbers? Who will Baker tax - or, more likely, what service will he cut - to pay for them?

I doubt Baker will even be asked those questions, and I doubt that he would answer them to my satisfaction if he were. But I do wonder. At what point does being "tough on crime" cease to be merely tough on criminals and become tough on everyone?

How Republicans Govern Georgia

2009-02-03T21:22:00.005-05:00

Georgia Republicans can't find the money to protect a progressive tax cut for every Georgia homeowner:

Legislative leaders are finalizing a plan that would essentially force cities, counties and school boards to make a choice in the upcoming fiscal year: cut spending or raise property taxes.

Legislation filed earlier this week would make it unlikely the state will fund the $428 million property tax grant this fall. The grant would only be funded in the future in good economic times.

But they can find the money to subsidize prep schools:

The bill from Sen. Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) would allot parents about $5,000 in taxpayer money to use toward private school tuition. . .

"Basically, it’s a bait and switch," state Senate Minority Leader Robert Brown (D-Macon) said. "It really doesn’t address the problems in public schools. What you have to do is fund them more adequately."

Under Johnson’s proposal, students who want to switch schools would have to qualify for admission at the new campus first and their parents would have to provide transportation, Johnson said. He estimated about 5 percent of parents would use the vouchers.

Some public school advocates said the new voucher bill is unreasonable considering that school systems face about $275 million in cuts next year.

"It is ludicrous to be trying to divert resources from our public schools," said Tim Callahan, spokesman for the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, an advocacy group with about 75,000 members. "How much more battered down and beaten can they get?"

Best. Benediction. Ever!

2009-01-20T21:34:00.003-05:00

Of course, I was disposed to prefer Lowery's benediction over Warren's invocation, but really, start to finish, the superiority of Lowery's prayer could not have been more self-evident:

God of our weary years, god of our silent tears, thou, who has brought us thus far along the way, thou, who has by thy might led us into the light, keep us forever in the path we pray, lest our feet stray from the places, our god, where we met thee, lest our hearts, drunk with the wine of the world, we forget thee.

Shadowed beneath thy hand, may we forever stand true to thee, oh God, and true to our native land.

We truly give thanks for the glorious experience we've shared this day.

We pray now, oh Lord, for your blessing upon thy servant Barack Obama, the 44th president of these United States, his family and his administration.

He has come to this high office at a low moment in the national, and indeed the global, fiscal climate. But because we know you got the whole world in your hands, we pray for not only our nation, but for the community of nations.

Our faith does not shrink though pressed by the flood of mortal ills.

For we know that, Lord, you are able and you're willing to work through faithful leadership to restore stability, mend our brokenness, heal our wounds, and deliver us from the exploitation of the poor, of the least of these, and from favoritism toward the rich, the elite of these.

We thank you for the empowering of thy servant, our 44th president, to inspire our nation to believe that yes we can work together to achieve a more perfect union.

And while we have sown the seeds of greed -- the wind of greed and corruption, and even as we reap the whirlwind of social and economic disruption, we seek forgiveness and we come in a spirit of unity and solidarity to commit our support to our president by our willingness to make sacrifices, to respect your creation, to turn to each other and not on each other.

And now, Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance.

And as we leave this mountain top, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family. Let us take that power back to our homes, our workplaces, our churches, our temples, our mosques, or wherever we seek your will.

Bless President Barack, First Lady Michelle. Look over our little angelic Sasha and Malia.

We go now to walk together as children, pledging that we won't get weary in the difficult days ahead. We know you will not leave us alone.

With your hands of power and your heart of love, help us then, now, Lord, to work for that day when nations shall not lift up sword against nation, when tanks will be beaten into tractors, when every man and every woman shall sit under his or her own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid, when justice will roll down like waters and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around . . .

(LAUGHTER)

. . . when yellow will be mellow . . .

(LAUGHTER)

LOWERY: . . . when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.

AUDIENCE: Amen.

LOWERY: Say Amen.

AUDIENCE: Amen.

LOWERY: And Amen.

AUDIENCE: Amen.

It should come as no surprise that the oh-so-sensitive righties found even the gentle criticism of the last line offensive. Normally, that reactionary rhetoric would demand a response - but part of the reason this day has come to pass is because that rhetoric no longer has the power it once did. And Amen to that.

McCain shocked that working to unbridle greed leads to unbridled greed.

2008-09-17T17:43:00.008-05:00

His malleable image notwithstanding, McCain is a conservative. If nothing else, being a conservative requires that a person take a machete and a torch to even the most sensible constraint on greed, and McCain has slashed and burned with a zeal that, were it religion or cronyism, might make even his Vice-Presidential candidate blush.

As Mother Jones shows, until yesterday, McCain had billed himself as "the greatest deregulator" of our age:

Here's McCain speaking to the Wall Street Journal in May 2007:

"You are interviewing the greatest free trader you will ever interview, and the greatest deregulator you will ever interview."

Here's McCain addressing the housing crisis in March 2008:

"Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital."

And here he is speaking again to the Wall Street Journal, apparently a receptive audience for regulation-bashing, in March 2008:

"I'm always for less regulation. But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. I think we found this in the subprime lending crisis -- that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight.

"As far as a need for additional regulations are concerned, I think that depends on the legislative agenda and what the Congress does to some degree, but I am a fundamentally a deregulator. I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated, not just a moratorium."

Effectively, until yesterday, John McCain's problem with Wall Street greed was that it wasn't "unbridled" enough.

So I suppose it is no surprise that McCain's proposed solution is the one that a politician proposes when they don't want a solution - a commission. And as Blog for Democracy notes, I doubt a President McCain will care any more about the conclusions of that commission than Senator McCain cared about the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission - he couldn't be bothered to vote on the latter, and as president, wouldn't be bothered to act on the former.

Indeed, per Newsweek, McCain believes that this crisis demands nothing more than soaring rhetoric:

The problem is that because this is such a new posture for McCain, he's yet to back it up with much in the way of specifics. Delivered Tuesday in Tampa, his speech on "reforming our financial markets" devoted only three of its nine paragraphs to actual reforms--and even then, McCain spoke in the broadest possible terms. . . . Meanwhile, unlike Obama, McCain has not posted any additional information on his website; the senator's economic plan doesn't even mention market reform. "I don't think it's, at this moment, imperative to write down exactly what the plan has to be," Douglas Holtz Eakin, McCain's top economic adviser, said yesterday. "[It's just] some standards we just have to aim for and we just haven't met." In other words, McCain doesn't need any actual policy prescriptions. Framing himself as a vigorous, trustbusting man of action--Theodore S. McCain, perhaps--should be enough.

It's as if, in his effort to become the older, whiter Barack Obama, McCain has become the very candidate his campaign has accused Barack Obama of being: all rhetoric, no reform.

How much money did the fundamentally strong economy cost you yesterday?

2008-09-16T21:33:00.005-05:00

Presuming that you still have a job and a retirement fund. I suppose I should count myself lucky.

Let's all watch the sketch Carly Fiorina thinks is sexist.

2008-09-15T17:04:00.007-05:00

Says Fiorina, "The portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin. And so in that sense they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive and Sarah Palin as totally superficial. I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme and yes I would say sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views from Hillary Clinton does mean that she lacks substance."

Indeed, Sarah Palin's views show she's from the far-right. Her lack of substance is why this line is so funny:

"CLINTON": I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy.

"PALIN": And I can see Russia from my house!

Sarah Palin says she thought it was dandy, although the press who accompanied her heard no laughter from her or her entourage. To be fair, they might not have heard it over their own. In any case, if I were her, I think I at least would have objected to my hometown being called "Alaska's Crystal Meth Capitol." No need to blame Wasilla specifically when it's the Matanuska-Susitna area generally.

More than one-third of seniors are online; McCain isn't one of them.

2008-09-12T22:43:00.008-05:00

So, now is the time when we bloggers worry that Barack Obama's "Still" is offensive to seniors, because it dares mock John McCain for being too damn lazy to send an email:

As I note in the title, one-third of seniors are online, among them my aunt, who recently went online: she wanted to send email to her grandchildren. She's John McCain's age, but she has none of his advantages. She never attended college and she never married wealth. Her children bought her the computer, and she learned to use it. Now, she's more technologically savvy than John McCain.

Like my aunt, my uncle, her younger brother, never went to college and he never married wealth. He'd like to join her online, so he can send her and my mother email, but he doesn't feel he can - not because he's worried that he won't be able to learn how, but because he's worried he can't afford the cost.

Shockingly enough, Abe Simpson is not an accurate reflection of most seniors.

Those bloggers worried that Barack Obama's "Still" might offend seniors have a cartoonish view of them. They aren't Abe Simpson. Like everyone else, they want to communicate with their family and friends, and they use the internet - or want to use the internet - to do so.

Except John McCain. So the question is, why doesn't John McCain, a person with every advantage, make use of the internet to enrich his life, if not to render himself fit for office? Why doesn't he want to send email to his children and grandchildren, like my aunt?

If I had to guess, I'd say he doesn't make use of the internet because of those very advantages. George Bush employs an aide to download music for him - why should he learn how to do it himself? McCain is no different. Why should he learn how to send email? He can pay someone to do that.

John McCain has lived in a bubble for so long, even common technologies are alien to him. Worse, rather than break out of that bubble, he brags about his ignorance.

And that really is offensive.

She made the victim pay, but she's Sarah Palin, so it's okay.

2008-09-11T20:41:00.009-05:00

Is it sexist to claim that Sarah Palin supported charging rape victims for the cost of evidence collection? Not yet, but if these are the best talking points that the Republican Party can manufacture to defend Sarah Palin, they may revert back to that excuse.

Excuse 1: She made the victim pay, but she didn't want the victim to pay, so it's okay.

The Police Chief of Wasilla who oversaw this policy may have been wrong to argue that the government should not cover the cost of the tests, but note that he did not want the victim to pay; he wanted to charge the perpetrators the cost.

Note: Before you can charge the rapist for the evidence collection, you must sentence the rapist for the crime, which means you must convict the rapist of the crime, which is made more difficult if the victim can't afford to pay the police to collect the evidence of the crime.

Excuse 2: She made the victim pay, but there weren't that many victims, so it's okay.

An aide to a Democratic state legislator tells USA Today that women in Wasilla did pay out of pocket for their rape kits. According to available FBI statistics, there were five rapes in Wasilla during the three years that they have online records for. The newspaper does the town a disservice by citing the statewide numbers and saying the state has the highest rate of rapes per person.

Excuse 3: She made the victim pay, but so did other mayors, so it's okay.

Starting next year, federal law will ban the practice of refusing "to cover the estimated $800 cost of a forensic rape exam unless the victim files a police report." That is the policy in "many" jurisdictions, according to the AP.

Note: Sarah Palin's opponent, Joe Biden, is responsible for the federal law that would ban her practice of charging rape victims.

Excuse 4: She made the victim pay, but she didn't know she made the victim pay, so it's okay.

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella told USA Today in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." Her critics can legitimately ask why, as mayor, she didn’t overrule her police chief. But they cannot charge that she supported the policy. In fact, there is not yet any evidence that Palin was aware of this policy.

I can only assume the next excuse will involve Sarah Palin's evil twin, the one really responsible for every policy that Sarah Palin supported but didn't know she supported, or for every policy she now opposes but said she supported.

Media: "We're Not Sexist, Bitch."

2008-06-13T10:13:00.004-05:00

Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a “Media Hall of Shame,” starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton’s rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter.

But many in the news media — with a few exceptions, including Katie Couric, the anchor of the "CBS Evening News" — see little need for reconsidering their coverage or changing their approach going forward. Rather, they say, as the Clinton campaign fell behind, it exploited a few glaring examples of sexist coverage to whip up a backlash and to try to create momentum for Mrs. Clinton.

. . . Keith Olbermann, the host of "Countdown" on MSNBC, said that while there were "individual, sexist, mistakes," there was no overall sexism.

Any suggestion that MSNBC "was somehow out to 'get' Senator Clinton is false and unfair," Mr. Olbermann wrote in an e-mail message. "We became a whipping boy."

The photo that accompanies the article:

Clever.

Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson vote against equal pay.

2008-04-23T20:07:00.004-05:00

Shocking, I know.

In spite of the fact that John McCain has won the Republican nomination and thus should have some time in his schedule to do his job as Senator, he failed to vote. However, per Daily Kos, he did say that had he bothered to show up for work, he would have voted against equal pay, too:

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

Much like his mentor, Barry Goldwater, John McCain supports equality in principle, but not in practice. In practice, he supports whatever form discrimination is profitable to the "private enterprise system," which is pretty much every kind.

And the same is true of Senior Senator Saxby and Junior Senator Johnny: when asked to choose between profit for their donors and equal rights for women, unsurprisingly, they chose their donors.

Which is why, and you should have known this was coming, it is all the more important to boot Saxby in November - so that the women of Georgia will have a Senator who will fight for equal pay, not a Senator who will fight against it.

That sound you heard was a collective sigh of relief.

2008-03-20T18:42:00.004-05:00

Jim Martin, the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor in 2006, is running to become the Democratic nominee for Senate. He would be a nominee, and a Senator, of whom every Georgian could be proud.

His announcement, from Political Insider:

"Today, on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, it's clear that the current administration is on the wrong track. We need a Senator in Washington who answers to Georgians and not to George Bush and Dick Cheney 92 percent of the time," Martin said in a press release e-mailed at noon.

"Senator Chambliss's uncritical advocacy of the Iraq war has been matched only by his disregard for the soldiers fighting it and their families. I believe we should respect our troops by using them more effectively and taking better care of them when they come home," Martin said.

Chambliss owes his current job to his willingness to follow Bush. Bush and his cronies led him to attack Max Cleland in the most abominable way, and attack him Chambliss did, with great cheer; at the time, it was a shock, but now, I understand that it must have been a great relief to surrender responsibility for his own troublesome conscience to Karl Rove.

With Bush's term at an end, I've wondered what Senators like Saxby will do without his guidance. Here, I think his reversal on immigration policy is instructive: first, he followed the Chamber of Commerce; then, when their policy proved unpopular, he followed the anti-immigrant right. Saxby isn't so much a Senator as he is a weather vane.

From what I've seen, that cannot be said of Jim Martin. Compare Saxby's contortions on immigration to Jim's stand on health care:

MARTIN: I remember the back brace, the wheelchair, and the isolation of having polio. I also remember the love of my family, our church, and all the people who helped me recover. I was blessed to get my health back, but I never forgot what it feels like to need a little help.

I'm Jim Martin. As Lieutenant Governor, I'll put my Georgia health plan in place to bring down health care costs for seniors, children, and families - because I know the difference a little help can make.

This, to me, speaks to fundamental values - values that Saxby, at best, doesn't share, and at worst, doesn't have.

I will vote for Obama, because he has money.

2007-09-28T23:36:00.000-05:00

After Edwards released his health coverage plan, and after it was roundly praised, the heat was on the other campaigns to provide their own. It was a challenge, and Barack Obama responded to that challenge with his own health coverage plan.

He did, and it wasn't bad - but it wasn't as good as Edwards'; it did not require that everyone buy in, and thus share the cost of health care for all, and it did not permit everyone to choose a public alternative. Obama had an opportunity to shine, and instead, he played it safe and fell short.

But I'll vote for Obama, because he has money.

Similarly, Edwards has never raised money from Washington lobbyists or from political action committees. In 1998, from the moment he entered the race against Lauch Faircloth, that was his promise, and he has never broken it - even when Lauch Faircloth outspent by him by $2.6 million.

In contrast, Hillary has taken no such stand. She's happy to take money from both, even when, as in 2006, she outspent her Republican rival by $35.2 million. She says that there are good lobbyists for good causes, and there are, but I don't think she cares that a system where the influence you have is determined by the number of lobbyists you buy is fundamentally anti-democratic.

But I'll vote for Hillary, because she has money.

Have I convinced you to do the same? No? Well, it hasn't been very convincing to me, either. Which is why I'll still be voting for Edwards.

Money is important. But it is not more important than the candidate. A good candidate is invaluable. And a turd is a turd, even if the turd can spend more than $50 million for a good shine.

-----

Now, I think that $50 million and John Edwards will get you a presidency and some change. But there are those who don't, and they want you to be afraid: "If you vote for John Edwards," they threaten, "and if he wins the primary, the Republican will win."

I say that if John Edwards defeats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, defeats their money, their connections, their compromise and their consensus, then he'll demolish the Republican in the general.

But more than that, I say what I've heard supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say in the past, and rightly so: "Vote your hopes, not your fears."

America has voted for fear too often, and that is especially true in the past three elections: fear the terrorist, fear the queer, fear the immigrant. But most of all, be afraid. Because if you are afraid, you will do as you are told.

In this primary, at least, I think it's time to stop being afraid, to stop doing what you're told, and to vote for the candidate you want to win.

For me, that's John Edwards. And if you feel the same, I've got a link for you:

$250 will get you $500

And John Edwards will get you the presidency.

In Florida, anyone can force you to cast a provisional ballot.

2007-09-27T20:18:00.000-05:00

From Political Wire, I see that Republicans remain their usual, shameless selves.

On voter ID:

Over the past three years, the Republican-controlled state legislatures in Indiana, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have passed laws requiring every voter to produce a photo identification card -- measures that civil rights groups contend were aimed at suppressing minority voting.

On caging:

In the past, Ohio voters were entitled to an official notice and a hearing before an election board could declare them ineligible, but the new law says the board can make that decision without notice. A disqualified voter who shows up at the polls must demonstrate that he's fixed any eligibility problem or opt for filing a provisional ballot that may not count.

On challenges:

A 2005 Florida law, approved by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act, stripped the state's 10.5 million registered voters of the right to contest challenges at the polls. Now a challenger need only swear to a "good faith belief" that a voter is ineligible to force the voter to file a provisional ballot.

Imagine - you could show up at the polls, and a perfect stranger could, on the basis of no more than a "good faith belief," force you to cast a provisional ballot.

Is it the transpeople who David Scott can't fully support?

2007-09-27T00:42:00.000-05:00

No, David Scott still hasn't cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and perhaps this is why. From Pam's House Blend:

Who knew that Lou Sheldon's hysterical propaganda about "she-males" and bathrooms would cause Dems to start quivering over support for the trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The Washington Blade has been looking into the goings-on behind the scenes on the Hill as prospects for the bill's passage are being weighed.

"House Democratic leaders are strongly considering dropping anti-discrimination protections for transgender persons from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, after an internal Democratic head count on Wednesday found that the bill would likely be defeated if it included the trans provision, multiple sources familiar with the bill said.

"As of late Wednesday, it appeared likely that the trans provision would be removed, setting up a potentially divisive fight within gay activist circles over whether or not to support an ENDA bill that excludes trans people.

"The leader of one of the nation’s most prominent transgender rights groups expressed strong skepticism over reports that support for the transgender provision was eroding.

"'I do think we have the votes to pass this bill,' said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Rights. 'We’re getting down to the wire, and whenever you get close to a vote on an important bill like this, some people always get worried.'"

The word is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is worried about how debate over gender identity would play on the floor. What kind of nonsense is this? Of course it is going to be contentious.

You know, I kinda wondered if this weren't the reason that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has fewer cosponsors in the 110th than it had in the 108th Congress: members of Congress - like David Scott - are "uncomfortable" with transpeople.

Which is to say, while our MCs may dislike discrimination against gay people, they don't dislike it quite enough to give up their right to discriminate against transpeople. Such wonderful character, our Congress.

Now, I know that David Scott will probably vote for this bill, with or without the transgender provision - he's said he would. But it's his weak response to the bill - as evidenced by his failure to cosponsor - that makes it easier for Democrats like, oh, say, Sanford Bishop and John Barrow, to remain silent or oppose it outright. Erstwhile liberals like David Scott lower the bar for decent behavior, allowing the still more erst to hop right over.

I'd at least like to see them climb and scrape a bit.

If you feel the same, especially if you are a constituent, give him a call:

JONESBORO DISTRICT OFFICE
173 North Main Street
Jonesboro, GA 30236
ph: (770) 210 - 5073
fax: (770) 210- 5673

SMYRNA DISTRICT OFFICE
888 Concord Road, Suite 100
Smyrna, GA 30080
ph: (770) 432 -5405
fax: (770) 432 - 5813

All I want to see is his name on a list like this, rather than see it pop up again on a list like this.

Jim Marshall: The immigrants made me vote against SCHIP.

2007-09-26T22:17:00.000-05:00

From Political Insider, Marshall's excuse for voting against health care for poor sick children:

Marshall was the only Democrat who didn’t vote for the bill that passed Tuesday with a less-than-veto-proof margin. We’re told that Marshall had several problems with the measure: the size and instability of the tobacco tax increase; the lack of a standard applications for every state; and a lax identification process that Marshall — like Republican Nathan Deal — said would make the program easy for illegal immigrants to abuse.

Aside for the expected anti-immigrant excuse, there is still more idiocy in that statement: not only did he vote against health care for poor sick children, he voted against it because there wasn't enough red tape and because the red tape was not standardized! Oh, Jim. I love a good initialized and numbered form as much as the next person, but I think I could sacrifice it if it meant health care for poor sick children.

That said, I do admire his refusal to repeat the other Republican talking point, which goes a little like this: "SCHIP is a good program that has protected the health of many very poor children, which is why it would be a disaster to expand it to protect the health of children who are slightly less poor." To wit, Lynn Westmoreland: "They are drastically expanding a well-run and popular program for the neediest Americans into HillaryCare for Kids."

Less inept is Phil Gingrey, who would have a good point if what he said were true: "Rather it diverts precious resources from those who need it the most in order to cover adults and already privately insured children." But that's a lie:

But [Bush's] rationale is all wrong, according to a study by the Urban Institute (UI). The reality is that nearly three-quarters of SCHIP users (72 percent) were not covered by private insurance six months before they enrolled in the program, according to the study.

Another 14 percent lost coverage in the six months before they enrolled in SCHIP due to a lost job, an employer dropping coverage or a change in family structure such as divorce, separation or death of the covered spouse.

This leaves only 14 percent of SCHIP participants who substituted the public program for private coverage.The study points out that more than half of those people (8 percent) said they could not afford private coverage.

As many as 5 million uninsured children would be covered under the SCHIP reauthorization Bush is threatening to veto, according to another study by Families USA.

That Phil Gingrey. I had let the disco moustache fool me, but I've come to believe that he's far more slick than most Georgia Republicans. Isn't saying much, but a man who can lie like that, he has a bright future in Republican politics.

On the bright side, Jim Marshall has a promising future as a lobbyist.

2007-09-25T22:59:00.000-05:00

There is little that I can say about Jim Marshall's vote against health care for poor, sick children that hasn't been said here or here.

I have no idea what Jim Marshall's excuse is this time. Last time, it was because the bill wasn't sufficiently anti-immigrant. This time, maybe he'll pretend, as the Republicans who hope to unseat him do, that this bill is too generous to poor, sick children.

The upshot: Jim Marshall has shed whatever vestigal gonads he may have had when he went to Washington, and is now largely indistinguishable from whichever Malibu Stacy Republican is seeking to replace him next year. It's a shame, because before he went fetal on us, he seemed like a decent enough member of Congress.

You have a right to as many lobbyists as you can afford.

2007-09-19T19:58:00.000-05:00

Shorter Blog for Democracy.

Me, I don't think it's a good principle. It's certainly not a progressive one. But it seems to be the favored one of Clinton's defenders - or John Edwards' attackers, at least.

As for Clinton herself, I'll quote Trippi:

If you want to know why we need change in Washington – and I mean real change, not just trading corporate Republican insiders with corporate Democratic insiders – then just look at Senator Clinton's schedule for today.

Today at noon, Hillary Clinton will be hosting a fundraiser in Washington, DC for a select group of lobbyists with an interest in homeland security.

Tickets for the Clinton fundraiser are $1,000 a ticket and $25,000 per bundler. And for that money you get more than a meal – you get to attend one-hour breakout sessions in four different areas of homeland security that will include House Committee Chairs and members of Congress who sit on the very committees that will be voting on homeland security legislation.

The American people know that the system in Washington has become corroded and corrupt – that the nation's capital is awash in campaign money from lobbyists seeking to gain influence to impact legislation.

The more I think about it, the more I hate it. These lobbyists, the lobbyists who can afford "$1,000 a ticket and $25,000 per bundler," the lobbyists who represent the wealthy few, the lobbyists who demand more government money for the very rich, are the same as the part-time lobbyist hired by Georgia Equality to represent hundreds of thousands of gay Georgians before the state legislature, to beg for fundamental rights?

The comparison is so outrageous that to call it false would be an understatement. To call it bullshit would be insufficient. Really, it demands words so strong, they have yet to be coined.

But back to Clinton. The word for her is brazen. Other than her most dedicated and double-joined defenders, no one agrees with her support for this corrupt system. It's even less popular in the primary. Yet she continues to embrace these lobbyists.

If she's this chummy now, how chummy will she be if the primary is over, if the general is over, and if she is president? Now is when she is most beholden to Democratic voters, and she does this. If she becomes president, she will only be worse.

It's like I've said. If you like this system, where if you want to have a say, you have to hire a lobbyist, then you should vote Hillary: she and her supporters will do their best to ensure it continues. Even now, you can see their dedication to this system in their tortured defenses of it.

But if you don't like that system, if you don't want to hire a lobbyist, if you can't afford to hire a lobbyist, if you think that your president should be your advocate, then vote against Hillary, and vote for another candidate, one who will represent you.

One like John Edwards.

David Scott won't cosponsor ENDA, but he will cosponsor this.

2007-09-13T23:19:00.000-05:00

Selections from the bills that David Scott will cosponsor, to give an idea of what's more important to him than cosponsorship of ENDA and ending discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. He cosponsors bills:

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for qualified timber gains.

To amend title 40, United States Code, to require restroom gender parity in Federal buildings.

To strengthen the national security through the expansion and improvement of foreign language study, and for other purposes.

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of veterans who became disabled for life while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.

To redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.

To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide financial assistance for the construction, improvement, and rehabilitation of farmers markets.

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for small businesses, and for other purposes.

Now, let me say, I don't fault him for cosponsoring any of these; for the most part, they seem fine, and if Congress were to pass any or all of them, I'd be fine with that. But the fact that David Scott is more willing to cosponsor bills that would "allow a deduction for qualified timber gains" and "require restroom gender parity in Federal buildings" than he is to cosponsor a bill that would finally put a well-deserved end to a pernicious form of legal discrimination - well, that's insulting.

But it's what one would expect from a Congressman who would be so petty as to vote to ban Washington, D. C. from using federal funds to implement a domestic partnership registry.

Why hasn't David Scott cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act?

2007-09-05T22:15:00.001-05:00

John Lewis and Hank Johnson have; why hasn't David Scott? Will his name once again grace the list of anti-gay Democratic politicians?

I know this doesn't get as much attention as cheating on your spouse

2007-09-05T00:15:00.000-05:00

But it's almost as bad:

Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), "a retired three-star Navy admiral, has fast developed a reputation for being a temperamental and demanding boss," with thirteen staffers having quit in his short time in Congress, The Hill reports.

Former aides explained that Sestak demands "militaristic toughness," expecting they work "seven days a week, including holidays, often 14 hours each day, going for months without a day off."

Question is, how dedicated can a member of Congress be to the rights of workers when he shows no compunction against treating his workers like this.

Republicans tolerate prostitution but hate gays.

2007-08-30T22:14:00.001-05:00

So says every Republican who tolerates David Vitter's whoremongering but calls for Larry Craig to resign. There can be no other message.

This is not about sin, as Larry Craig no less betrayed his wife than David Vitter betrayed his, nor is it about crime, as Larry Craig's tryst is no less a crime than David Vitter's whoremongering. This is about sexuality. David Vitter had sex with a woman, so no matter how evil he is otherwise, he may remain a Senator. But Larry Craig had sex with a man, so he must resign.

To me, that idea is easily more vile than anything Craig or Vitter has done, and the Republicans who spead it - like Norm Coleman, John McCain, Peter Hoekstra, Mark Souder, Jeff Miller, Ginny Brown-Waite, Bobby Jindal, and Ron Lewis - should be held accountable for it.

Not that I expect they will. Even the few supporters who might be disgusted by their tolerance of prostitution and hatred of gays are no doubt even more terrified that they might have to pay the estate tax. Heaven forfend!

The two-party system doesn't serve Sam Nunn very well.

2007-08-20T20:57:00.001-05:00

The rest of us would do better by it than we would do with an independent candidacy by Sam Nunn. From the AJC:

In an hourlong interview, in his small office on Marietta Street on the edge of the Georgia Tech campus, Nunn acknowledged that he — like former Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich — is considering a run for the White House next year.

But unlike Gingrich, Nunn would run outside the traditional two-party structure.

"It's a possibility, not a probability," said Nunn, now the head of a nonprofit organization out to reduce the threat posed by nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry. "My own thinking is, it may be a time for the country to say, 'Timeout. The two-party system has served us well, historically, but it's not serving us now.'"

For the moment, forget his hatred of gays, and the fact that he used his position as chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee to ensure another decade of discrimination against gay people in the armed forces, a stance that was evil and foolish at time and laughable now.

Instead, consider his critique of the "two-party system." Apparently, it's "not serving us" because there isn't sufficient debate over the wisdom of the Iraq war. Oh, and because "Those most concerned with global warming won't consider nuclear energy as an alternative."

What bullshit.

I have no idea what debates that Sam Nunn has been watching, but they haven't been the Democratic ones, where everyone shares his view that the Iraq war has been "a fiasco." However, unlike Sam Nunn, who has been silent until very recently, those at the Democratic debates have been outspoken on the issue for some time.

On nuclear energy, there is less consensus, but again, I wouldn't say that the candidates "won't consider nuclear energy":

Edwards: "Wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels are the way we need to go. I do not favor nuclear power. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades in this country. There is a reason for that. The reason is it is extremely costly. It takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned, developed and built. And we still don't have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. It is a huge problem for America over the long term."

Clinton: "I'm agnostic about nuclear power. John is right, that until we figure out what we're going to do with the waste and the cost, it's very hard to see nuclear as a part of our future. But that's where American technology comes in. Let's figure out what we're going to do about the waste and the cost if we think nuclear should be a part of the solution."

Obama: "I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. There are no silver bullets to this issue. We have to develop solar. I have proposed drastically increasing fuel efficiency standards on cars, an aggressive cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted."

So there you have it: while Edwards does "not favor" nuclear energy, Clinton is "agnostic" and Obama thinks "that we should explore" it.

Sam Nunn's critique of the two party system is the same dishonest, recycled critique offered by the gasbags and airheads who support Unity '08 in their editorials - it compares the powerful mainstream of the Republican party with the powerless fringe of the Democratic Party, then presents itself as the sensible alternative.

In reality, we call that sensible alternative the mainstream Democratic Party.

The real issue for the the gasbags and the airheads and Sam Nunn isn't that there is no sensible alternative, it's that the sensible alternative has the audacity to consider other issues, to set different priorities, and in general, to respond to constituencies other than the aging, educated, professional, white, heterosexual men who populate the Unity '08 crowd. Their cry for a sensible alternative is nothing more than a childish demand that the sensible alternative listen to them and them alone.

At 70, Sam Nunn and his friends on the opinion pages have yet to learn how to play well with others. They need to learn that their issues are not the only issues, that their priorities are not the only priorities, that their way is not the only way, and that they won't always get exactly what they want.

In short, they need to grow the fuck up.

Kathy Cox: Gay-straight alliances, bad; candidates in drag, good!

2007-08-18T11:34:00.000-05:00

From Political Insider:

The Rudy Giuliani campaign for president let slip this morning that it had pocketed the endorsement of Kathy Cox, the two-term Republican state school superintendent.

Maybe Rudy got permission from his parents to wear those dresses.

I hope that our Voter ID law will enforced as strictly as our ethics laws.

2007-08-10T21:24:00.000-05:00

For the sake of our voters, if not our legislators:

Sen. Don Balfour (R-Snellville), chairman of the powerful Rules Committee and one of his chamber's top money-raisers, has been late filing 34 times since 1998, which is how far back Ethics Commission records go. . . .

Balfour has paid more than $1,700 in late fees since 1998. In at least one case, his disclosure was nearly two years late.

Balfour, who was first elected to the Senate in 1992, is one of the chamber's top money-raisers. He reported taking in more than $400,000 in the most recent election cycle, which ended last year. And he raised $196,000 from January through June 30 of this year.

The senator has filed his reports on time since late last year, and he said he has been late at times because he wanted to make sure he gave the state the correct information.

"I didn't forget [to file]," he said. "I am sitting here trying to get it right."

He also noted that he had no opposition for re-election last year.

"If I don't have an opponent, who cares if it is a week late?" Balfour said.

Hey, Senator Balfour? I care if you break the law.

It's galling. Even as Republicans deprive Georgians of their right to vote if they fail to cut through ridiculous Republican regulatory red tape, they themselves cannot be bothered to file their campaign finance reports on time, and worse, say "who cares?" if they don't.

Good cop, stupid cop.

2007-08-08T21:14:00.000-05:00

If there's a bandwagon, I jump on it.

So, Sonny has a plan to provide subsidized health insurance to employees of small businesses. At Tondee's Tavern, they say, "a step in the right direction," and at Georgia Women Vote, they say, "at least he's talking about doing something."

I'm not optimistic.

I know nothing about health care policy, so take this prediction with a big heaping bowl of salt: it will result in less coverage, and fewer covered, at a higher cost to the state. The state will subsidize those small businesses that currently provide health insurance; of the small businesses that don't provide health insurance, the ones with older workers - well aware of their mortality - will join, and the ones with younger ones - invincible, you know - will not. Those older, less healthy workers will be able to choose between minimal plans (for the more healthy) and comprehensive ones (for the less healthy). Overall, seems like a chance for a lot of adverse selection.

But like I said, big heaping bowl of salt. This may work well, or better yet, it may provide an opportunity for the Democratic Party to offer an even better alternative.

From the reporting, however, I'm not optimistic about that, either. It's more "good cop, stupid cop," with our ambitious executives, Sonny and Casey, playing good cop, while our career legislators, namely Earl, play stupid cop:

State House Rules Chairman Earl Ehrhart (R-Powder Springs) called the plan an "entitlement" that would increase in cost each year. The House leader said the state should instead take some of its surplus and provide tax incentives to help Georgians buy their own health coverage.

"Instead of making it an entitlement, let's make it an incentive," he said.

Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, the Senate's president, was more supportive.

"It certainly addresses the issue of uninsured Georgians and will incentivize our small business owners to partner with their employees and the state to provide health care coverage," Cagle said. "I commend the governor for taking on such a challenging issue."

Perdue disputed the claim that the program will turn into a state-sponsored entitlement program for small-business employees. Instead, he said, it would make it easier for Georgians to buy private insurance and cost taxpayers less than they pay now to cover the costs of the uninsured who seek care in emergency rooms.

As fun as it is to call Earl Ehrhart stupid cop, I find it difficult to believe that he'd be opposed to a plan that looks like it's been blessed by The Heritage Foundation. I suppose he might have gone that far right, but I also wonder if this isn't a bit of political theater, designed to establish the sides of the debate: conservative and more conservative, with nothing less conservative, let alone liberal, in sight.

And from the article linked, it looks like it's working: not a Democrat mentioned.

But regulating lobbyists is like regulating love!

2007-08-07T06:52:00.000-05:00

No, really:

H. Stewart Van Scoyoc, founder of one of the biggest lobbying firms in Washington, spent an anxious morning with his lawyer last week assessing the far-reaching ethics and lobbying rules Congress had passed the day before.

The first worry was what lobbyists are calling the new “temptation rules.” Not only do they bar lawmakers and aides from accepting any gifts, meals or trips from lobbyists, they also impose penalties up to $200,000 and five years in prison on any lobbyist who provides such freebies.

And worse still for Mr. Van Scoyoc, under the new law he is required to certify each quarter that none of the 50 lobbyists in his firm bought so much as a burger or cigar for someone on a lawmaker’s staff.

“You are basically asking people to certify, with big penalties, that nobody has lied on their expense accounts,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said, marveling at the complexity of policing such casual contact between lobbyists and Congressional aides. “These are people who are sharing apartments together, playing on the same softball teams, dating each other - young people with active social lives.”

Every time I feel even the slightest bit of concern for the poor, poor lobbyists, I'll think of this, and know that it's these assholes who Hillary et. al. defend.

Jim Marshall joins Georgia Republicans, votes against healthy children.

2007-08-02T22:43:00.000-05:00

Jim Marshall tells his constituents to look elsewhere for a reason to vote to re-elect him, because healthy children ain't it - at least not yet:

Months after Georgia ran short of money for PeachCare children's health insurance, Republicans in the state's congressional delegation are opposing efforts to expand its parent program in Washington.

Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson said Thursday they will vote against legislation to increase federal spending for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which is aimed at children of the working poor. The Senate measure, which appears to have broad bipartisan support and has won praise from nearly all the nation's governors, could come up for a vote Thursday.

In the House, all seven of the state's Republican members voted Wednesday night against a broader expansion that drew nearly unanimous GOP opposition. Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Macon, was the lone Georgia Democrat to join them.

And it gets better:

Marshall - who was one of just 10 Democrats to vote against the bill - said through a spokesman that he supports the expansion but had concerns with parts of the House bill, particularly language giving states more flexibility in documenting the citizenship of applicants. Marshall hopes to support the final package after the House and Senate versions are combined in conference, his spokesman said.

So, he'll vote for the final bill, but wanted to use this vote to pander to nativists. Bravo, Jim. Hope that political hopscotch works as well for you in hell.

Elsewhere, Junior Senator Johnny and Senior Senator Saxby, who have either married or fused into a sort of Senatorial Voltron, so often are their views referenced without any distinction between the two, claim that "There's not a person on the Senate floor who isn't for children's health insurance," even as they vote against . . . children's health insurance.

The delusional duo believe that this bill is too generous with sick children. I have no idea how this is possible - maybe there's a provision that allows the children to watch Blue's Clues throughout their hospital stay, or promises ice cream following tonsillectomy, or something - but in any case, I doubt anyone could look at the state of health care in this country and claim that it is "too generous" with anyone, let alone sick children.

Abusers, take note: beat an immigrant woman, the police arrest her, not you!

2007-08-02T22:02:00.000-05:00

More consequences of nativist control of government:

When Emelina Ramirez's roommates attacked her, punching and kicking her in the stomach, she called the police for help. The police handcuffed her, took her to jail, and ran her fingerprints through a federal database. She is now in an Alabama cell awaiting deportation.

In the last month, Ramirez's story has spread beyond the Hispanic community in Carrollton, the small rural town west of Atlanta where she lived, and across Georgia, which has just enacted one of the nation's harshest laws against illegal immigration. It is a story that, for many undocumented immigrants, has one moral: Do not trust the police.

From Pandagon.

Of course, I'm sure that the "leading" Democratic candidates for Senate - Dale Cardwell and Vernon Jones, both virulently anti-immigrant in their rhetoric - would approve of this.

Paul Broun shames John Barrow, John Barrow shames Georgia.

2007-07-28T00:28:00.000-05:00

Speaking of placing one's morals ahead of others' lives.

Having voted for my share of less-stupid Republicans out of fear of the election of more-stupid Republicans, only to see those less-stupid Republicans elected to even higher office on the strength of a victory won with my vote - I'm thinking of Jim DeMint specifically, although I doubt he's the only one - I viewed the victory, won with the votes of Athens Democrats, of Paul Broun over Jim Whitehead with ambivalence. Paul Broun may not have been the favored son of the Georgia Republican Party, after all, but he was still a Georgia Republican.

But this, from Political Insider, gives me some cause for hope:

In one of his first votes as a congressman, Athens physician Paul Broun has given fulsome indication that he doesn’t intend to run with the Republican herd.

As midnight approached on Wednesday, hours after he was sworn in, Broun declared himself in favor of a measure sponsored by U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) to bar the U.S. Department of Justice from prosecuting those who use medical marijuana for medicinal purposes.

In doing so, Broun bucked his House Republican leadership and split with all six of Georgia's other Republican congressmen.

"To me, it was a state's rights vote, and a constitutional powers issue," Broun said early this morning.

Democrat John Barrow also opposed the measure. Democrat Jim Marshall did not vote. Democrats John Lewis, Hank Johnson, Sanford Bishop, and David Scott voted yes.

I'll whatever his federalist excuse, since I doubt it's any more sincere than that of any other Republican. But the right vote is the right vote, so bravo to Paul Broun and stopped clocks everywhere.

Otherwise, boo to John Barrow and Jim Marshall. If Paul Broun can find an excuse to vote for this, why can't they?

It's a pharmacy, not a church.

2007-07-27T23:12:00.000-05:00

From Broadsheet, I learn that Washington pharmacists are suing the state for their right to deny drugs of which they disapprove to patients of whom they disapprove:

Pharmacists have sued Washington state over a new regulation that requires them to sell emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill."

In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

"The stakes really couldn't be much higher," plaintiffs' attorney Kristen Waggoner said.

Yes, the stakes are high, and here they are: if a woman is prescribed emergency contraception because, for example, she's been raped, she should not be denied the prescription by a holier-than-thou pharmacist who didn't care enough about God to take vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, but does care enough to play the priest and condemn her to bear the child of her rapist, with all the mental, physical, social, and economic that promises, while the pharmacist continues on their merry way.

Unfortunately, while Washington has done right and told the part time priest pharmacist that they are no more entitled to deny a woman emergency contraception than a firefighter is allowed to ignore a burning abortion clinic, Georgia has done wrong, passing a "conscience" law and allowing the pharmacist at your local Target to minister from the counter, your life, health, and well-being - not to mention your mortal soul - be damned.

The fascist coup still happened, it just took sixty years longer than planned.

2007-07-27T02:10:00.001-05:00

From Towleroad, I see that Bush comes from a long line of men with poor time estimation skills. There but for the grace of Microsoft Project go I.

At some point, Cobb County will change its name to Stepford, and this will make perfect sense.

2007-07-27T01:16:00.001-05:00

Cobb County has not received enough attention lately, and has thus decided to become the latest county to tell nontraditional and working class families that they are not welcome within its borders. From Blog for Democracy, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:

The proposal would limit the number of people who can live in a home based on its size - one adult per 390 square feet.

. . . Other Georgia communities - particularly college towns where students irritate neighbors by shoehorning into homes - have similarly cracked down on crowding, according to the Association County Commissioners of Georgia.

. . . Under Cobb's proposal, a house must have at least 390 square feet of "total building square footage" for each adult resident and for each car parked overnight. It also would limit the people living in a home to one family or two or fewer unrelated adults and their children and/or grandchildren. Family is defined as parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers and sisters.

This is, of course, a manifestation of anti-immigrant hysteria, which would be bad enough. But like most efforts to punish the underclass, it will often miss its mark.

Most obvious, at least to me, is the fact that same-sex couples, unlike married, different-sex couples, are "unrelated adults" in the eyes of the law, and so face a greater burden under this law. Less obvious are cases like one in Athens-Clarke County, where a similar law forbade two single mothers and their children from living in the same home.

But Cobb County is not without compassion:

Officials say they could make exceptions. For example, if a family wanted to let its adult children live at home, it could apply for a land-use permit.

Truly, their cup runneth over: if your household fails to conform to the nuclear family fantasy, you can apply for a permit - a dispensation, if you will - so that your second-class family can remain in Cobb County.

It should be self-evident that this is wrong. Wrong because it does harm to good people, and wrong because it's the worst sort of government intrusion. Should be self-evident, but the popularity of laws to fight "overcrowding" - and I have to say, I had no idea that four people occupy less space when they're related - say it isn't.

Sam Nunn can stay where he is.

2007-07-27T00:19:00.000-05:00

Cracker Squire asks Where is Sam Nunn now that we really need him? This is not a question I ask myself. But apparently, I am in the minority, as Nunn nostalgia is everywhere. First, Cracker Squire:

Today Matt Towery reports in InsiderAdvantage Georgia that Nunn has been approached by several individuals about his interest as a candidate in a third-party effort in 'o8 as an independent.

Mr. Towery also writes:

"Of equal or greater importance is the additional report, confirmed by sources, that Nunn has been approached 'by one of the frontunners in the Democratic race for president' for 'preliminary discussions' concerning a potential vice presidential role in the event of the candidate's eventual nomination."

Next, Blog for Democracy notes that Unity '08, the party of the pundit, the word of Gasbag made flesh and come to save us from the sins of partisanship, has romanced him as well, to which they say

In a year when there's no shortage of great Democratic candidates for President, why not court Sam for Veep?

Why not indeed?

Well, maybe because he's a fucking homophobe, and not just any fucking homophobe, but the fucking homophobe who used his position as Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee to ensure that his bigotry remained military policy, in the face of Clinton's effort to end discrimination against gays in the military.

Maybe that?

Leave him for the airheads, the gasbags, and history.

As an aside, does it strike anyone as odd, at a time when America has shown itself quite willing to elect a woman or a person of color to the presidency, that Unity 08 would seek no one but white men to bear their standard? What sort of "unity" does this party stand for?

Annoy the media, vote Edwards.

2007-07-24T23:59:00.000-05:00

From John Edwards, to the petty, pampered, pathetic press:

As Tapped notes:

Watching the coverage of John Edwards has been pretty depressing lately. It's obvious that a significant proportion of the political press corps has decided they just don't like him, and they're going to do whatever they can to destroy his candidacy. The principal vehicle through which this destruction is currently taking place is the haircut story, the vivid, emblematic tale that is supposed to tell us all we need to know about what a big, fat phony Edwards is. They drop it into story after story, no matter what the context is about, just as a reminder.

And from John Edwards to you:

How do we bring about big change? And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is, do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington - big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies - they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power.

The only way that they're going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.

And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in courtrooms - and beating them.

You want real change, you need somebody who's taken these people on and beaten them over, and over, and over.

No offense to Hillary and Barack, who are fine, but I'm tired of begging for justice, and they're clearly not.

Why Mike Jacobs makes a good Republican.

2007-07-17T23:51:00.001-05:00

From Blue Heart of Dixie, I see that Mike Jacobs is fitting in well with the Republican Party.

Jason's recollection of Mike Jacobs' speech to the Young Republicans:

Mike then went on a love fest about tax reform. He believes property taxes are completely unfair and should be abolished. He wants to replace that with a sales tax that will tax just about everything we do in the course of a day. Says it would be revenue neutral. Wonder how neutral it will be when we have an economic downturn and people don't buy stuff? Ask TN how a sales-tax only has worked. They pay about 10% in sales tax there, and that's just the STATE tax. Local taxes can make it go up to 12%.

He also mentioned immigration and how illegals shouldn't consume government services, period. I would agree with that statement, but then he went on to talk about how we need to build a wall at our border. Like a wall worked so well in Berlin. And it's interesting how we only need a wall at Mexico, but not at Canada. Some guy piped up that we didn't need a wall, just more rifles at the border. I'm not for illegal immigration, but the notion of "hunting" Mexicans driven by desperation to try to enter the US illegally is chilling to me.

Mike also made a comment about Middle East security and Israel, and how quite frankly, the Democratic approach is dead wrong. All but called us anti-Israel. I personally took offense to that, along with the stated notion that to be pro-military is to be GOP. I daresay that Democrats care more about the troops and their wellbeing than any GOPer who looks at them as mere pawns in a hunt for terrorists. Not to mention the GOP which votes to cut the benefits and care for our soldiers.

Why Mike Makes A Good Republican, Number 1: Like every good Republican, Mike Jacobs is big on the war - not big enough to get his young and healthy self to Iraq to fight in it, but still, big enough to want to continue it indefinitely, presumably without Congressional oversight.

Why Mike Makes A Good Republican, Number 2: Like every good Republican, Mike Jacobs is big on the wall - you know, the wall that would cost billions, seal about a third of the border, and do nothing but embarrass the nation. But wait, there's more - he also wants to deny undocumented immigrants access to government services. At first, I was shocked by this - he'd want to deny access to public schools to children brought to the United States illegally by their parents? But then I remembered that Jacobs voted to boot even American children off PeachCare. If he'd deny healthcare to American children, he'd deny education to foreign children - easy!

Why Mike Makes A Good Republican, Number 3: Like every good Republican, Mike Jacobs is big on the shift and shaft. Yes, Mike believes that the mansions of the wealthy are taxed too heavily, and that we should subsidize lower taxes those mansions with higher taxes on our meals and medicines.

There you have it: the Republican trifecta. Love the war, hate the immigrant, hike the poor tax.

That said, I feel like I'd be remiss if I didn't note this. Says Jason:

I did raise my hand for a question, and Mike actually called on me. I asked him if was still pro-choice and pro-gay rights. I could tell the question angered him, because I pointing out an area that his new Republican friends would not likely appreciate....his socially liberal views. He tried to "politician" me by saying he's always said he supported individual rights, to which I replied, "But that doesn't answer..." and then he erupted. "YES! Alright? YES! The answer is YES." He lost his cool, and I had pointed out a difference that many of the GOP faithful would NOT approve of. My work was done.

That was when I was completely outed. I was asked to introduce myself and who I represented. I told them. "My name is Jason Cecil, and I am the President of the Young Democrats of Georgia." A murmur went through the room, and someone said, "That figures!" We somehow got onto a discussion of gay rights, and I was told there were many people in the room who were pro-gay rights, and I said, "Well, you should speak to Sadie Fields about that then." Snarky? Yes. But here was a group of Republicans seriously trying to tell me that pro-gay rights stands fit within the GOP philosophy when every bit of evidence suggests otherwise.

Why Mike Makes A Good "Moderate" Republican, Bonus: Like every good "Moderate" Republican, he might say he supports equality, but when asked to choose between equal rights for his neighbors and a tax cut for himself, he chooses the latter every time. Such is the nature of the "Moderate" Republican commitment to equality.

Curiouser and curiouser.

2007-07-10T21:08:00.000-05:00

The Georgia Supreme Court will hear Thurbert Baker's appeal in the Genarlow Wilson case next week, rather than this October.

Emanuel Jones wants to know how evidence in the case - the sex tape - came to be viewed by members of the state legislature and the press:

A letter that Jones delivered to Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker asks the state's top legal officer to issue an opinion on Douglas County District Attorney David McDade "distributing the videotape depicting sexual acts with a minor in the Genarlow Wilson case." The tape also shows Wilson having sex with another teenager. He was acquitted of rape charges in that incident.

"Although the tape was in evidence at trial, continued distribution of the tape should not be protected by the Open Records Act nor under the guise it was evidence at trial," the letter reads. "Georgia law has specific statutes which do not allow distribution of this type of material and I am also concerned that no efforts to cover the identity of either young woman involved was made by his office to the tape despite the women being minors."

Same-sex marriage is to blame for Republican Senator David Vitter's adultery.

2007-07-10T20:59:00.000-05:00

I don't know how, but I'm sure some enterprising conservative will soon explain how David Vitter, stalwart defender of marriage from gay interlopers and promoter of chastity to singles, failed so utterly to defend his own dear marriage and precious chastity against the comely lasses of the D. C. Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

I do know that in spite of his abject failure - or, as he calls it, "a very serious sin in my past" for which he has "received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling" - he and his wife still enjoy all the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage, which is more than one can say for any same-sex couple, thanks to assholes like him.

Also at Pandagon .

A tax on every bite.

2007-07-08T15:37:00.001-05:00

Glenn Richardson is a font of bad ideas, and from Tondee's Tavern, I learn of yet another:

Georgia House Speaker Glenn Richardson says eliminating property taxes will be his top legislative priority next year.

In Savannah on Friday to appear with Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, Richardson portrayed the idea as the leading edge of a new tax revolt.

"I believe we can put Georgia on the map," Richardson said. "It will be the biggest decision Georgia ever made, and the nation will follow. There is a rising call all over the country from people tired of property taxes."

To make up lost revenue, the Hiram Republican would increase the reach of the sales tax to include groceries and services - now exempt.

It's not a tax revolt, it's tax tyranny: the wealthiest Georgians, through the representatives they own, want to shift tax burden from their mansions to our meals.

It's another shift and shaft, and it's the only sort of tax "reform" that Republicans understand - the kind that lowers their taxes, and taxes on their contributors.

While rich Republican representative Thomas Ravenel lounges in an Arizona spa, his co-defendant languishes in prison.

2007-07-07T11:33:00.000-05:00

This is a joke:

Suspended state Treasurer Thomas Ravenel and his co-defendant in a federal cocaine conspiracy indictment pleaded not guilty Friday, and both were granted unsecured bonds.

Ravenel, 44, is undergoing treatment at an Arizona drug rehabilitation center and was not at the 30-minute hearing.

Miller was brought into the federal courtroom wearing a blue and white striped jumpsuit from the Charleston County Detention Center, his hands in cuffs and linked by a chain to his waist. When McCrorey held up his right hand asking Miller to swear to a financial affidavit, Miller paused as he looked at his handcuffs and chains.

Poor defendant? In a jumpsuit in a courtroom. Rich defendant? In a swimsuit at a spa.

During the hearing, Miller sat with a public defender, who asked the judge to speak slowly and loudly because his client was hard of hearing. At one point, as McCrorey was reading the conditions of Miller's bond release, Miller interrupted him.

"Again, I can barely hear you," he told the judge.

Ravenel's lawyers, led by former U.S. Attorney Bart Daniel, sat at the other end of the table.

Poor defendant? Public defender. Rich defendant? Former federal prosecutor.

U.S. Attorney Reginald Lloyd rejected any notion afterward that the two men were being treated differently by the federal judicial system.

"They'll both get very good representation," Lloyd told reporters. "They'll both be treated fairly, not only by us but by the courts."

Lloyd declined to say when Miller would get his own personal defense team, led by a former U.S. Attorney. I'm sure it's soon, perhaps after his and Bart Daniel's dinner at the club.

Glenn Richardson anticipates frivolous lawsuits against his critics.

2007-07-06T14:50:00.000-05:00

From Cracker Squire, House Speaker Glenn Richardson:

Ask newspaper editors and they’ll tell you that blogging is the future. Ask Glenn Richardson, and he’ll tell you that if it’s the future, it’s got a short shelf life. The Speaker of the Georgia House thinks the mad rush by politicians in both parties to embrace bloggers is about over. And it sounds like he’s just about written them off.

“Those dadgum blog sites. You know what I predict is going to happen? I predict somebody’s going to sue one of those site domains for slander, and somebody’s going to get hit with a big suit because there’s no accountability, and they say and do things about people that are blatantly false.

“If y’all did, you’d get sued in a New York minute ... Somebody’s going to sue ‘em and hit ‘em with enough money ... and somebody is going to say, ‘We’d better be careful with this.’

From a leader of a party that has traded on slanderous invective against blacks, women, gays and immigrants to improve its electoral fortunes over the past four decades.

Let's contrast his willingness to misuse the law to punish speech he opposes with the view of another Republican - Lynn "Three Commandments" Westmoreland - on hate crimes laws, laws that he believes - wrongly, of course - might infringe on the right of bigoted speakers to spread hatred of gays:

I received many calls and letters from constituents in Georgia’s 3rd Congressional District asking me to oppose the hate crime bill. Many of those constituents are ministers and church-goers concerned about the chilling effect that a federal law such as this would have on teaching their moral beliefs. I agree with their concerns. Churches should be free to teach that some lifestyles are wrong according to their belief system without fear of criminal prosecution.

Republicans - they don't give a damn about freedom of speech. They do, however, give a damn about protecting speech that slanders gay people - even when it's not under assault - and punishing speech that criticizes them.

As of yet, I haven't found a catchy nickname for Speaker Glenn. But Speaker McLibel has a ring to it, don't you think?

Paris on the Withlacoochee

2007-07-02T14:10:00.000-05:00

As goes France, so goes Valdosta:

A Muslim woman seeking to contest a simple speeding ticket was denied access to the Valdosta courtroom of Municipal Court Judge Vernita Lee Bender because she was wearing a traditional Islamic head scarf.

The day of her hearing, 20-year-old Aniisa Karim said she walked in the front doors of the Municipal Court building and was told that she would not be permitted to enter the courtroom with her scarf on even after she explained to the security officer that she is not permitted by her religion to remove the scarf in public. Karim said the officer called for his lieutenant, who affirmed the decision that Karim would be barred from the courtroom unless her scarf was removed.

“I said, ‘No, I’m Muslim, and like I told (the first officer) I wear this for religious reasons and if you don’t allow me in the courtroom with my scarf on basically you are violating my civil rights and my right to a free religion because this is my religion,’” Karim said.

Karim said one of the officers told her that the denial of entry to the courtroom was due to “homeland security reasons” and that allowing her to enter would show “disrespect” to the judge, though Karim offered to walk through the metal detectors and allow the officers utilize the handheld metal detector to scan the scarf.

I doubt that the officers would ask a nun to remove her wimple for "homeland security reasons" before entering a courthouse, or claim that wearing one would show "disrespect" for the judge - but this woman, they would turn away.

In the primary, how are Georgia's state legislators voting?

2007-07-01T12:47:00.000-05:00

I thought it would be interesting to map who Georgia's state legislators were supporting in the primary. Here are the lists I have thus far:

Obama (here)
Senators	Representatives
David Adelman Gloria Butler Gail Davenport Emanuel Jones Curt Thompson Ronald Ramsey Doug Stoner Ed Tarver	Stacey Abrams Roger Bruce Karla Drenner Virgil Fludd Gloria Frazier Craig J. Gordon Lynmore James Sheila Jones Darryl Jordan Randal Mangahm Alisha Thomas Morgan Howard Mosby Robbin Shipp Pam Stephenson Brian Thomas
Edwards (here, here, and here)
Senators	Representatives
Vincent D. Fort Valencia Seay Steve Henson Robert Brown	Rob Teilhet Stephanie Stuckey Benfield Michelle Henson Gerald Greene Jeannette Jamieson Charles Jenkins Hugh Floyd Wade Starr
Fred Thompson (here)
Senators	Representatives
Eric Johnson Tommie Williams Chip Rogers David Shafer Jeff Chapman Jack Murphy John Douglas Cecil Staton Preston Smith Greg Goggans Lee Hawkins Bill Heath Bill Hamrick Don Thomas	Earl Ehrhart Ron Stephens Ron Forster Buddy Carter Burke Day Jim Cole Doug Collins Mark Butler Clay Cox Jay Neal Sean Jerguson Tom Dickson Calvin Hill James Mills Doug Holt John Meadows Tom Knox John Heard Tom Graves Donna Sheldon Melvin Everson Mark Hamilton
Giuliani (here)
Senators	Representatives
	Glenn Richardson Barry Fleming Jay Roberts Jeff May David Ralston
Romney (here)
Senators	Representatives
Ronnie Chance	Mark Burkhalter

Knee-jerk gun control, Isakson-style.

2007-06-30T12:53:00.000-05:00

And by "guns," I mean "biceps":

Everything is planned. The high-flying moves. The outlandish story lines, The crackpot characters.

One thing isn't in the script: the staggering number of pro wrestlers who die young.

Chris Benoit was the latest, taking his own life at age 40 after killing his wife and son in a grisly case that might be the blackest eye yet for the pseudo-sport already ridiculed as nothing more than comic books come to life, a cult-like outlet for testosterone-ragin' young males to cheer on their freakishly bulked-up heroes. . . .

Isakson said his main concern is steroid abuse.

"I'm not going to start speculating on federal regulation of wrestling," he said. "The issue is anabolic steroids, which are a significant problem and are known to cause significant difficulties. It's a health issue that's appropriate for us to discuss, regardless of the profession."

Now, I'm not saying that this isn't a worthwhile issue for Congress to address, but really - a man shoots his wife and child, then himself, and the issue of interest to Johnny Isakson isn't mental illness, or domestic violence, or gun violence. It's steroid abuse.

But as long as Junior Senator Johnny is on the subject of issues tangentially related to recent pro-wrestling tragedy, I'll join him. From the same article:

How many more must pass through the morgue before everyone stands up and shouts: Enough's enough?

"From my 17 years in the business, I know probably 40 to 45 wrestlers who dropped dead before they were 50," said Lance Evers, a semiretired wrestler who goes by "Lance Storm" when he's in the ring. "It's an astronomical number."

Then, he added in a voice tinged with anger and sadness, "I'm sick and tired of it."

Over the years, there are been numerous proposals to put wrestling under some sort of oversight, be it at the state or federal level. Those ideas usually have fallen on deaf ears, largely because the powers-that-be, be it the old-time regional promoters or WWE owner Vince McMahon, the guy who largely controls the sport today, don't want the government telling them how to run their business.

Jim Wilson, who parlayed pro football into a ring career, says he was blackballed when he began pushing for a wrestler's union. Since then, he has written a book about his experiences and kept up the push to rein in those who govern the sport.

Although Wilson's battle often has been a lonely one, he says Benoit's death might reinvigorate the cause.

A union could be a useful tool for cleaning up the sport. It might lead to a pension plan, improved benefits, more stringent health and safety guidelines and a revamped pay structure that would allow wrestlers to spend more time at home without risking a pay cut.

Now, most top wrestlers get a guaranteed salary, but the bulk of their income is based on how often they compete. That leads some to feel they must get in the ring while injured, often with the aid of painkillers and other numbing chemicals.

And much like rock stars, plenty of wrestlers have fallen victim to excessive partying, alcohol and drug dependency, and marital problems during grueling stints on the road.

"My longest run was 79 days in a row without a day off," said Joe Laurinaitis, the wrestler known as Road Warrior Animal and father of Ohio State football star James Laurinaitis. "It's not as bad now. They've got good guys running the WWE. Still, we need to take a look at it when things like this (the Benoit murder-suicide) are happening. Guys are still overworked."

That's why Wilson's calling for Congress to hold hearings on the wrestling industry, much like it investigated doping in professional sports and just this past week heard from ex-NFL players who believe they're being shortchanged on their pensions.

"In those other sports, they aren't dropping like flies like they are in the wrestling business," Wilson said. "Now is the time to push for legislation nationally."

Here we have a job rife with the abuse of its workers - drug use, unsafe working conditions, bad hours, and bad wages. And when one of its workers tries to form a union to end that abuse? He's fired.

Situations like this are exactly the reason that legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act is necessary. It would strengthen punishments for union-busting employers like the WWE, and it would cut red tape that prevents workers from forming unions.

So, where does Junior Senator Johnny stand on the Employee Free Choice Act? Like the rest of our Republican Congressional delegation, he opposes it. Yes, in the wake of unconscionable workplace abuse, our Junior Senator would rather hold vanity hearings on steriod abuse by workers than give those workers the power to change the very working conditions that promote that abuse.

Saxby caves, joins the nativists.

2007-06-29T19:07:00.001-05:00

What's that noise? That flippity-flopping noise? Why, it's the sound of our Senator Saxby, recently reeled in by Georgia's nativists, desperately thrashing against the bottom of their boat. I hear the gutless fish are the easiest to clean.

A few days ago, Saxby joined the filibuster of the immigration compromise that he helped write, effectively killing it. According to Political Insider, he joined the filibuster because of the sunset provision of the temporary worker program: “The temporary worker program is the guts of the whole issue relative to providing workers to business." I suppose that five years under the caste system is not enough for his corporate cronies? From Trapper John's take on the immigration compromise:

The temporary worker program has nothing to do with immigration policy. To the contrary -- it is a guaranteed cheap labor program grafted on to an immigration bill. When most people think of "immigration" to the US, they think of people coming to America to build a new life for themselves and their families, just as their ancestors did. But the temporary worker program has nothing to do with building American families and American dreams. Under the program, 400,000-600,000 guest workers would enter the country every year on two-year visas. Although the visas can be renewed twice, recipients would be denied any path to permanent residency or citizenship. In fact, the guest workers would be precluded from even applying for permanent residency while here on temporary visas.

In short, the "temporary workers" will be just that -- "temporary," and "workers." Not "immigrants." And they can never be "Americans." Instead, we will have created a permanent caste of non-citizens with no hope of ever becoming citizens. A class of over half-a-million workers without a voice in the political process, here at the sole sufferance of their employers.

But I think we know Saxby's justification is a pretext. Saxby's base has been whipped into a nativist frenzy of late, and he fears that if he doesn't kowtow to them, they'll complicate his re-election campaign. You know what they say: "You got to dance with them what brung you." And while Saxby may get his money from the corporate elite, it's the far right that gives him his votes.

Today, Political Insider points to a Washington Post article on opponents of the immigration compromise in Gainsville, Georgia. Among the opponents:

A stay-at-home mother of two, Usrey has dreaded shopping at this particular [Wal-Mart] ever since a Friday afternoon about five years ago, when she said she suddenly noticed she was the only non-Latino customer.

"That was the first time I looked around and said, 'Man, I didn't realize how many Mexicans there were here,' " Usrey, 39, recalled. "And they don't seem to feel any discomfort when they're, like, six inches from your face and talking to each other in their language, either. I just felt very encroached upon. . . . It was like an instant feeling of 'I'm in the minority, and if we don't get control over this, pretty soon all of America will be outnumbered.' "

I've felt like an outsider, everyone has, so I can sympathize with that feeling. You deal with it; you integrate yourself into the changing society, or you learn to love being an outsider. You don't try to make your neighbors' lives miserable in a futile effort to feel like an insider again.

The article also highlights a view that I wish our politicos would reinforce:

The restaurant's owner, Tim Bunch, 50, walked by and gave a friendly wave. Like several of his customers, Bunch is less concerned by the arrival of illegal immigrants to Gainesville than by the local reaction to them.

"Most of [the Mexicans] don't want to come here. They just need to eat," he said later. "I think we're all God's children, created in his image. . . . And I would hope hearts don't grow to a point where they are so hardened about another human being."

Politicians can't ignore the effect of immigration on places like Gainsville, but they aren't obliged to pander to the worst in the people. They can appeal to the best. It may not be as cheap as it is to tap their hatred, but it might win the respect - and the vote - of someone like Tim Bunch, and it will undoubtedly change the character of the immigration debate for the better.

And finally, from Tapped, a note on the effect of immigration on the culture of immigrants' countries of origin. According to a study by the World Bank:

"[M]igrants can affect their home countries' views ... because they typically adopt ideas and behaviors prevailing in the destination countries and transmit them to their countries of origin." Championing this increased gender equality and educational attainment, the correlation between lower birthrates and lower poverty rates, and the influence of developed country's values on those of the developing country, the report offers a revelatory glimpse at the profound effects that immigration reform, done right, could promote.

An interesting idea; it's too bad that Washington prefers the "big walls and bigger explosions" approach to promoting American ideas.

David Scott sinks below even my lowered expectations.

2007-06-28T20:23:00.001-05:00

It's pretty bad when a Congressman can't muster Sanford Bishop's level of decency toward gay people, but today, David Scott couldn't. Scott voted to deny the city of Washington, D. C., the authority to spend federal money to support its domestic partnership registry. Bishop voted to allow it.

It's already shameful how Congress treats Washington, D. C., like a federal fiefdom. It's rarely worse than when Congress uses its power to deny the people of Washington, D. C., equality under the law, if only in their own city.

I'll note, again, that David Scott represents a Democratic district - one far more Democratic than Bishop's, and one that would tolerate and perhaps embrace support for Washington's right to self-determination generally and it's right to recognize same-sex partnerships specifically. So why can't he show the same tolerance and support?

Probably for the same reason that he couldn't vote to end the war in Iraq, couldn't even vote for timetables: he's comfortable with his own mediocrity.

Otherwise, John Barrow and Jim Marshall voted with Scott - no surprise - while Hank Johnson and John Lewis - again, no surprise - voted with Bishop. Kudos to the Georgia Congressmen who refused to be cowed by the Bush Administration's threats and hatred. Shame on those who caved.

Eric Johnson, feminist of convenience.

2007-06-27T21:48:00.000-05:00

Here, Bill Shipp defends Thurbert Baker's appeal in the Genarlow Wilson case. Normally, I'd be for that, but in this case, it's mostly a pretext to complain how unfair the national media is to us hicks:

Baker would defend the Wilson conviction and sentence in the appellate courts.

That's when the national media caught wind of the affair. It fit precisely into the national stereotype of pot-bellied cops arresting a hapless black kid and hauling him in front of a confused jury and a hateful white judge. When the national TV news outlets and papers mentioned Baker, they forget to say that he is a black Democrat. But what the heck! There's only so much time and space to tell this story, even if most non-Georgia viewers and readers are left to assume that Baker is just another mean old white prosecutor.

I'm not sure which news Bill Shipp reads, but from what I've read, Baker's full name might as well be "Attorney General Thurbert Baker Who Is African-American," for all the times it's been said.

Otherwise, Shipp notes Eric Johnson's defense of Georgia's so-called justice system. I hadn't read it, but as I expected, it conflates Genarlow Wilson's indictment for rape with his conviction for statutory rape. There's no mention of his acquittal on the charge of rape, nor any mention of the fact that his crime, were it committed today, would be a misdemeanor for which he'd serve at most one year, rather than the felony for which he is currently serving ten years. But he does mention that "[t]here is a Web site, a publicist and a limo for his attorney," and he reveals himself to be a nascent feminist, too:

Wilson is not the victim. A semi-conscious female and a minor girl were the victims. Society shouldn't wonder why females hesitate to charge 'rape.' They are portrayed as 'trash,' and the men are just doing what men do. Women should be outraged.

You go, Eric. Fight that patriarchy.

Still, I think we all know that a justice system that convicts a teenager for one crime and sentences him for another - for which he was acquitted, no less - is unjust. Rather than blame this victim of that injustice, perhaps Eric and the rest of the state legislature should return to the capitol and pass the Emanuel Jones' bill that would allow Genarlow Wilson and others like him to challenge their sentences in light of the changed law.

Speaking of Bill Shipp and his spirited defense of our state's black folk, last week, he offered naught but concern over our state's support for Barack Obama, at least in terms of campaign contributions:

Obama blows the socks off his Democratic rivals in Georgia because he has attracted a solid wall of affluent African-American support. Georgia's Super-Duper Tuesday presidential primary is still seven months away, and trends may shift.

But barring a dramatic change in circumstances, Obama figures to win Georgia in a breeze.

That is bad news for Edwards, who obviously hoped to become the Southern-backed alternative Democrat to Hillary Clinton. Sorry, John. That dog just won't hunt in Oaky Woods. Black voters will vote for black candidates. The early financial disclosure for Obama reads like a who's who of black power and business (builder/developer Herman Russell, City Council President Lisa Borders, Andrew Young, etc.). And, of course, the African-American vote will control the Feb. 5 Democratic primary.

In recent statewide primaries, black voters have supported such luminaries as Jesse Jackson for president and Denise Majette for Senate, even though neither had a prayer of winning their respective elections. As soon as Atlanta became a majority-black voting city, it tossed out progressive white Mayor Sam Massell and rolled Maynard Jackson into City Hall.

The current mayor, Shirley Franklin, warned recently that whites may have returned to the city in such numbers that they could recapture the mayor's office. She asked her constituents not to forget the past progress made by blacks in public office and suggested that they continue their support of black candidates. Such is the 21st-century politics of race in a state that struggled for a hundred years to overcome the shackles of racist electioneering.

Oh, woe, that black voters might cast their lot with black candidates. Would they were more like white voters, who don't consider race when voting . . . yet somehow vote for a candidate of their own race more often than black voters. Really, Bill. The percentage of black voters who leave the booth without having cast a ballot for a white candidate - slightly lower or much, much lower than the percentage of white voters who leave the booth without having cast a ballot for a black one?

Then, there's the "luminaries" comment. No, Jesse Jackson and Denise Majette are not, say, Jimmy Carter. But then, neither were their white rivals - and if the choice were between Jesse Jackson, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and Gary Hart, then-recently outed adulterer, or between Denise Majette and Cliff Oxford, alleged spousal abuser, then it's hardly a surprise that anyone, black or white, would prefer Jackson's passion or Majette's decency. It's more a surprise that anyone would prefer anything else.

And that's at least as true of Barack Obama. The comparison to Majette and, to a lesser extent, Jackson, is ridiculous. The case for Obama is obvious; his experience, his record, his positions, his rhetoric, his fundraising, his polling: he's a winner. The elite of Georgia are wise to support him, and if he is the nominee, the nation would be wise to vote for him.

Of course, I think John Edwards would be better, but really, I think that's a question on which reasonable people can disagree.

An unpolitical moment in politics.

2007-06-26T21:10:00.000-05:00

From a diary at DailyKos, Elizabeth Edwards confronts Ann Coulter:

I've tried to look at this in terms of the politics, but I can't. I don't think it's political at all. Says Edwards:

EE: You wrote a column a couple years ago which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean's death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said ask me about my dead son. This is not legitimate political dialogue.

AC: That's now three years ago -

EE: It debases political dialogue. It drives people away from the process. We can't have a debate about issues if you're using this kind of language. . . .

EE: I'm making this call as a mother. I'm the mother of that boy who died. My children participate - these young people behind you are the age of my children. You're asking them to participate in a dialogue that's based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues, and I don't think that's serving them or this country very well.

She's class personified.

Otherwise, the parents of the otherwise lovely blonde standing behind Ann Coulter, the one with the expression of disgust that says, "Elizabeth Edwards is so uncool," I'm sure they're proud of their daughter today.

Segregation used to be the law, too.

2007-06-23T23:50:00.000-05:00

I'm going to pick on Barack Obama, or at least on what he's and other Democrats are saying.

At MyDD, Melissa notes Barack Obama's speech at United Church of Christ's General Synod. He spoke on immigration, where he wowed the crowd, as usual, until he said this:

But we also know that this is a nation of laws and we cannot have those laws broken when more than two thousand people cross our borders illegally every day. We cannot ignore the the very real concerns of Americans who are not worried about illegal immigration because they are racist or xenophobic, but because they fear it will result in lower wages when they're already struggling to feed their families.

Not so much, Barack.

Yes, we are a nation of laws and yes, we cannot have those laws broken, but at the same time, our laws must be just. And if our immigration policy results in tens of millions of good people crossing the border, in some cases at great risk to their lives, to do nothing more than work, then that policy is unjust. It must change, and until it does, those who break that law are criminals no more than name.

While the comparison to segregation is undoubtedly hyperbolic, in both cases, we've drawn an imaginary line between ourselves and our neighbors, one that privileges one and disadvantages another, one that creates manifest injustice, and one that diminishes us all.

And under segregation, as now, there were those who were threatened by the prospect of undoing that line - the poor whites who had very little, but still more than poor blacks. While I doubt that they were as free of racism and xenophobia as those that Barack Obama references, they were no doubt equally as afraid of how their wages would fare, were they forced to compete with their neighbors for their already meager wages.

And the answer then, and even more so now, is simple: there is no reason to believe that there cannot be enough good work at good wages for everyone. For decades, the government has promoted an economic policy that permits the wealthiest Americans to become ever wealthier, while the rest of us scrape for fewer and fewer crumbs. There's no reason that the government can't promote an economic system that ensures a degree of dignity and security for every one of us.

That's what Barack Obama should be saying. But instead, he's fallen back on cheap, cliched rhetoric about our "nation of laws." It's disappointing, because if anyone can persuade the people of the fundamental injustice of the current system, it's someone with the rhetorical skill of Barack Obama. But with immigration - as it seems with a lot of other issues, really - he'd rather pursue a comparatively tame vision for reform.

So I don't end this post on an anti-Obama note, I'll note how much of an ass Johnny Isakson is.

From Political Insider, I see that Johnny Isakson is shilling for Home Depot, a sin I would normally overlook, if it didn't take such an unusually cruel - if typically big government Republican - turn:

U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) takes a hit on the editorial page of today’s New York Times.

The NYT accuses Isakson of placing a “squalid little amendment” in the immigration reform bill on behalf of Atlanta-based Home Depot.

The amendment would prohibit states and cities from passing laws and ordinances to mandate that Home Depot — and stores like it — erect shelters for the day laborers they attract.

The city of Los Angeles is currently considering such an ordinance.

Contacted this morning, a spokeswoman for Isakson says the senator is trying to protect private businesses from unwarranted government mandates that leave owners exposed to costly lawsuits.

As usual, the Republican Party loves to talk about local control, but when the locals exercise their control in ways that the Republican Party and their corporate cronies don't like, it's back to state and federal control. We saw that when Earl Erhart and his Republican cohorts gleefully gutted Atlanta's living wage and nondiscrimination ordinances, and we're seeing it again here.

As I see it, this is no different from demanding that Home Depot build a parking lot for its patrons. If it's gonna attract the suburban soccer moms who can't wait to faux finish their dens, it's gonna have to build enough parking spaces to accommodate their Escalades and Suburbans. And if it's gonna attract hardworking day laborers, the least Home Depot can do is offer them is a shady space for them to sit.

That is clearly too much to ask. So much to ask, in fact, that Johnny Isakson is willing to change federal law to ensure that if hardworking day laborers are going to get a shady place to sit, it sure as hell isn't going to be Home Depot that pays for it.

How much credibility did the New York Times sacrifice to attack John Edwards?

2007-06-22T21:22:00.000-05:00

Quite a bit, it seems.

Yesterday evening, the New York Times reported that John Edwards created a 501(c)4 - think MoveOn.org, the League of Conservation Voters, or AARP - to cover the cost of his anti-poverty campaign before he declared his candidacy for president:

The money paid Mr. Edwards’s expenses while he walked picket lines and met with Wall Street executives. He gave speeches, hired consultants, attacked the Bush administration and developed an online following. He led minimum-wage initiatives in five states, went frequently to Iowa, and appeared on television programs. He traveled to China, India, Brussels, Uganda and Russia, and met with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and his likely successor, Gordon Brown, at 10 Downing Street.

That's the fact. But the story goes on, both before and after, and in the end, the New York Times does its best to make Edwards look like Satan.

Well, the blogosphere ain't havin' it. Personally, I'd like to know what about that organization made it any less deserving of its 501(c)4 status than any other. The New York Times doesn't really explain, and that, I don't like. (Nor, apparently, does Susan Madrack at the Huffington Post.)

At TPM Cafe, Greg Sargeant notes that while the story accuses Edwards of being the only beneficiary of the 501(c)4, they made no effort to determine if that were, in fact, true:

[I]f you are going to publish an enormous story alleging that a person's antipoverty program was set up mainly to benefit the person who set it up -- then basic journalistic fairness would dictate that you make a genuine effort to see how the program fulfilled its "stated" purpose of helping people. Surprisingly, no mention of how the programs actually impacted people appears until the story's 18th paragraph -- and at that point it comes from the mouth of an Edwards spokesman. There's no indication that the reporter made any genuine independent effort at all to discover whether the programs helped anyone.

Such an effort might entail, you know, speaking to such people, among other things. Yet no such people are quoted in the story.

So we checked in with the Edwards campaign. And yep -- the campaign confirmed that the paper had turned down the chance to speak to any people directly impacted by Edwards' programs.

Now that's some serious lack of picking up the damn phone, there.

At Tapped, Steven White places the story in context:

this makes me initially uneasy since it so comfortably fits into the common media narrative that because Edwards is rich, so he can't possibly really care about poverty. Considering he's the only major politician really talking about that issue, this is extremely troubling and makes me suspicious of articles like the one linked to above.

Also at Tapped, Ezra Klein asks,

[S]houldn't the question of ends enter in here? The piece uses a lot of ominous adjectives and innuendo to note that though Edwards' Poverty Center was a "a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty," the center raised funds that "paid Mr. Edwards's expenses while he walked picket lines and met with Wall Street executives. He gave speeches, hired consultants, attacked the Bush administration and developed an online following. He led minimum-wage initiatives in five states, went frequently to Iowa, and appeared on television programs. He traveled to China, India, Brussels, Uganda and Russia, and met with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and his likely successor, Gordon Brown, at 10 Downing Street."

Well, Brown and Blair have spearheaded the UK's remarkable efforts against child poverty, which Edwards has mentioned in speeches. So that hardly seems problematic. Indeed, this all seems like an extremely successful venture. Edwards raised some money to fight poverty. He used a certain amount of that money to finance his own pre-presidential campaigning, which was entirely focused on poverty reduction. During that campaigning, he spent an enormous amount of time...talking about poverty, and restoring its place in the national political discussion. Given that the sum of money we're talking about is $1.3 million, how has this not been an extraordinarily effective anti-poverty center?

At the Daily Howler, Bob Somersby contrasts the New York Times treatment of Edwards and Giuliani.

In the past two days, the New York Times has run a remarkable pair of candidate stories. One of these news reports beats the bushes, looking for ways to suggest that John Edwards has been misbehaving. The other report beats the bushes too—to help us see how vastly decent Saint Giuliani really is.

The bullet on the Giuliani story: it includes a quote about how "Rudy believes in the loyalty of family." But Edwards . . . yeah, I'm gobsmacked.

It's understandable that the New York partisans at the New York Times would prefer two New Yorkers - Hillary and Giuliani - as the candidates in the general election, if only for the convenience, but going to these lengths to encourage that outcome? Suffice it to say, I think the New York Times tipped its hand, here, and from this point forward, it's gonna be difficult to buy, even as an Edwards partisan, those anti-Obama pieces they've been running.

The derision continues at Daily Kos, Atrios, TalkLeft, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, and better blogs everywhere.

Mike Jacobs loves Joe Liberman, Joe Lieberman's war.

2007-06-22T13:23:00.001-05:00

But not enough our young turncoat to fight it, at least from anywhere less secure than the Starbucks on Peachtree. I don't blame him. You can't get good Starbucks in Iraq anymore. From Political Insider:

On a national level, Jacobs also pronounced himself uncomfortable with the direction that Democrats are taking on foreign policy. His soulmate is U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who like Jacobs is Jewish. He draws a direct parallel between Lieberman’s experiences with Democrats, and his own.

“The parallels are uncanny,” he said. Only half in jest.

Oh, Mike. You are funny. Funny that you didn't mention your support for the Iraq War in your delusional little farewell; guess it doesn't sell as well as the other cliches, even if it is undoubtedly more sincere.

Otherwise, like a good little Republican, he whines that poor, pitiable Lee Morris was denied his rightful place as chair of the Fulton County Commission by John Lewis, Shirley Franklin, and Andrew Young; really, how dare they remind the voters of Fulton County that Lee Morris was a Republican, let alone that Republicans like Lee Morris have done everything in their power to disenfranchise voters, from support voter ID to oppose reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.

It's so unsporting of Democrats to tell the truth, isn't it?

I'm glad that no one asked him about Lynn Westmoreland. God knows how outraged he would be if anyone were to suggest that Lynn Westmoreland's opposition to the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act were anything other than dedication to "fiscal responsibility." I bet he'd be so outraged, he'd spill his latte, poor boy.

Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Coburn are pandering to the worst in their party.

2007-06-21T22:14:00.000-05:00

From Daily Kos, I see that Tom Coburn would rather not prosecute the murderers of civil rights workers, either. Like Lynn Westmoreland, he too believes that $57 million is too much to spend for justice, but not too much to spend for 20 out of 700 miles of useless fence on the Mexico border.

No one is foolish enough to believe that this is about money, are they? No one but the AJC, I mean.

This is a dog whistle, a message to the worst of the worst of the Republican base, telling them that the lives of those murdered in the struggle for civil rights are worth no more to some in government today than they were forty years ago.

Again, John Lewis:

Compare the statement from Lynn Westmoreland's representative: "It's creating a new bureaucracy where existing law enforcement divisions can handle the caseload. . . . This was named for Emmett Till and that's illustrative of the point. The guy who killed him has been dead for many, many years. We can't prosecute dead people."

It's astonishing in its ignorance. Not because James Ford Seale was recently convicted for the 1964 murders of Charles Moore and Henry Hezekiah Dee, thus illustrating that the criminals of the civil rights era still live, but because Lynn Westmoreland himself is not young. He was born in 1950. He was a child at the time of Till's murder, a teenager at the time of the murders of Medgar Evers, Viola Liuzzo, Andy Goodman, Ben Chaney and Mickey Schwerner. They were his contemporaries. He could have known them as friends and neighbors, they were so close in age. But he speaks of them as if their lives were ancient history.

I want to say I don't understand it, but I do, and it's so disheartening.

Lynn Westmoreland isn't worth a damn, and the AJC isn't worth much more.

2007-06-21T11:02:00.000-05:00

I don't have high standards for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, but their effort to excuse Lynn Westmoreland for his vote on the "Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act" falls below even my lowered expectations.

"Lewis, Westmoreland differ over rights-era death probes," the AJC writes, as if this were a trivial issue. They then proceed to spend half the article attributing Westmoreland's vote against as opposition to "legislation with populist appeal but hefty price tags."

I hope the writer threw his back out shoveling that.

The legislation in question would cost $57 million over five years, a drop in the federal bucket, and a small price to bring criminals of the civil rights era to justice.

In contrast, the 700 mile wall that Westmoreland would like to build on the Mexican border would cost more than $2 billion, and do absolutely nothing - except satisfy the "populist" demands of Westmoreland's nativist allies.

Lynn Westmoreland doesn't give a damn about the price for justice. He'd simply rather spend that money on 20 miles of useless fence.

Lynn Westmoreland is even less familiar with God than I thought.

2007-06-21T01:42:00.000-05:00

Lynn "Three Commandments" Westmoreland has shamed his district - again.

Westmoreland, who had previously said that the Ten Commandments are important enough to be wallpapered on every government building in America, but not quite important enough to actually know, has now shown that they aren't quite important enough to actually apply, either - at least not the "You Shall Not Kill" one.

Today, all but two House members voted for the "Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act," a bill that would fund efforts to prosecute unsolved crimes of the civil rights era. Westmoreland was among the two who voted against that bill; the other was fellow Republican Ron Paul, who is also a candidate for president.

From Creative Loafing, I'll let John Lewis, the sponsor of the bill, explain why it is so necessary:

Madam Speaker, the time has come. For the sake of history, for the sake of justice, for the sake of closure–the 110th Congress must pass this legislation.

On August 28, 1955, almost 52 years ago, a fourteen year old boy from Chicago was visiting his uncle in Money, Mississippi. He was pulled from his bed in the darkness of night. He was beaten until he could hardly be recognized. He was shot in the head, and his body was dumped in the Tallahatchie River, all because somebody said he had been fresh with a white woman.

Several years later an intelligent and dignified N-A-A-C-P leader, named Medgar Evers, was gunned down in front of his home in Mississippi in 1963. Some historians say it was the injustice of these two unsolved murders that began the mass movement in the American South that we call the modern-day civil rights movement.

Who can forget the NAACP leader and his wife, Harry and Harriette Moore, who were killed by a bomb on Christmas night as they celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary in 1951?

Who can forget the two black couples lynched about 60 miles east of Atlanta in 1946 or the death of Lemuel Penn, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve? He was a veteran trying to get home from Fort Benning, Georgia for a little rest and relaxation. He was killed in 1964 as members of the KKK drove-by him on the street.

Who can forget Viola Liuzzo, shot down in Alabama in 1965, trying to bring non-violent activists back to their homes after the Selma to Montgomery march?

There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of these crimes that were never brought to justice. There are murderers who have walked free for decades while the families of victims cry out for justice. Passing this bill is the least we can do. And we must do something to right these wrongs.

I will never forget three civil rights workers. Three young men that I knew—Andy Goodman, Ben Chaney and Mickey Schwerner. They came to Mississippi with a simple mission: to register as many black voters as possible. They were stopped, arrested, taken to jail.

Later that night they were turned over by the sheriff to the Klan. Then they were beaten, shot, and killed. They didn’t die in Vietnam or Eastern Europe. They died right here in the United States. Viola Liuzzo didn’t die on a road in Baghdad. She died in Alabama on Highway 80. Lemuel Penn, Medgar Evers, Emmett Till and countless others didn’t die in the Middle East. They died right here in this country.

Madam Speaker, we have an obligation, we have a mission, we have a mandate. The blood of hundreds of innocent men and women is calling out to us. Then no one came to their aid. But today we can help make it right. Let us move to close this dark chapter in our history. Let us try to wash away these stains on our democracy. I call on all my colleagues to pass this legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To vote against this bill, Lynn Westmoreland must be as deaf as Cain.

After this shame, I wonder how Mike Jacobs feels about caucusing with the Georgia Republican Party. Lynn Westmoreland is no pariah. Before he ran for Congress, he was the House Minority Leader. He's since been mentioned as a candidate for Governor in 2010.

Clearly, Jacobs was willing to share a party with the six Georgia Republicans who voted against reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. That was bad enough. But to follow the lead of a person like Westmoreland? That's unconscionable.

The Brown Noise: Rob Teilhet plays us Mike Jacobs' greatest hits.

2007-06-19T20:23:00.000-05:00

Memories of Mike Jacobs from Rob Teilhet, as reported at Blog For Democracy:

I am afraid your statement omitted some important points, so I thought I might remind you so that you can make your constituents aware of them.

You've made no mention of your support for cuts to Georgia's Peachcare for Kids program, which helps provide health insurance coverage to children of working families. Your vote for HB 340 would have allowed thousands of children to be denied health insurance coverage arbitrarily by an unaccountable bureaucrat, and to have their dental and vision coverage removed altogether.

You've also not mentioned your support for this year's ghoulish and predatory payday lending legislation. You voted this year, by supporting HB 163, to allow payday lenders to charge up to 395 percent interest rates and to provide de facto amnesty for those loan sharks that broke the law for the better part of the last century by offering these loans despite the fact that they were clearly illegal under Georgia law.

You also omitted from your message to constituents your support in the Judiciary Committee for several measures that would limit the applicability of the Open Records Act and make public documents more difficult to obtain. Most heinous was your support for requiring open records requests to be made in writing. You supported this despite uncontested testimony in committee that the bill would have allowed government to require a citizen to identify themselves and state the reason they wanted certain records in writing before having their request for public information processed. Public documents belong to the public, and should be made available without requiring a citizen to be subjected to aggravation or even political retribution for requesting them.

. . . . Further eroding any credentials you may think you have as an advocate for open government and individual liberty has been your unabashed support for Glenn Richardson as Speaker. Mr. Richardson has, each and every year that he has been Speaker, sought to limit public debate in the House by gutting the ability of legislators to offer amendments to bills both on the floor and in committee. Mr. Richardson has also sought to limit the Open Records Act to allow secret government negotiations affecting millions in taxpayer dollars with private business.

Mr. Richardson has also used his power, won with the aid and support of legislators like yourself, to pursue new limits on women's reproductive freedom each year and repeatedly stifled ethics legislation that would eliminate or at least reduce the lavishing of expensive gifts on legislators by registered lobbyists.

Your support for Mr. Richardson as Speaker has also enabled the blockage of any meaningful legislation dealing with transportation and traffic congestion. Your constituents will have plenty of time to contemplate th e many faces of Mike Jacobs as they continue to sit in ever worsening traffic without any meaningful plan for relief.

Your message also suggests support for Mr. Richarson's tax plan, which depending on which version you support would increase current sales taxes by more than 25% and levy billions in new sales taxes on needed everyday goods and services such as groceries and doctors visits. Your statement of a belief in fiscal restraint, when combined with your willingness to support a plan to tax everything that moves, raises additional questions about your basic credibility.

Now, Mike Jacobs doesn't even have to pretend to care.

2007-06-19T10:11:00.000-05:00

Now he can vote to deny health care to children, and his partisans will applaud him for his "fiscal responsibility." Because as we all know, "fiscal responsibility" means telling children that they can't go to a doctor, but can go fish.

As Bernita notes, "that's not even creative bullshit."

Not that I expected him to say, "I'm hungry for power, and I'll have more as a Republican," but I expected . . . a reason at least adjacent to reality - not this gem:

A commitment to individual liberty. Our government has no legitimate role in citizens’ personal lives.

He probably forgot, "Except with respect to sex. Or parenting. Or medical decisions. Or . . . anything else that the fundamentalists tell us, because then? Totally legitimate."

What color is the sky in Karen Handel's world?

2007-06-18T22:53:00.000-05:00

The Georgia Supreme Court recently punted on voter ID:

The state's high court ordered a Fulton County judge to dismiss a September case that found the photo ID requirement violates the Georgia Constitution.

. . . The state Supreme Court's decision did not rule on the merits of the photo voter ID law, instead saying the plaintiff had no standing to sue.

By law, plaintiffs must show a particular statute is harmful to them in order to question its lawfulness. The court ruled the plaintiff in the case, Rosalind L. Lake of Atlanta, could have voted without ID when she filed the lawsuit and, as a result, could not challenge the law's constitutionality.

Note, the decision did not rule on the merits of the voter ID law. So how does Karen Handel, one of Creative Loafing's pet Republicans, respond?

Secretary of State Karen Handel, a Republican elected in November, said the ruling "vindicates" the state's position on what she termed a "common sense" requirement.

As usual, Karen Handel prefers her own reality. You know, the same one where she's never heard of this "gay" phenomena.

Perhaps Thurbert Baker is too rational for politics.

2007-06-13T11:51:00.000-05:00

Blog for Democracy explains why.

Day before yesterday, a judge who had no authority to change Genarlow Wilson's sentence did so. Thurbert Baker rightly appealed the ruling. And in doing so, he incurred the wrath of an angry blogosphere.

Genarlow Wilson doesn't deserve to be in jail for ten years. But this judge has no more right to change the sentence than he has to break Wilson out of jail. And as Bernita notes, it's a dangerous precedent:

What if another judge in Georgia decided to just change someone's sentence regardless of another court's ruling? What if a judge decided to lengthen someone's sentence based on their own viewpoint. Let's understand that WE ARE IN GEORGIA. It is not like the courts have a history of fairness.

I've yet to see a legal counterargument from Thurbert Baker's detractors. The Savannah Morning News as much as admits that there is none: "If this case is viewed strictly by the law, then the judge may have strayed by changing the judgment of a trial court in Douglas County, where the offense occurred in 2003."

For every judge who releases a person like Wilson, there are two who would release prisoners far less deserving. Sentencing already favors the wealthy and well-connected, and re-sentencing would be no different.

In a way, Wilson's case illustrates that fact. He's no Paris Hilton or Scooter Libby, of course, and if he weren't black, it seems unlikely that he would be in jail at all. But he was an athlete and honor student, and his halo has helped bring attention to his case. Would a less perfect teen have advocates in the state legislature, or Congress?

Wilson's imprisonment is an injustice. I'd like to see it end. But I'd like to see a just end, one that ensures that the justice Wilson deserves is guaranteed to everyone in Wilson's place - even the ones who weren't bright young athletes with promising futures.

Because there aren't enough people who hate women in the judiciary.

2007-06-08T18:58:00.001-05:00

From Washington Monthly, I see that Republicans are once again whining about judicial nominations.

I'm not surprised. Like a spoiled child in a checkout line, Republicans whine, and like the worst parent, Democrats capitulate. Republicans will continue to whine until Democrats learn to say no.

The driven snow has nothing on me.

2007-06-05T23:04:00.002-05:00

Tondee's Tavern, Blog for Democracy, and Atlanta Public Affairs have all drawn similar conclusions about Dale Cardwell, none of them good.

Reading his defenders in the comments, I've got to say: there's a difference between a candidate who speaks to the hopes of the working class and a candidate who speaks to their fears. Given the pathetic nature of the debate on immigration, I would welcome a candidate who said that we live in a wealthy nation, that there is enough work for everyone to live well, and that we should work toward that goal. But when Cardwell attacks immigrants for the high crime of crossing the border to work, he's not speaking to those hopes.

I like to think I'm a realist, and I know we live in Georgia, so I don't expect a candidate who, say, supports an open border, or an amnesty, or anything similar. I'm not sure about those myself. But I do expect a candidate to recognize that current immigration policy harms everyone, and to speak against efforts to demonize any of its victims.

Dale Cardwell is not Vernon Jones.

2007-06-04T21:49:00.000-05:00

But otherwise, I'm underwhelmed. He rightly attacks Chambliss as "a borrow-and-spend pawn of the special interests," and he says

Georgians want the truth. They want an honest person, an independent thinker who will not be the lapdog of their party when their party is wrong . . . When asked about the war in Iraq, Mr. Chambliss, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told us, ‘I don’t know what was wrong with our strategy, or who was responsible for it.’ My fellow Georgians, it’s time to change that.

All good. But from there, it's downhill:

Cardwell said he was not in favor of withdrawing from the region. He wants the Iraq government held to benchmarks. “If they fail, we will redeploy our troops, but we will never surrender a security perimeter, a beachhead if you will, that we’ve earned with the blood of American lives,” he said. "We’ll maintain a base, we’ll make it safe from insurgents, and we’ll use that base to launch attacks against al-Qaida."

"But withdrawing would lead to chaos, he said. “Within five years, within three years, my 19-year-old son is going to be drafted to go to Iraq to go to the Middle East, to keep oil lanes open. We’ve got to make sure that doesn’t happen,” Cardwell said.

. . . He spoke of abolishing the IRS, and replacing the current system with something more “simple.” Whether the so-called “fair tax” or a flat tax, Cardwell said he hadn’t decided.

Cardwell said he’s in favor of a tougher immigration reform bill, and demanded the immediate construction of a wall across the southern U.S. border. He accused Chambliss of helping to write a bill that favored “amnesty.”

Lord, where to begin.

1. More Americans should not die in Iraq because so many Americans have already died in Iraq.

2. Abolishing the IRS is a bad idea promoted by the stupid and the dishonest. The former is true of the "flat tax" and both apply to the "fair tax."

3. Attacking Saxby from the right on immigration, while tantalizing, is nevertheless wrong, and probably stupid, too. Wrong because the position itself is wrong, and stupid because, as I see it, it will alienate Democratic voters - like, say, me - and it won't win any Republican voters. They may not like Saxby, but they know better than to trust a Democrat to oppress the weak.

If you want that, you have to vote Republican.

The Bush Court strikes again.

2007-05-29T14:14:00.000-05:00

From Tapped, I see that the Bush Court - those would be Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito - has struck again:

As Ruth Bader Ginsburg notes, the evidence of gender discrimination in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear, decided today by the Supreme Court, is unambiguous:

"Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber's plant in Gadsden, Alabama, from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. For most of those years, she worked as an area manager, a position largely occupied by men. Initially, Ledbetter's salary was in line with the salaries of men performing substantially similar work. Over time, however, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236."

Despite this, and contrary to the judgment of the EEOC, the Court by a bare 5-4 majority threw out the discrimination claim she brought under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Court -- in an opinion, natch, written by its arch-reactionary newest member -- argued that Ledbetter failed to challenge the initial discriminatory pay decision within the required 180 days, and the ongoing pay discrimination did not constitute an "unlawful employment practice." As Ginsburg points out, this reading of the statute makes little sense; unlike with a firing, both because an employee may not be aware of the discriminatory nature of their pay until much later, and moreover it is illogical to hold that only an initial decision to discriminate but not the discriminatory pay itself constitutes an unlawful practice. The effect of the case is to insulate employers from wage discrimination claims as long as they can hide the evidence from the employee being discriminated against for 180 days, a result contrary to the purpose of the statute that is in no way compelled by its language.

The Democrats should have filibustered Alito. Hell, they should have filibustered Roberts, to improve the chances of an Alito filibuster. But they didn't. I won't hold Roberts or Alito against those Senators who voted for cloture on them, but I will hold Roberts and Alito against those Senators who voted for confirmation.

Especially the Republicans who are up for re-election in 2008:

Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Chambliss (R-GA), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Hagel (R-NE), Inhofe (R-OK), McConnell (R-KY), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Smith (R-OR), Stevens (R-AK), Sununu (R-NH), and Warner (R-VA).

I'd marvel at the number of "moderates" on the list, if it weren't for the fact that the same "moderates" appear on every list of those responsible for enabling this administration.

Norm Coleman, Susan Coleman, Gordon Smith - as well as our own Saxby Chambliss - when they voted for Alito, they voted for this decision.

Rudy: Johnny broke my 9/11!

2007-05-26T20:32:00.000-05:00

How Rudy squeals when you try to take his 9/11 away!

The battle began when Edwards laid out his military policy in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

He accused Bush of using the "war on terror" as an ideological "sledgehammer" to pummel political foes and justify policy disasters like the Iraq war.

Even worse, he said, the approach has backfired, straining the military even as terrorism mushrooms around the world.

"By framing this as a 'war,' we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set - that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations," he said, saying he would restore America's status as a moral leader.

Stumping in New Hampshire, Giuliani seized on Edwards to make his argument that Democrats were "not facing reality."

"The Democrats - or at least some of them - are in denial," Giuliani told a crowd in Keane, N.H. "In case you missed it - and I guess this Democratic candidate doesn't remember it - [Osama] Bin Laden declared war on us."

Giuliani's attack was unusual for its sharpness and its focus on a particular candidate. But it underscored the eagerness with which Giuliani now grabs every chance to steer the debate toward terrorism and 9/11 to play to what his advisers see as his strong suit.

Not a surprise, because Rudy? Not going to win the Republican nomination on abortion or homosexuality. Has to win on fascism. So of course, he takes every opportunity to remind the Republican flock that no one can play a wrathful God like Rudy can.

Says Edwards:

Edwards' camp fired back, accusing him of using patriotism as a political weapon.

"America deserves better from Rudy Giuliani. They deserve a President whose interest is in protecting America from terrorist attacks and not simply using this for political gain," said Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz.

David Scott gives Bush a blank check.

2007-05-25T11:32:00.000-05:00

As expected, David Scott cast his vote for Bush's war - again. Along with Sanford Bishop, John Barrow, and Jim Marshall, he voted against holding Bush accountable:

President Bush faced reporters for his first full-scale, solo news conference in three months savoring what may be a last victory in his battle with Congress over the course of the war in Iraq.

Hours later, the House and Senate would deliver to the White House $100 billion in war funding, shorn of the timelines intended to end the U.S. mission by early next year.

By refusing to budge on demanding a no-strings-attached bill, Bush forced congressional Democrats to back off, at least temporarily, from their efforts to end the war by including conditions on a war funding bill. It was a sign that while Bush's popularity may be scraping historic lows, he still has some stick in Washington.

If George Bush sat down to lunch in David Scott's district, the wait staff would not serve him. But David Scott? He would.

You haven't called your Congressman yet, have you?

2007-05-24T11:40:00.000-05:00

From Crooks and Liars, Keith Olbermann has a message for you to deliver:

This is, in fact, a comment about . . . betrayal.

Few men or women elected in our history-whether executive or legislative, state or national-have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear: Get us out of Iraq.

Yet after six months of preparation and execution-half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president-if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history-who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats "give the troops their money";

The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;

The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions-Stop The War-have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you . . . for a handful of magic beans.

As King said, silence is betrayal. No matter what the outcome of this vote, don't stay silent; call your Congressman and tell him to vote against a blank check.

And that goes double if your Congressman is David Scott.

Call your Congressman - especially if your Congressman is David Scott.

2007-05-22T22:42:00.000-05:00

Tell him to vote against giving George Bush another blank check to continue his war.

From DailyKos:

Right now, we still have an opportunity to spur Democrats to tear up the blank check the conference committee wants to give Mister Bush. Many of them are already on our side. They, including Speaker Pelosi, have said they will vote against this legislation because of a lack of timetables and toothless benchmarks and lame reporting requirements.

Many Republicans oppose the bill for other reasons. Some of them don't like the benchmarks even though they apparently won't be binding. Or they don't like the minimum wage raise attached to the bill. Whatever. A strange-bedfellows alliance could keep this legislation off the President's desk. Whatever happens afterward, its defeat would be a good thing.

If you're lucky enough to be represented by elected Dems who voted for Feingold-Reid or McGovern, call them and praise them. And urge them to vote "nay" on this terrible legislation. If you're not so lucky, call up one of the 29 Senate Democrats or 169 House Democrats who did vote for those pieces of legislation and add your voice to those of us who will be doing what we can to send this bill to the trash bin. Channel your fury.

Congressman	In the District	In Washington
John Lewis	(404)659-0116	(202)225-3801
Hank Johnson	(770)987-2291 (770)939-2016	(202)225-1605
David Scott	(770)210-5073 (770)432-5405	(202)225-2939
John Barrow	(706)722-4494 (478)553-1923 (912)354-7282 (912)537-9301	(202)225-2823
Sanford Bishop	(229)439-8067 (706)320-9477	(202)225-3631
Jim Marshall	(478)464-0255 (229)556-7418	(202)225-6531

Why do I single out David Scott? Because like John Lewis and Hank Johnson, David Scott is a metro Democrat; but unlike John Lewis and Hank Johnson, David Scott voted against the McGovern bill.

I am tired of Congressmen like David Scott. They represent liberal districts, yet they vote like conservatives. When the issue is, say, the estate tax, their votes are frustrating. But when the issue is the war, their votes are aborrhent.

It's time for him to change or leave. I'd prefer the former to the latter, but right now, I'd take either.

Corporations prefer slaves

2007-05-21T22:26:00.000-05:00

Robert Hoffman, a Vice-President at Oracle and co-chair of Compete America, a corporate front:

"Under the current system," Mr. Hoffman said, "you need an employer to sponsor you for a green card. Under the point system, you would not need an employer as a sponsor. An individual would get points for special skills, but those skills may not match the demand. You can't hire a chemical engineer to do the work of a software engineer."

From Kevin at Washington Monthly. Says Kevin:

If nothing else, you have to admire the chutzpah Hoffman demonstrates here. The H1-B visa regime is not quite the system of indentured servitude that it used to be, in which workers were essentially prohibited for years from leaving the company that sponsored them, but it still has some elements of that. And needless to say, the sponsoring companies think that's just fine. The idea that someone can simply get a green card and then freely work for the highest bidder is not really what high-tech CFOs have in mind when they dream of filling up job slots with foreign workers.

Every time you hear a corporation bemoaning the dearth of skilled labor, know that they mean "easily exploited" skilled labor.

Also noted by Ezra at Tapped.

Eric Johnson is still defending corrupt gun dealers.

2007-05-18T10:36:00.000-05:00

In the New York Sun, He says that "trying to stop the flow of illegal guns is a noble cause" - but he'd still rather defend corrupt gun dealers:

"Trying to stop the flow of illegal guns is a noble cause and he ought to be doing it," Mr. Johnson said. "The issue here is that he's using private investigators to cross state lines and then lying on application forms to get guns. That doesn't prove the gun dealer did anything wrong. They followed the federal gun law."

Really? New York says otherwise:

New York says the shops each sold a gun to a team of undercover investigators who wore hidden cameras during a sting. Teams of two investigators entered the stores and tried to make so-called ‘straw purchases.’

In such transactions, one investigator asked all the questions about the gun, and then the other, who had not been involved in the process, came forward to fill out forms for the mandatory federal background check.

Federal law prohibits licensed dealers from selling guns to persons if they reasonably believe the gun is not being sold to the person who purports to be the buyer.

Again, the New York Sun:

The stores targeted in Georgia have many times the number of crime gun traces than the average gun store, Mr. Feinblatt said, adding that seven of the eight stores had been identified in prior federal prosecutions of crimes.

"We didn't uncover a secret," he said. "What we did was act when nobody else was willing to."

Clearly, if Eric Johnson has his way, not only will Georgia continue to do nothing to stop corrupt gun dealers, Georgia will actively prevent anyone else from stopping them, too.

More evidence that Voter ID is partisan

2007-05-18T10:31:00.000-05:00

It is a ploy by Republicans to increase the power of their white suburban base at the expense of everyone else:

Hood and Bullock examined the demographics and voting habits of roughly 300,000 voters who were determined by state government to be registered - but were not on its data base of motorists.

While they warned that their findings weren’t conclusive, the two noted that:

Suburban counties, which historically vote Republican, “did see significantly lower rates” of registered voters without ID than rural and urban counties.

Non-white voters were less likely than white voters to possess a driver’s license. For instance, a black voter was nearly twice as likely to lack a license as a white voter. “Women and older Georgians were also significantly more likely to be without a license or identification card,” the paper said.

Voters without driver’s licenses are significantly more likely to vote in Democratic, as opposed to Republican, primaries.

Voters who lack a driver’s license as ID are less likely to vote, particularly in general elections. “Given that registrants without a driver’s license are already less likely to vote, requiring certain forms of photo identification to vote would most likely diminish turnout among this group even further,” Hood and Bullock write.

Jerry Falwell is dead.

2007-05-16T00:11:00.000-05:00

Being one of those heretics, I'll say that God called him home - and that right now, he's surprised.

Blog for Democracy notes Falwell's recent outburst of bigotry, but since I haven't seen it elsewhere, I'll remind others of this one:

Today, conservatives excoriate the Supreme Court for banning school-sponsored Bible reading and prayer. But the high court first earned right-wing ire by declaring segregation unconstitutional in 1954's Brown v. Board of Education. Responding to Brown, conservatives then fulminated about "judicial tyranny" and launched campaigns to have Warren impeached. Southern white religious leaders denounced the civil rights movement; in 1958, Falwell delivered a sermon titled "Segregation and Integration: Which?" He argued that the latter would lead to the destruction of the white race.

Much like gay equality will destroy the family, I'm sure.

Reagan: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so."

2007-05-16T00:08:00.000-05:00

The Emerging Democratic Majority disabuses those nostalgic for Reagan of their illusions - or perhaps reminds others what that nostalgia really means.

Eric Johnson defends corrupt gun dealers.

2007-05-11T14:47:00.000-05:00

From Political Insider:

Senate President pro tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) just put out a statement saying he likes a new Virginia law, which goes into effect this summer, that bans agents of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg from targeting gun buyers with undercover sting operations. . . .

In December, the AJC reported on New York City’s announcement that it was suing 11 gun dealers in five states for illegal sales of firearms. Three of shops were in Georgia — one in Marietta, one in Toccoa, and another in Norcross.

Now, if you were a state legislator, and you discovered that gun dealers in your state permitted "straw purchases" of guns, what would you do? Would you crack down on the gun dealers - or would you criticize those who brought it to your attention? Me, I'd crack down on straw purchases. But Eric Johnson would rather defend the corrupt gun dealers.

In the midst of that stupidity, there is more: "Anybody want to bet whether Georgia contributes to more crime in New York or whether New York exports more crime to Georgia?" The presumption being, of course, that New York is a violent cesspool compared to the peaceful hamlet of Georgia. Unfortunately, this is not so: in 2005, New York's violent crime rate was 446 per 100,000 New Yorkers, while Georgia's violent crime rate was 449 per 100,000 Georgians.

Once again, David Scott proves himself undeserving of his seat.

2007-05-11T10:56:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the House voted to give the Republican war in Iraq at least three more months. Given that the alternative would have been to allow the war to continue indefinitely, this is good. Every Georgia Republican voted against it, because they would prefer to continue their war.

Georgia Democrats were divided, but not in the way one might expect: all but one voted for it. The one opposed? John Lewis, because he would prefer to end the war now. Again, this is good.

But that wasn't the only vote on the war yesterday. There was a second, on a bill that would end our involvement in Iraq in the next nine months.

Again, every Georgia Republican voted against it. And again, the Democrats were divided, this time along more predictable lines: John Lewis and Hank Johnson voted for it, while Jim Marshall, John Barrow, Sanford Bishop, and David Scott voted against it.

Now, I doubt that the Iraq war is so popular in south Georgia that Jim Marshall, John Barrow, and Sanford Bishop would lose their seats in 2008 if they voted against it, but I don't live in south Georgia, so I'll cut them slack.

However, I do live close enough to David Scott's district to call bullshit on his vote. This is a liberal district, a district opposed to the war, and yet their representative continues to vote as if he lives in Macon, rather than the liberal suburbs of Atlanta.

I keep hoping that David Scott will move up and out, that he'll run for statewide office, where his conservative votes could at least be justified by his constituency, but with every election it seems more and more like he is content to keep this seat for as long as his constituents will tolerate him.

Hopefully, that will not be much longer.

Maybe he's Amazed

2007-05-11T10:54:00.000-05:00

Or maybe he's in the middle of something that he doesn't really understand.

Yes, Saxby is amazed at the progress in Iraq: "Every time I go over there the improvements in the conditions are truly amazing . . . . It's very encouraging to me to see the progress." Now, I don't know how Saxby measures "progress," let alone how he measures "amazement" or "true amazement," but I do know this: he does not measure it by a decreasing number of American deaths in Iraq. Because by that metric, there's been no progress:

Chambliss said in January that he expected to see quick results from President Bush's decision to send an additional 21,500 soldiers into the war. As the new troops began hitting the ground, April saw an increase in American deaths, with 104 soldiers killed, the highest number since December. At the same time, a recent series of suicide bombings has killed hundreds of civilians, and there are signs that the nation's fledgling government may be fracturing.

Also at Georgia Women Vote and Blog for Democracy.

The accidental veto.

2007-05-11T10:49:00.000-05:00

So, you're Sonny. You accidentally veto the budget. So what do you do? You un-veto it! Problem solved.

Except for the fact that you don't have the power to un-veto. Doh!

I have to admit that I am mystified by the governor’s sleight-of-hand with respect to his rescission of the veto.

Under what authority may the Governor “un-veto” a bill? The governor vetoed the legislation on April 19. There is no question that he vetoed the bill.

Article 3, Section 5, Paragraph 13, and Article 5, Section 2, Paragraph 4, of the Georgia Constitution outline the procedures for a veto. The latter section succinctly states that the “governor may veto, approve or take no action on any such bill or resolution.”

Nowhere in either section (or anywhere else I can find) does it say the governor can “un-veto” a bill. The former section explains the procedures that are to be followed once a veto is made, and none of those procedures include an option for the governor to “take it back.”

Moreover, the impropriety of the “un-veto” is shown by how it has no parameters in the Constitution or statute.

When is the latest he can un-veto? Can he do it while the Legislature is trying to override the veto? Afterwards? Two years later?

A vote for Whitehead is a vote for scandal.

2007-05-08T12:31:00.000-05:00

One last post on Jim Whitehead.

Normally, a whacked worldview is relatively harmless. Jim Whitehead could recklessly equate the brown folk of the 10th district with terrorists, and while it would not be innocuous, it would have minimal effect outside his social circle. But as a member of Congress, such delusions are hazardous to all of us. And one need only look at the recent turn of the Gonzales scandal to see it.

Of course, I should clarify: I mean the revelation that the attorneys axed by Gonzales were fired in part for their refusal to prosecute meritless accusations of voter fraud - exactly the sort of claims trafficked by Jim Whitehead. Yes, much like our wannabe Congresscritter Jim Whitehead, current Congresscritters Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici of New Mexico complained about the soon-to-be canned David Iglesias for his failure to prosecute fantasy voter fraud. Republican partisans in Washington state similarly smeared John McKay. This stupidity, combined with a Justice Department inclined to share it, brought about this scandal.

If the 10th District sends Jim Whitehead to Congress, we can expect more of the same.

Clearly, not too busy registering illegal alien terrorists to blog.

2007-05-05T15:16:00.000-05:00

Blog for Democracy notes the firestorm of criticism that has followed Jim Whitehead's effort to combine every Republican meme into a Frankenstein's monster of Republican rhetoric: "left-wing political activists [are]intentionally registering illegal aliens to vote, including known Al Qaeda terrorists."

Through them, I found the Democratic Party of Georgia's press release, posted at Tondee's Tavern; there, Jane Kidd focuses on Whitehead's less colorful, but no less outrageous, statement:

Equally disturbing is Mr. Whitehead's assertion that, "Iraq has not been a big thing in our district." (3) The state of Georgia has lost 96 soldiers in Iraq, with an additional 724 wounded.(4) Georgia has 4,161 active duty service members in Iraq, and an additional 1,958 reservists.(5) The 10th Congressional District encompasses part of part of the Augusta-Richmond County metropolitan area, which is also home to Fort Gordon and the U.S. Army's Signal Center.

"I believe that Mr. Whitehead is simply out of touch with the 10th District", said Kidd. "Georgia is home to thousands of active-duty and reserve soldiers, and thousands more veterans. These soldiers and veterans and their friends and family are deeply concerned about the situation in Iraq. To say that the war in Iraq is, 'not a big thing,' is disrespectful to anyone who has worn a uniform."

To Jim Whitehead, 96 dead soldiers, 724 wounded soldiers, and more than 6,000 soldiers in harm's way, are not "a big thing."

But the hysterical delusion that "left-wing political activists [are]intentionally registering illegal aliens to vote, including known Al Qaeda terrorists" is "a big thing."

I would dearly love to believe that this lunacy would deny Jim Whitehead a seat in Congress, but given that this is the Republican Party, home to such intellectual luminaries as Lynn "Three Commandments" Westmoreland, not to mention a Republican delegation that voted against reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and generally traded on fear of the brown horde exercising its right to vote, I don't have a whole lot of hope.

On hate crimes, Georgia Democrats do us proud.

2007-05-04T01:19:00.000-05:00

Every Georgia Democrat voted for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 - even Jim Marshall and John Barrow.

Of course, every Georgia Republican voted against it. Because they may be tough on crime, but not if the victims of crime are women, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or disabled - then, they think the victims get what they deserve.

Whitehead: Immigrants want to cut our lawns, throats

2007-05-02T12:54:00.000-05:00

Future Republican Congressman Jim Whitehead says immigrants are terrorists; the Republican Party applauds. From Political Insider:

Writes [Tom] Crawford [of capitolimpact.com]:

“Iraq has not been a big thing in our district,” said Whitehead, a former University of Georgia offensive lineman. “Immigration is the No. 1 issue, pure and simple.” Whitehead contends that “left-wing political activists [are] intentionally registering illegal aliens to vote, including known Al Qaeda terrorists . . . . This is a pivotal issue for the future of America. We have to have the intestinal fortitude to protect all Americans.”

Don’t dismiss this as a stray stab of hyperbole. D.A. King, the illegal immigration activist who supports Whitehead, allegedly said much the same thing at an April 28 meeting of the Newton County Republican party.

“They’re not here to mow your lawn - they’re here to blow up your buildings and kill your children, and you, and me,” King was quoted as saying.

It's not quite the blood libel, but give the Republican Party time; they'll get there, they always do.

The latino population of Georgia has grown from 5.3% in 2000 to 7.1% in 2005, while the white population of Georgia has declined from 65.1% to 62.5%. I bet the shift is even more dramatic in the 10th district, and Whitehead and the Republican Party have chosen to respond to the change with fear and hatred. Both deserve to pay a political price for it.

But when? The Democratic Party, nominal opponent of the Republican Party, could pressure the Republican Party to abandon its hateful rhetoric, offer a more welcoming message, and win the hearts of decent voters. But from here, it seems like the Georgia Democratic Party can't decide whether it wants to be more hateful than the Georgia Republican Party, slightly less hateful, or silent.

Most Georgia state legislators looking forward to forcing women to bear their rapists' children.

2007-04-20T10:18:00.000-05:00

From Political Insider:

This week’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court against partial-birth abortion has fired up those who would like to do away with abortion entirely — even in cases of rape and incest.

Dan Becker of Georgia Right to Life says his group next year will push a state constitutional amendment to declare the unborn as legal “persons” worthy of protection.

Becker is quoted on WorldNetDaily, a religious-oriented network, as saying that the effort is only a vote or two short of the two-thirds that would be needed to put the measure on the ’08 ballot.

Who are those state legislators, I wonder.

Elizabeth Edwards: "This cause is not just John’s cause, it’s my cause."

2007-03-25T20:24:00.000-05:00

Mrs. Edwards — whose decision to push her husband to run for president in spite of her illness provoked an intense discussion across the country about illness, ambition, child-rearing and death — said her husband’s candidacy was not only about his needs and desires. She said it also reflected her own life and her wish to be something other than a woman best known for her illness.

“I expect to live a long time,” Mrs. Edwards said. “I expect us to have lots and lots of years together. I do believe that. But if that’s not the case, I don’t want my legacy to be that I pulled somebody who ought to be president out of the race. It’s not fair to me, in a sense.”

Saying she hoped to be “heavily involved” in her husband’s campaign, she said: “My feeling is, if we gave up what we have committed to as our life’s work, wouldn’t I be getting ready to die? That’s what I’d be doing. This cause is not just John’s cause, it’s my cause.”

I suppose the question is, why spend the rest of your life dying, when you could spend it fighting?

Casey comes to Jesus, Sonny still hellbound.

2007-03-20T11:06:00.000-05:00

From Political Insider, after wobbling, has come to Jesus:

“We sat down and talked last week about a strategy,” Cagle said. “The NAACP is very adamant about a resolution regarding slavery. The reality is we pass a lot of resolutions that pass on sympathy and regret, and I think it makes sense. If this is something that’s important to them and their constituency group, then I think it’s the right thing for us to do.”

Unfortunate that Casey Cagle doesn't believe that this will be good for all of Georgia, rather than a "constituency group," but a half a loaf is better than none.

Elsewhere, Sonny remains wobbly:

Perdue, by contrast, said at an early morning news conference that he wasn't sure the Legislature should get involved in the issue of an apology for slavery. "Repentance comes from the heart," the governor said. "I'm not sure about public apologies on behalf of other people."

Sonny, it's not about "other people," it's about the state of Georgia, and as the governor of our state, your heart should tell you that the state of Georgia owes an apology to the victims of slavery.

In the same story, Senate Minority Leader Robert Brown defends Jeff Mullis, the sponsor of the "Confederate History Month" bill, against charges of racism:

Senate Minority Leader Robert Brown (D-Macon) told lawmakers Monday that he was troubled to hear that many people have questioned Mullis's intentions and character because of the Confederate History and Heritage Month proposal. Brown, who is African-American, said that Mullis, who is white, worked with him to try to get funding for an African-American museum in Macon. He said it was unfair for people to question Mullis's commitment to diversity.

"I think we do ourselves a disservice when we impugn the character of an individual if we disagree with what he's proposing," Brown said. "We may or may not disagree on the specifics of your proposal, but as a colleague, I am standing here to say to you let us work together, let us reach out to you. Let us work together and not against each other."

Why is an apology for slavery controversial?

2007-03-19T07:46:00.000-05:00

From Cracker Squire, Bill Shipp:

The governor is flapping around like a headless chicken begging the feds for money to keep alive Georgia's health insurance program for needy kids. The transportation nightmare in metro Atlanta could not get worse. Water polluters and land despoilers are pushing enough legislation to fill two freight cars. Loan sharks with fresh ideas for predation are circling the statehouse. The tax code, the criminal defense system and flagging economic development require immediate attention.

So what issue has many legislators most riled up this year? For too many lawmakers, it is none of the above. Instead, the hubbub concerns a demand for an apology for slavery and a proposal to set aside April to remember the Confederacy.

For the moment, ignore the Confederacy. Instead, ask yourself: why is an apology for slavery causing any "hubbub?"

In a sane world, it would be a given: the state of Georgia, erstwhile proponent of slavery, would apologize to its victims. But in this world, the idea that Georgia might apologize for slavery is controversial. Why? Is there something controversial about the idea that the state should apologize for its crimes? Or is it something else?

Back to the Confederacy. Again, Bill Shipp:

Then there's the idea of setting aside April to commemorate the Confederacy and, as Republican Sen. Jeff Mullis puts it, "the cause of Southern independence." I've got a better idea. Let's set aside April to conjure up the ghosts of Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Robert Toombs, John B. Gordon and similar souls and ask them a few simple questions such as: "What in tarnation were you thinking? Why would anybody engage in a war that he knew the smaller, poorer, agrarian Confederacy could not win - a war that would cost the South hundreds of thousands of lives and leave our region destitute and laggard for more than a century?"

I am a fairly well-schooled fifth-generation Georgian, and I am still baffled about leadership that marched us into a disastrous, unwinnable war and why we continue to honor those leaders for doing so.

Notably absent among the reasons why Georgia might not wish to honor its former leaders: that they were fighting to enslave their neighbors. And it is absent for the same reason there is "hubbub" over an apology for slavery: because to apologize for slavery is to admit that the halcyon days of the antebellum South were coincident with the enslavement of its people.

Of course, everyone knows this to be true. But for some, it's a cool sort of knowledge; it's a distant, unpleasant fact, easy to ignore, especially for those who live in the fugue state that permits the idea of a "Confederate Heritage" month. For them, the idea of an apology for slavery causes a bit of "hubbub." And in part, it's because of them that this apology is so necessary.

Too stupid, even for the Republican Party.

2007-03-17T17:48:00.000-05:00

Apparently, at least one Georgia Republican has come to Jesus:

A powerful Republican leader has joined forces with African-American state lawmakers seeking an apology over Georgia's role in slavery, dramatically improving the possibility the Legislature will express some form of regret over the state's past.

Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) said Friday he plans to introduce a proposal that would acknowledge the state's role in slavery and encourage reconciliation among Georgians.

Maybe this had something to do with it:

Johnson's involvement comes as the Senate is considering a bill that would declare April as Confederate History and Heritage Month. Sen. Jeff Mullis (R-Chickamauga), the bill's sponsor, introduced the legislation March 1, and it passed a key Senate committee this week — just days after Williams and the state NAACP called on the General Assembly and Perdue to apologize for Georgia's role in slavery.

Suffice it to say, even Republicans might find it uncomfortable to reconcile their willingness to memorialize the Confederacy with their refusal to apologize for slavery.

In other news

2007-03-15T23:54:00.000-05:00

From David Sirota, Charlie Rangel is amazed: "The problem I’ve had to deal with is the terribly negative view trade has . . . I was amazed at the number of members who won just by running against trade."

From Broadsheet, legal abortion saves lives in South Africa: "According to Ipas, when South Africa broadly legalized abortion in 1996, deaths from unsafe procedures dropped. Plummeted, really. By a factor of 91 percent." Remember, Zell would rather that those women die, because then, there might have been more babies to pick fruit and fight wars.

John Edwards: Poverty is a national security issue.

2007-03-15T23:45:00.000-05:00

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards on Thursday outlined what he called “an audacious plan” to tackle global poverty that includes educating 23 million children in poor countries and creating a Cabinet-level position to oversee other initiatives.

Seeking to link poverty in other countries to the United States’ national security, Edwards argued that militant extremists in nations torn apart by poverty and civil war have replaced government educational systems and are teaching young people to hate the United States.

“When you understand that, it suddenly becomes clear: Global poverty is not just a moral issue for the United States – it is a national security issue for the United States,” he said at Saint Anselm College.

“If we tackle it, we have the chance to change a generation of potential extremists and enemies into a generation of friends,” Edwards said.

Praise the confederacy, ignore the slavery.

2007-03-14T23:35:00.000-05:00

You can see why the state legislature would prefer not to apologize for slavery - it would interfere with their efforts to praise the confederacy:

A week after civil rights groups called on the General Assembly and Gov. Sonny Perdue to apologize for slavery, a key Senate committee will consider a bill today that would designate April as Confederate History and Heritage Month.

Sen. Jeff Mullis (R-Chickamauga) is the main sponsor of Senate Bill 283, which would encourage Georgians each April to honor the Confederacy, its history, soldiers and the people who "contributed to the cause of Southern Independence."

The bill also encourages the Georgia Civil War Commission to develop a curriculum to teach Georgia's Confederate history in elementary and high schools, as well as colleges and universities. It is scheduled for a hearing today.

"It's only appropriate that we pay tribute to this important part of American history and our state's history," said Mullis, whose hometown was the site of a major Civil War battle in 1863.

. . . . The prospects for Mullis' bill aren't clear. Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, who is president of the Senate, said through a spokeswoman Wednesday that he had not yet read it. House Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram) also said he had not yet seen the bill, but added, "I believe we should study all of Georgia's history."

Of course, we should study Georgia's history. But it should be the history of Georgia, not the fiction of "Southern independence."

Nathan Deal: Defending you from the sick beggar child.

2007-03-12T21:51:00.000-05:00

From Political Insider, the New York Times:

A new federal rule intended to keep illegal immigrants from receiving Medicaid has instead shut out tens of thousands of United States citizens who have had difficulty complying with requirements to show birth certificates and other documents proving their citizenship, state officials say.

Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia have all reported declines in enrollment and traced them to the new federal requirement, which comes just as state officials around the country are striving to expand coverage through Medicaid and other means.

Under a 2006 federal law, the Deficit Reduction Act, most people who say they are United States citizens and want Medicaid must provide “satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship,” which could include a passport or the combination of a birth certificate and a driver’s license.

Some state officials say the Bush administration went beyond the law in some ways, for example, by requiring people to submit original documents or copies certified by the issuing agency.

. . . In Florida, the number of children on Medicaid declined by 63,000, to 1.2 million, from July 2006 to January of this year.

“We’ve seen an increase in the number of people who don’t qualify for Medicaid because they cannot produce proof of citizenship,” said Albert A. Zimmerman, a spokesman for the Florida Department of Children and Families. “Nearly all of these people are American citizens.”

Nathan Deal, being the Congresscritter responsible for the change, wants to keep it:

Chris Riley, the chief of staff for Mr. Deal, said the new requirement did encounter “some bumps in the road” last year. But, he said, Mr. Deal believes that the requirement “has saved taxpayers money.” The congressman “will vigorously fight repeal of that provision” and will, in fact, try to extend it to the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Mr. Riley said.

As much as I appreciate a fightin' Congresscritter, I prefer it when said critter fights against this, rather than for it:

Dr. Martin C. Michaels, a pediatrician in Dalton, Ga., who has been monitoring effects of the federal rule, said: “Georgia now has 100,000 newly uninsured U.S. citizen children of low-income families. Many of these children have missed immunizations and preventive health visits. And they have been admitted to hospitals and intensive care units for conditions that normally would have been treated in a doctor’s office.”

Dr. Michaels, who is president of the Georgia chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that some children with asthma had lost their Medicaid coverage and could not afford the medications they had been taking daily to prevent wheezing. “Some of these children had asthma attacks and had to be admitted to hospitals,” he said.

Normally, I would direct all my ire at Nathan Deal, but in this case, I'll have to split it between him and Sonny Perdue, who is responsible for a similar penny-wise, pound-foolish change at the state level.

Karen Handel: And when I say "proactive," I mean . . .

2007-03-12T20:47:00.000-05:00

That the Republican voter ID law is a regulation in search of a justification, perhaps?

[Barnes] said the specter of voting fraud should not be used "to imperil the right to vote."

Barnes said the Legislature could determine the manner, time and place of elections but that when it comes to voting it could not put in place requirements more stringent than those required when someone registered to vote.

"What you cannot do is erect something that is so onerous that it disenfranchise a whole group of people," he said.
Secretary of State Karen Handel told reporters after the arguments the law did no such thing and said Barnes' pitch appealed to emotions, not facts.

"There was a very stirring emotional plea from one side," Handel said. "But the facts are that we need to deal with the facts of law."

She said the law was a pro-active measure to prevent voter fraud.

Of course, it would have to be "pro-active," since the Republicans who voted for this regulation never bothered to determine if the voter fraud it supposedly prevented actually existed, any more than they bothered to determine how many Georgians might be disenfranchised by it.

Casey Cagle: Like you, the poor deserve inadequate counsel.

2007-03-12T19:35:00.000-05:00

"Freedom isn't free," conservatives say, and they're right. Of course, when they say it, they think of the cost in terms of dead soldiers, and since those soldiers usually aren't them, they're okay with it. But when asked to think of the cost in terms of money, especially their money, they're decidedly less okay with it. Witness Casey Cagle, who is concerned that the right to council has become too expensive:

Lt. Governor Casey Cagle told 11Alive News he agrees with those who want to study whether to overhaul the state's new system of indigent defense and give the legislature tighter controls over judicial spending.

"The judge, in my opinion, has ordered a case that is very, very costly, very expensive, and the taxpayers are having to foot the bill," Cagle said. "Clearly, I think we need to look at public defenders."

Cagle said the current system, which is only three years old, may be broken. "It's wrong for an indigent to be getting better defense than an individual like you and I that would be paying for it."

For the moment, ignore that the current system is funded by fees paid by criminals themselves, not taxpayers as a whole, and that Casey Cagle, being a multimillionaire, could afford a defense at least as good as the defendant here.

Instead, note the problem identified by Cagle: not that you and I do not receive the best possible defense when accused of a crime, but rather that an indigent defendant might receive a better one. And thus his solution: ensure that an indigent defendant receives a defense no better than the questionable one you or I might.

Rather than ensuring that all Georgians - well, except the wealthy Georgians, like, say, Casey Cagle - receive an equally inadequate defense, perhaps the state of Georgia should work to ensure that all Georgians, regardless of income, can afford the best possible defense. Of course, it wouldn't be without cost, but freedom rarely is.

Yes, Georgia should apologize for slavery.

2007-03-11T17:25:00.000-05:00

And it shouldn't stop there:

"It is time for Georgia, as one of the major stakeholders in slavery, as one of the major players in lynchings, to say it's sorry," said state Rep. Tyrone Brooks, D-Atlanta. "Sorry for the fact that it was involved in slave trade, sorry for the fact that it was involved in Jim Crow laws."

"If the capital of the Confederate states can lead the way in issuing an apology, then surely all of the other states that maintained slavery can consider doing the same," said Brooks, who is president of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials.

The proposal, which is expected to be unveiled in the next few days, could also go a step beyond an expression of regret, said Edward DuBose, president of the Georgia chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

"By asking Georgia to apologize for its role, we're asking it to assume responsibility," he said.

Now, note who is being asked to apologize: the government of Georgia, not the people of Georgia. While both the people responsible for slavery - and the people who were victims of slavery - are dead, the government responsible for slavery continues to exist. That government owes an apology to its victims, as sure as any wrongdoer would.

Of course, the Republican Party, the party that claims to be the party of responsibility, does not want the state of Georgia to take any responsibility:

Gov. Sonny Perdue's office said it had no comment on the proposal, but House Speaker Glenn Richardson said Thursday it would be "impossible for legislation offering an apology for slavery to move this session" because it's too late in the 40-day session. He also questioned the need for any type of official apology.

"I'm not sure what we ought to be apologizing for," said the Republican from Hiram. "Nobody here was in office."

Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams had a similar reaction.

"People shouldn't be held responsible for the sins of their fathers," said Williams, R-Lyons. "I personally believe apologies need to come from feelings that I've done wrong. I just don't feel like I did something wrong."

No, Tommie, Glenn, you, personally, are not responsible for slavery and you, personally, have nothing to apologize for. The government of Georgia does.

However, if you prevent our state from taking responsibility for its past, and for apologizing to those who were the victims of its policies, Georgia may not be alone in owing its past victims an apology.

I did not know that.

2007-03-11T16:47:00.000-05:00

In reading about Jack Ellis, current Macon mayor, recent convert to Islam, possible challenger to Hank Johnson in 2008, and apparently, not beloved by Amy at Georgia Women Vote, I learned 1) that Hank Johnson is Buddhist and 2) that he and Hawai'i Congresswoman Mazie Hirono are the first Buddhists to serve in Congress.

Phil Gingrey on Walter Reed: "I was glad to know that those cockroaches were belly up."

2007-03-10T21:37:00.000-05:00

Phil Gingrey, he keeps on the sunny side of life. From Think Progress:

I want to say for the record that, Mr. Chairman, that, um, I have been to Building 18. I have been to Walter Reed on a number of occasions, but specifically in regard to this issue went to take a look first-hand.

Having grown up in a motel, when I was going to medical school and living in one of the rooms, when I saw this old Walter Reed Motor Inn, it really reminded me a lot of, Mr. Chairman, of a, of the motel that my parents had in Augusta, Georgia. It’s not a five-star hotel, make no mistake about it, but it’s not a flophouse. It’s not a dump. It’s not a dive. It needs some work, no question about it. I’m not making excuses, of course. And when I read the Washington Post report I was glad to know that those cockroaches were belly up. It suggested to me that at least someone was spraying for them, Mr. Chairman.

And, of course, if you leave food around in a motel room or a dorm room at a college, you’re going to get some mice show up at some point in time. But there’s no question that there’s a problem. I’ve heard some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle suggest that specific heads should roll. I don’t know that, ah — I was a little bit shocked, quite honestly, that the Secretary of the Army was relieved of his command and the commander at Walter Reed, General Weightmann was relieved of his command and a change has been made there.

You have to forgive Phil Gingrey for being "shocked" that "heads should roll" over something as minor as injured soldiers living in squalor: the entire time he's been in Washington, the Republicans have been in charge. As such, he's unfamiliar with what we in the real world call "accountability."

We don't have a person deficit, we have an idiot surplus.

2007-03-09T18:22:00.000-05:00

From Political Insider, the latest crazy from Zell Miller:

"How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years? Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We're too few because too many of our babies have been killed," Miller said.

"Over 45 million since Roe v. Wade in 1973. If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security," the former Georgia governor said.

So, if abortion were a crime, not only would the government force women to bear children, but the government would force women to bear children so those children can grow up to be unskilled laborers, cannon fodder, or both. Cheery.

Here's "the brutal truth," Zell: legal abortion allowed tens of millions of Americans to defer parenthood until they were ready to become parents. Because of legal abortion, they were able to complete high school, or college; they were able to work, to save, and to establish homes; and they were able to build a better life for themselves and, ultimately, their children. Their lives are better, their children's lives are better, and America is better for them.

And America would be even better if its leaders were to show similar forethought: they would discover that 300 million Americans are more than sufficient to make peace, sustain our economy, and care for our elders, all without criminal abortion and the evil that flows from it.

Georgia's legislative priorities: English-only, PeachCare cuts.

2007-03-08T01:42:00.000-05:00

It's an orgy of Republicanism at the capitol.

From Political Insider, Republicans want to make it unconstitutional to speak a language other than English:

H.R. 413 escaped a House subcommittee on Tuesday. If it gets a two-thirds nod from the General Assembly, it would still require a crowd-pleasing vote in the November general election next year.

Yes, like the gay marriage prohibition, English’s place as the official language of Georgia is already in the state code. There’s a good reason to put it in the state Constitution as well, but it’s something only lawyers can put into words.

At the risk of losing some of you, we’ll attempt the technical explanation passed on to us by a high-ranking member of the state bar:

Currently, using Spanish in official state documents is merely illegal. Whereas, if the prohibition is part of the state Constitution, it is really, really illegal. Which is another thing entirely.

Glenn Richardson wants to deprive 21,000 Georgia children of their health insurance:

The top Republicans in the state House and the Senate are floating plans that would slash children from the PeachCare rolls, increase premiums and make dental and vision coverage a more expensive add-on.

. . . . House Speaker Glenn Richardson said the funding fight "has given us a good clean opportunity to give the program a fresh look."

. . . . Mr. Richardson has introduced a bill that would lower the income threshold for PeachCare to 200 percent of poverty, a move that would eliminate about 21,000 children from the rolls.

Mr. Richardson also said he wants to tighten eligibility by checking participants' immigration status and verifying income levels of applicants.

And lest we forget who is responsible for this "clean opportunity" to deprive children of health care:

President Bush has proposed only $5 billion for SCHIP as part of his budget for the coming fiscal year. That's less than half of the $11 billion to $13 billion that would be needed to fund the state programs at current levels.