Life and Deatherage Messages

Deep Thoughts #3, in three parts

Matt Deatherage — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:59:13 GMT

I did not support either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama in the Oklahoma Democratic primary.

It saddens me that TalkLeft, a brilliant site about the nexus of politics and bad criminal laws, has gone off the deep end for Sen. Clinton, with Jeralyn and Armando releasing dozens of anti-Obama posts each week. I agree that Sen. Clinton has every right to continue her campaign as long as she wishes, but she's still attacking Obama and echoing Republican frames that could hurt Obama in the very real (at least 50%) chance he is the party's nominee, and TalkLeft is apparently all for this.

We kind of expect this from Armando, who has carefully cultivated a reputation at multiple blogs of being "David Brooks without the charm." For many years, you could bet money that if someone posted a reasoned critique of Armando's pontifications, complete with direct quotes from Armando and precise rebuttals, he would nonetheless respond with words to the effect of "Go read what I wrote, stupid," ignoring that obviously the commenter had read what he wrote because he quoted it and disassembled it rather precisely. He's gotten better, somewhat. But this kind of party-destruction is really disappointing from Jeralyn.

It saddens me that AMERICAblog, a great site about pursuing progressive aims of equality and justice, has gone off the deep end against Sen. Clinton, with Joe and John releasing dozens of anti-Hillary posts each week. I agree that anyone is free to call on Sen. Clinton to end her campaign, but they're resurrecting ten- and fifteen-year-old GOP attacks on both Clintons (Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky) because they're not getting their way. AMERICAblog is, apparently, now all for echoing Republican frames, and this kind of party-destruction is really disappointing from those guys.

I agree with Brad at Sadly, No! (and, like him, I mean it for people who've gone off either side of the deep end):

I can't wait for this primary to be over just so a lot of people I like can become sane again.

Unclear on the concept

Matt Deatherage — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:26:38 GMT

John Aravosis, AMERICAblog:

Now Hillary says Obama won't be the winner even if he reaches 2,029 delegates

Honestly, go ahead. At this point, I'd love nothing better than to see an all-out war in the Democratic party, instigated by Hillary and Bill Clinton. The DNC, God bless 'em, is afraid to take Hillary on. The Democrats in Congress are afraid to take her on. The superdelegates across the board are afraid to take her on. We are a party of fear. …

I am not a fan of the Clinton campaign or strategy, and I believe that Democrats anywhere should feel free to take sides, advocate for or against the candidate of their choice, and declare or not declare intentions.

But not the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC is the structure of the Democratic Party. As such, it exists solely to manage the party's business, advocate for its goals, and promote the election of its candidates. The party members must choose their candidates for every elected office, by whatever means is prescribed for that office.

For the party hierarchy to "take on a candidate" of that party is the antithesis of what the party stands for. It's ridiculous for Aravosis to have complained for the past two months about the Clinton campaign's alleged "strategy" to thwart the popular vote by "stealing" the nomination via unelected "superdelegates,"¹, and then turn around today and imply that the DNC should use its same unelected status to dismiss a candidate with about 48% of the party's delegates.

The whole battle over Florida and Michigan is because the party chose to punish states that held primaries before Feburary 5, and those two states chose to do it anyway, and unlike past election cycles, the party is sticking to the agreed-upon rules and punishing those states. You can reasonably argue that the rules didn't require stripping 100% of delegates, and you can reasonably argue that the party should not listen to its members protestations now that those rules should be changed at the end of the election cycle they were designed to govern.

But given that there is a controvery at all, because the DNC has not caved to pressure to ignore the rules, you can't reasonably argue that the DNC is "afraid" to take on those who violate the party's rules as decided by its members. Once the party's members have decided upon their presidential candidate—at the convention if need be—then the DNC will fully support that nominee and "take on" those who attack him or her.

To "take on" one candidate or another before that is exactly the opposite of a democratic national party.

I would agree with the Clinton campaign that "automatic delegates" is a better term, because a superdelegate vote isn't worth more than a pledged delegate vote—it just comes from someone who wasn't elected as a delegate by a state primary or caucus. They're not "super," but changing the term in the middle of the cycle smells like trying to redefine the debate, so I'm not going to win that argument. ↩

Don't like the people who made the rules? Tough. Decisions are made by those who show up. People cared enough about the party's direction in 2005 to fight hard to get Howard Dean elected as DNC chairman, and if they don't like the delegate system, they should have fought to get it changed. If they didn't think it would matter, they were wrong. ↩

Cheney blames Democrats for gas prices

Matt Deatherage — Sat, 03 May 2008 10:46:12 GMT

ow brain hurts ow ow ow

Deep Thoughts #2

Matt Deatherage — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:30:24 GMT

Paul Krugman: An arugula confession

Via Ezra Klein, I learn that I'm a cultural elitist.I thought I was a man of the people: I don't actually much care for lattes (I actually like black filter coffee). But Newsweek says that it's about arugula versus beer -- and although I'm fine with beer, I happen to love arugula (especially with some shaved parmesan and good olive oil).

Maybe if I acted British, and called it rocket instead?

I really ought to call it "rocket," because I can't say "arugula" without hearing the horn on Jack Benny's Maxwell.

No, I'm not that old, but some things just stick with you. "Ahhhh-ROO-gula!"

He said what???

Matt Deatherage — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:07:59 GMT

I have seen three teevee news reports today saying that Barack Obama has "distanced" himself from "yesterday's controversial comments" by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I've read about half a dozen online news stories saying the same thing.

I have not seen any stories that identify or quote these "controversial comments." I have seen excerpts of Rev. Wright's comments without any analysis, and I've seen plenty of analysis saying Obama has to throw Wright under the bus because of what he said yesterday.

I have not seen anyone connect the dots, and list exactly which "controversial" comments require Obama to do this.

I know the political rule that keeps Sen. Obama from repeating whatever he thinks the offending comments are, because you don't want to put the wrong words in the candidate's mouth. But why won't CNN, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, etc. say what Wright said that's so controversial?

It's as if everything he said in six hours of public speaking over three days was absolutely horrifying, and from what excerpts I've seen, that's clearly not true. If Wright said something that horrible, why won't the news media say what it is?

Update: I think dday said it better.

Update II: Digby may be explaining it, but I didn't hear the remarks as nearly the kind of slap-in-the-face as she did.

Shorter Joan Walsh

Matt Deatherage — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:46:23 GMT

Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong:

The more I hear Rev. Wright explain his positions, the more convinced I am that I am better qualified than he to explain what he was saying.

Clusterflock Interviews With Jason Kottke

Matt Deatherage — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:48:09 GMT

As found and noted by Herr Gruber:

Astute observation from Kottke:

Other times, it’s not so fun running a visible site. Some people are determined to deliberately misunderstand much of what they encounter in life. Sometimes I have a hard time realizing that that’s their problem, not mine.

The ability to deliberately misunderstand what someone is trying to say is an extremely useful skill. I picked it up in Cupertino, probably largely from Dave, but like him, I do not use it for evil. It has two productive uses:

Humor. People can write some mighty dumb things if you read them other than the way they intended. This is an endless source of free amusement, ranging from the mildly funny:

Cataloging Photos and Storing Them on the Computer

Why would you go to all the trouble of cataloging your photos just to pile them on top of your computer?

Defiant Psystar back selling Leopard computers

And for just $100 extra, you can get one made out of rhinosceros hide!

To more evident howlers:

"Caution: this door is alarmed!"

WTF would make a door frightened?

"This door must remain closed at all times!

…then why is it a door? The normal word for "door that must never open" is wall.

Cosby daughter hooks up with "Madea" comedy (Reuters)

If one of Bill Cosby's daughters was hooking up with an entire movie, don't you think that's kind of burying the lede?

Prevention. If you can see these jokes coming in what you write, it makes you a little less likely to write such ambiguous phrases. For example, even if you're aware of the increasingly popular blog showing really really bad uses of Photoshop, and think that the exposure is good for Adobe, you would not write:

Photoshop Disasters Good for Adobe

You would more likely write

"Photoshop Disasters" Blog Good for Adobe

Or, even better:

Blog Showing Photoshop Excesses is Good for Adobe

Yes, it's longer, but it's also clearer. Trying to get people to read the article based on a misleading headline is generally a bad idea, especially if the misinterpreted version is largely the opposite of what you're trying to say.

So, yeah, deliberately misinterpreting others' remarks or writing for evil is a bad thing, but having the skill and using it to amuse yourself or to clarify your own writing is not such a bad thing.

Oklahoma legislators vote to intimidate women

Matt Deatherage — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:34:53 GMT

(Sorry for this rant, but if I don't get this off my chest, I'll be muttering to myself for days. Plus, I assure you, the KFOR link is only the most ad-free link to the short Associated Press story.)

The state legislature recently passed SB 1878, better known as the "force the murderous sluts to see they're killing a human being" bill, requiring any woman in Oklahoma who wishes to have an abortion to undergo an ultrasound procedure and be shown the resulting images, all in an attempt to make the difficult decision to end a pregnancy even more difficult. It's a bald-faced, brazen attempt to intimidate women into not having abortions, something that the country agrees by about a 2-1 margin should be only the woman's choice.

But the forced childbirth lobby is pretty powerful. Even though Gov. Henry did the right thing by vetoing the bill, it did little good:

OKLAHOMA CITY - State lawmakers today voted overwhelmingly to override Governor Brad Henry's veto of a bill requiring women to receive an ultrasound examination before receiving an abortion.

The Senate voted 37-11 to override the veto and the House followed by voting 81-15 for the override.

This is the first veto override in the popular governor's two terms of office.

Henry vetoed the bill last night and criticized it for not exempting rape and incest victims. He says the state would be victimizing these women a second time by requiring them to undergo ultrasound procedures.

The bill originally passed the Senate 38-10 and the House, 80-12.

Of course, given the composition of Oklahoma's House and Senate, the override couldn't have gotten that many votes without significant support from Oklahoma Democrats. They don't make the roll call votes easy to find, but they are online on the House Web site and buried in the Senate daily journal (PDF; search for "veto").

Here are the House Democrats who voted to override the veto of their own party's governor and force women in crisis to be pressured into continuing an unwanted pregnancy:

Yes, 25 of the 44 House Democrats voted to traumatize pregnant women and make their lives harder. Five representatives were excused and didn't vote—all Democrats. Only 14 Democrats voted to uphold the veto and a woman's right to choose.

And the state party wonders why voters don't get energized over legislative races.

My own district's representative, Ryan McMullen, is on that list. He regularly sends out newsletters to his constituents bragging about how he votes against the Democratic position on a vast majority of issues.

His legislative web page says he's the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Sigh. I will vote for any primary challenger to McMullen who is to his left, which basically means "anybody." However, given that the state Republican house members are people like Sally Kern, any Democrat is better than any Republican. By not bloody much.

In this session, the Oklahoma Senate is exactly evenly divided: 24 Republicans, 24 Democrats. So when you read that the Senate voted 37-11 to override the veto, you know a boatload of Democrats voted against women. They are:

There are some familiar and disappointing names on that list. Fortunately, Andrew Rice is not among them—he voted to uphold the veto. As well he should, because this is a bad bill. Like most Oklahoma statutes, it's badly written, but it intends to let any medical person refuse to perform any abortion-related procedure for "religious" reasons, allows health care facilities to refuse to provide medical services to women seeking to terminate pregnancies (and pharmacies to not serve such women), and requires doctors and hospitals to report bad effects (but not good results) of RU-486.

And, of course, it forces any woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy to state this desire in writing, knowing it will be kept on file for up to seven years, and to undergo an ultrasound examination with "a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable".

Ah, but since our legislators don't want to look like they're doing exactly what they are doing—using the force of law to intimdate women into carrying pregancies to term—they've tried to cover their asses:

C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images.

How generous of them. In case you're doubting that the purpose of this bill is to intimidate women into carrying pregnancies to term, no matter how awful that would be for them, consider this section:

A. It is the intent of the Legislature that the birth of a child does not constitute a legally recognizable injury and that it is contrary to public policy to award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child.

This precedes a section about how no one can recover damages because a child has a birth defect, or because an unwilling father was made to pay expensive support for a child he didn't want, because the mother refused to end the pregnancy. But the language, standing on its own like that, is a big dog-whistle to the state courts that women shouldn't be able to recover damages for being coerced out of ending a pregnancy, either. Why? Because "the birth of a child does not constitute a legally recognizable injury," and if there's no injury, there are no damages.

What if the child has a debilitating birth defect that means it will require expensive medical care for decades and never have a normal life, maybe not even being conscious? What if the woman wanted to end that pregnancy but was intimidated out of it, and now wants help to pay those expenses? Or if a father didn't want to be a father but now is on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars of care because the legislature intimidated the woman into continuing the pregnancy? Too bad! "It is contrary to public policy to award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child."

All the legislative links above are to the contact pages of the Democrats who voted for this abomination. Feel free to copy the HTML and use it in other places as a list of Democrats who should not get your support in any primary or for any higher office if any other Democrats are seeking the same office. I know I'm certainly not voting for any of these incredibly horrible misogynists if I have any better options.

For the record, all of the votes to sustain the veto in both houses came from Democrats with one lone exception: Representative Doug Cox (R-OKH5). It might have to do with the fact that Dr. Cox, chairman of the Public Health committee, is not just a family practitioner in Grove, and a hospital and EMS board member, but the winner of the the Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians' 2005 Family Physician of the Year award. (Of course, being a physician didn't exactly give Tom Coburn a clue, but he really is a special case.)

I'm starting to get excited about Andrew Rice, but the state legislature just remains a hotbed of buffoons and demagogues, the people who think Sally Kern was a brave and courageous culture warrior for trying to use the force of law to impose her religious beliefs on others—just like SB 1878 did, which is why Gov. Henry vetoed it. It's questionable that five Democrats managed to avoid the override vote. It's beyond deplorable that 33 elected Democrats voted to uphold this assault on pregnant women. Vote accordingly.

"I'm not even dreaming anymore."

Matt Deatherage — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:41:20 GMT

This should not be nearly as tear-jerking as it is. Even the Martha critics lose it towards the end of this one.

(Via TRex.)

No, KFOR cannot be taught.

Matt Deatherage — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:22:05 GMT

At the end of this post, in May 2007, I expressed some hope that local NBC affiliate KFOR-DT could yet come around and stop dropping the NBC high-definition signal at the slightest gust of wind, or because no one bothered to turn it on, or just because they hate their viewers. That post is the first result on the Great Gazoogle for "KFOR high definition" after the station's own site, so it appears people are paying attention.

But has KFOR-DT learned anything?

Sadly, as shown here, and here, and here, there is little evidence KFOR can be taught anything at all. Right now marks the third consecutive week that My Name is Earl and 30 Rock are in standard definition. This week, and two weeks ago, it was to show a weather map. Last week there was no superimposed weather information of any kind—KFOR-DT just left Earl and 30 Rock in horribly washed-out standard definition because they just don't care enough to broadcast the HDTV signal they're given. In all cases, 4-2's weather loop remained absolutely unchanged.

Well, I take it back. They switched to high-definition for the last four minutes of 30 Rock (one minute of program, three minutes of commercials that were in SD anyway). This is likely because they got so many complaints over the phone about not being in high-def before The Office returned with its first new post-strike episodes that they wanted to make the phone stop ringing. The other times show that they still absolutely do not care for their advertisers, their viewers, or their network.

I feel sorry for the advertisers who likely pay to see their ads airing during a high-rated high-definition show but instead get KFOR's massive indifference and incompetence, but I'm smiling because this is my next to last time having to deal with it. If next week's show is in standard definition, too, I'm cancelling my season passes for My Name is Earl and 30 Rock, and perhaps other NBC shows as well, and I'll watch them the next day on Hulu. Sure, it screws KFOR's advertisers, but the station's already doing that. If they'd broadcast their shows in the high-definition they advertise, I'd watch them there. They won't, so I won't.

Lowering the bar

Matt Deatherage — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:48:53 GMT

Teens sacrifice their Saturday to display precision, honor

Honor, courage and commitment were on display at the Sooner Stakes Junior ROTC Drill Meet on Saturday.

Ten Oklahoma schools were represented at the meet, organized by Oklahoma City Public Schools and held at Northeast Academy, 3100 N Kelley Ave.

Students ages 13 to 18 displayed the routines that had taken months of work and required hundreds of hours of dedication to perfect.

"This is a Saturday morning, and you've got hundreds of kids out here. That says something,” said Lt. Col. Paul Green of Northwest Classen High School's JROTC.

Although "JROTC participation incurs no obligation to join the military," the same reference on Wikipedia quotes February 2000 Congressional testimony as saying that "30%–50% of graduating JROTC cadets go on to join the military."

Plus, given the "hundreds of hours of dedication [required] to perfect" the routines, I think it's quite safe to say that these kids "sacrificed" a lot more than a Saturday morning, and that 30% to 50% of them will ultimately sacrifice a lot more—maybe all they have—in service of their country.

Where does the word sacrifice even come from?

Etymology: Middle English sacrifise, sacrifice, from Old French, from Latin sacrificium, from sacri- (from sacr-, sacer sacred) + -ficium (akin to Latin -ficare -fy) -- more at SACRED

OK, let's look at sacred:

Etymology: Middle English, from past participle of sacren to consecrate, from Old French sacrer, from Latin sacrare, from sacr-, sacer sacred, holy, cursed; akin to Latin sancire to make sacred, Hittite saklais rite, custom

Sacred seems plain enough, but what about that Latin suffix -ficium or -ficare, or its English version, -fy?

The verb suffix -fy, which means “to make or cause to become,” derives from Latin ficare or ficari, from facere, meaning “to do or make.” Thus purify means “to make pure, cleanse,” (coming from Latin purificare, from purus, “clean,” plus ficare). In English the suffix -fy now normally takes the form -ify: acidify, humidify, speechify. Verbs ending in -fy often have related nouns that end in -fication or -faction: magnify, magnification; satisfy, satisfaction.

The word sacrifice, therefore, comes from words meaning "to at or perform a duty to make something sacred," like sanctify. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary:

Sense of "something given up for the sake of another" is first recorded 1592.

American soldiers, in their proudest traditions, make real sacrifices for the service of their country. Whether those who ordered them into battle were correct or not, a soldier's willingness to sacrifice for his countrymen is worthy of respect. Actual ROTC cadets do the same. JROTC is a stepping stone to that, and while it's more about self-improvement than sacrifice, in its best incarnations it instills the idea that putting yourself on the line for those things in which you believe is moral and honorable.

Showing up on a Saturday to exhibit what you've learned is not a "sacrifice" of any kind, and using the word that way demeans the real sacrifices our military has made for hundreds of years. I'll buy that these kids "sacrificed" hundreds of hours of their free time to learn discipline, teamwork, and precision, and even honor. Even if it's mostly for their own benefit (and comes with no military obligation), they gave up what they could have been doing to benefit their teams.

But "Teens sacrifice their Saturday?" You sure don't see Lt. Col. Green quoted as saying that, and the Oklahoman shouldn't have said it, either. Headlining this "Teens sacrifice their Saturday" is really lowering the bar for what we think "sacrifice" is, especially in regards to military service. "Sure, those 4000 soldiers in Iraq sacrificed everything to serve, but these kids sacrificed too!"

It's not the same thing, and no one actually involved with it is even hinting that it was.

(Yes, I had the bloggy bug this afternoon. Blame caffeine. Off to work shortly.)

Quote of the Day #2

Matt Deatherage — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:11:55 GMT

Fenway was angry that night, my friends, like an old man trying to return soup at a deli.

(From Spencer Ackerman.)

Quote of the Day

Matt Deatherage — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:19:10 GMT

Actually from June 8, 2004, but brought up today in this paraphrase:

Also, he calls the Bush presidency “Inspector Clouseau meets the Book of Revelations,” which is about an apt description as you’ll ever see.

(Via Sadly, No!.)

Things that make me skeptical about Hillary Clinton

Matt Deatherage — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:57:01 GMT

Her Oklahoma page:

We Won in Oklahma!

Oh, how I wish I were making this up.

Compare this to http://oklahoma.barackobama.com and you'll see a world of difference. Clinton's page pretty much ended Oklahoma coverage with the primary, in which she "won in Oklahma!" Obama's page lists upcoming Obama events in Oklahoma, this month, even though the primary was completed over two months ago.

Obama also has a nifty digital assets download page, where you could find this:

Having supported neither Clinton nor Obama in the Oklahoma primary, there's a lot to be said for a campaign that's this together and energized two and a half months later.

Pride of Oklahoma: The Fried Onion Burger

Matt Deatherage — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:51:43 GMT

Just the title of this post made me think worlds were colliding.

The previous generation

Matt Deatherage — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:39:48 GMT

Something looked a bit odd when looking through upcoming sci-fi programs on my TiVo today (I try to take at least part of Saturdays off), so I went to the title search to confirm it:

There are no episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation scheduled in the next ten days on any of my DirecTV or local stations, and I get them all except for some non-English and sports channels.

The official page says it should be on both G4 and Spike during the week, but my program guide shows other progams in those slots.

I got them all on DVD when I could, and all the other Star Trek series are still listed, but not The Next Generation. I think this is the first time since 1991 that I've noticed episodes not being on multiple channels at least twice per day.

It's been more than 21 years since ST:TNG premiered. I'm old.

The War On Voters of Color

Matt Deatherage — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:10:41 GMT

From Barry Deutsch, who excerpts far better than I could, so I'll just quote his first bits:

Study: Stricter voting ID rules hurt ‘04 turnout

A study by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University shows turnout in 2004 was about 4% lower in states that required voters to sign their name or produce documentation. Hispanic turnout was 10% lower; the difference was about 6% for blacks and Asian-Americans.

Kevin Drum:

By a substantial margin, the Indiana residents most likely to possess photo ID turn out to be whites, the middle aged, and high-income voters. And while this is undoubtedly just a wild coincidence, these are also the three groups most like to vote for Republicans. […] Overall, 91% of registered Republicans had photo IDs compared to only 83% of registered Democrats.

But like I said, this is probably just a coincidence. I’m sure Karl Rove and the RNC had no idea that the demographics broke down like this. Right?

Go read the rest of it. (Via Cartoonists With Attitude.)

In fact, I did NOT know that!

Matt Deatherage — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:52:45 GMT

"That" meaning this:

(You know, by the way, that Scarborough is infamous for having represented Michael Griffin. Griffin was accused of murdering an abortion doctor in Pensacola, and in 1993, Scarborough took on the case pro bono concurrent with his run for Congress.)

(Via BAGnewsNotes.)

Deep Thoughts #1

Matt Deatherage — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:54:15 GMT

If Sen. McCain is so upset at being called a "warmonger," perhaps he should learn the actual definition of the word and then, you know, stop urging or attempting to stir up war.

Quote of the day

Matt Deatherage — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:07:37 GMT

From Athenae:

"Anticipatory self-defense," is apparently with Feith is calling "sticking our national dick in the bees' nest" these days, btw.

(Via First Draft.)

Charlton Heston marched for civil rights in Oklahoma City

Matt Deatherage — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:16:16 GMT

The only viable excerpt is the whole thing. Just go read it now.

Don't believe everything you read

Matt Deatherage — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:42:25 GMT

Scott Adams:

Recently I checked my blood pressure again and was horrified to see that I had shot past the borderline of hypertension and was well within the “prepare your will” category. The end was near. Suddenly food tasted better and I was filled with extra love for others. I put together my bucket list and set up an appointment with my doctor to see how long I had to live.

Yesterday my doctor checked me out and told me that my blood pressure is completely normal and always has been. Those little blood pressure monitors are not accurate. Apparently a vegetarian diet and regular exercise actually works. My cholesterol barely registered.

With my change in meds a few months ago, I don't have to keep as close a watch on my blood pressure, so I don't use my gizmo as much as I used to. (With the meds I was taking, the problem was blood pressure that was too low. My BP after ten minutes of resting was regularly about 90/45. When I used to say I didn't have the energy to do things, this is what I meant.)

Yet one of the first things The Official Sister of this blog told me after getting the gizmo (after the doctors told me I should keep an eye on the BP) was, "Take it with you to your doctor appointments, and after they measure your BP with their equipment, do the same with your gizmo. That way you'll know how accurate it is."

As it turned out, it measured almost exactly the same as the professionals, but it was good advice then and remains so. If you get a BP-monitoring gizmo, take it with you to the doctor sometime and see if it gets the same result they do. If not, make a note of how far off it is on a couple of readings when your BP might be different (like before and after seeing your bill), so you'll know for future reference. Or just contact the manufacturer and ask "Hey, how the hell do I calibrate this thing?"

Oh, and make sure you have the right cuff size. I'm tall, I needed to get the large cuff. Measurements with the small cuff were, shall we say, not correct.

(Via The Dilbert Blog.)

Vote the man, vote for Mickey Edwards

Matt Deatherage — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:02:14 GMT

Why can I still hear that song in my head thirty frickin years later?

NORMAN—A president who believes he is above the law and a Congress that supports that position are eroding the Constitution and the principles upon which the country was founded, former Oklahoma Rep. Mickey Edwards said this week.

"I worry considerably, deeply, in fact, whether the Constitution matters anymore," Edwards said.

A Republican and "Reagan conservative," Edwards represented the Oklahoma City area in Congress for 16 years, from 1977 to 1993. In the 15 years since, Edwards said, he has watched the emergence of "a new type of conservatism," a type he calls "not conservative at all."

Instead, he said, the current administration has overstepped its bounds, ignored the checks and balances imposed by the Constitution and "basically, taken the position the president doesn't have to obey the same laws that you and I do."

While much of his criticism is aimed at President Bush, Edwards said, "that's because he's the president in the box right now, but what's happening now is the culmination of growing trends."

For those not acquainted with the Sooner State, you may be wondering, "Just who is this yahoo former congressman, and why should I think he was anyone important?" Well, as the all-knowing site says:

Edwards was one of three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation and national chairman of the American Conservative Union. Along with former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, he has served as co-chairman of Citizens for Independent Courts, a national organization devoted to preserving judicial independence, and co-chairman with another former White House Counsel, Abner Mikva, of Citizens for the Constitution, a national organization concerned with limiting the use of constitutional amendments as a substitute for the normal legislative process. Edwards has also served as co-chairman of a Brookings Institution/Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Resources for International Affairs as well as the Brookings Working Group on Campaign Finance Reform and for five years as chairman of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. He has served on the board of directors of the Constitution Project and was the director of the congressional policy task forces advising Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign.

Founding trustee of The Heritage Foundation!

Still, no current "conservative" would have had any association with such an outdated luminary. Certainly not Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK4), current chair of the NRCC. Right…?

COLE, Tom, a Representative from Oklahoma; born in Shreveport, Caddo Parish, La., on April 28, 1949; graduated from Moore High School, Moore, Okla., B.A., Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa, 1971; M.A., Yale University, New Haven, Conn., 1974; Ph.D., University of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla., 1984; consultant; faculty, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla.; faculty, Oklahoma Baptist University, Shawnee, Okla.; staff, United States Representative Marvin (Mickey) Edwards of Oklahoma, 1982-1984; …

Why does Tom Cole hate America?

Socialized risk, privatized wealth

Matt Deatherage — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:40:39 GMT

In other words, "everyone pays the price when investment banks go under, but only their billionaire owners reap the benefits when they're profitable."

Oklahomans, in particular, should remember well the huge collapse of banks between 1982 and 1989 started by the collapse of Penn Square Bank, which nearly brought about the failure of Continental Illinois bank. This was rather concurrent with the giant S&L bailout, which involved Sen. McCain, if memory serves.

And now, as The Agonist reports, the Bush administration has forced Bear Stearns into the hands of JPMorganChase and then used it as a pretext to open the public treasury to investment banks:

A lot of the New Deal regulations governing investment and commercial banks were dismantled when the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was approved by Congress and signed by President Clinton. This allowed each side to undertake the business of the other, but the fundamental distinction regarding lender of last resort privileges was maintained. Now it is gone in a breathtaking act of executive power that was disguised as a response to the desperate situation at Bear Stearns. We might say instead that Bear Stearns was sacrificed to provide the remaining investment banks with something they always desired—parity with commercial banks with none of the burdens or responsibilities.

Read the entire article, especially if you remember Oklahoma banking crises of the past, like Penn Square, or that little thing called "The Great Depression."

It seems that some people are starting to get Sally's problem

Matt Deatherage — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:48:28 GMT

After a reported 1000 people showed up at Oklahoma's state capitol on Wednesday to support Sally Kern and her idea that the law should be changed to make gay people second-class citizens (if not criminals), even the Oklahoman is starting to report on some people getting the right idea.

"Religion can be a positive force. It's intended to be a positive voice for folks who may not have a voice," said the Rev. Jeff Hamilton, head of the Interfaith Alliance of Oklahoma and a former state legislator. "The voice of religion should be speaking out against discrimination. ... my real worry is that in the legislative process, this sectarianism is used to institutionalize prejudice, institutionalize policies that affect negatively people on the margins of life. And that goes contrary to the Christian point of view and Jesus of Nazareth.

"You're entitled as a Christian to have your beliefs even though your factual basis is not sound, but you cannot cloak yourself in holiness and claim that everything you say is factually correct or biblically correct."

Others, however, will fight hard against it. See for example, this comment (no direct link available) on the story:

Paula, since you have so much practice distorting the Word of God, it is no surprise you also mangled the First Amendment. I will try to keep this simple for you. Has Rep. Kern proposed a law respecting the establishment of religion? (Answer is no).

Well, actually, let's stop right there. Sally Kern has done nothing in public office but proposing laws respecting the establishment of religion. Specifically, as I wrote last month, she sees the entire purpose of holding public office as gaining the ability to enact statutes that enforce her religious views on the rest of the state with the force of law.

Who says so? How about The Oklahoman's rabidly right-wing editorial page?

Kern's main focus in the Legislature has been on anti-gay initiatives, such as trying to determine where libraries should place books with homosexual themes. "God's Word does not change. ... Therefore, my opinion also will not change,” she said last week.

Kern will be shown a little love today when the American Family Association holds a rally in her support at the Capitol. Perhaps constituents ought to hold a rally of their own, urging this one-trick pony to put her tiresome personal agenda aside and work to do something constructive.

When The Oklahoman editorial page sees you as a one-note gay-bashing harpy, your 15 minutes are over. But let's let "bill" continue with his misrepresentation of current events and American history:

Is the phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution? (Answer is no.)

This is so tired as to almost not deserve response, but in case people unaccustomed to non-right-wing media stumble across this, there is simply no question that the founding fathers meant to keep religion and government separate, with neither controlling the other. As Jefferson said, "I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." Yet this is exactly what Sally Kern is trying to do, by attempting to pass laws that enforce her religious beliefs upon all citizens of the state of Oklahoma.

(If this is too subtle for you, keep in mind that the Constitution also does not contain the phrase "No law shall declare it permissible to shoot Bill in the face," although clearly such a law would be unconstitutional.)

Bill continues:

Is religion prohibited in politics? (Answer is no.)

Of course it's not. Jefferson also said that, very plainly, in writing the "Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" that was adopted in January 1786:

Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions…therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right.

What "Bill" does not seem to realize is that this works in all directions. Just as Sally Kern is not disqualified from office because she is Baptist, nor are gay Oklahomans relegated to second-class or third-class status because Sally Kern believes they are sinners. Or because Bill believes they are sinners. Or because anyone believes God disapproves of gay people. You're free to believe it, but not to use your religious beliefs as the basis for laws that discriminate against people you think God doesn't like.

So, of course, "Bill" concludes with what he thinks are legitimate reasons to discriminate against people he thinks God doesn't like:

Also there are identifiable reasons to discriminate against homosexuals; they are banned from donating blood because of the danger they pose to society.

bill, Oklahoma City - Apr 2, 2008 11:38 PM

"Bill" came back later with support for this suspect claim (quotation marks in original):

"Current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk."

The Oklahoman commenting system doesn't seem to allow hyperlinks, so "Bill" can be forgiven for not linking to the original source for this material: conservative nutjob Matt Barber's column entitled "'Gay' Activists Risk Your Life. Tolerate It!"

Barber, who has made a career out of spewing gay-hatred, is one of the two "experts" that Sally Kern identified as "proving" that "politically active gays are part of a conspiracy to 'gain power' and 'promot[e] homoseuxality among young people.'"

"Bill," like Barber himself, failed to point out that the request to lift the ban on blood donations "from men who have had sex with men since 1977" came from the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and America's Blood Center." Why? Because everyone is vulnerable to the diseases that Barber cites, and no other group is excluded from giving blood since modern testing can catch infected blood before it enters the blood supply. Instead, as usual, Barber unleased the gay-hate that basically accuses his fellow Americans of trying to kill him, with absolutely no evidence, and "Bill" was happy to quote it, and for all I know, accept it into his heart as the word of Jesus, since he seems to believe loving Jesus is all about hating the homos.

But that's how this battle has gone for years, and will continue to go for years. Once the hate is installed, even massive doses of actual Jesus have a hard time removing it. "Bill," like Sally Kern and Matt Barber, think that their beliefs as right-wing Christians entitle them not just to freedom of speech, but the power to enact laws enforcing their beliefs on everyone else. If Sally Kern thinks God does not like gays, then by golly, the law should discriminate against them by whatever means necessary, says "Bill."

If the Baptist church says you can't get married, then so should the laws of the state of Oklahoma. Never mind if you are not Baptist, they say, because their beliefs are just "simple basic morality." (Also never mind that if someone tried to make Catholic beliefs the basis for state marriage law, they would run screaming to the First Amendment like Homer Simpson to free bacon.)

It's not about Sally Kern's "free speech" and never was. It's about her plans to make the state, and the nation, enforce her ideas that are solely based on her religious beliefs with the power of law, police, and fines. Passing laws based not on the rights of citizens, but on the religious beliefs of legislators, is the very definition of a "law respecting the establishment of religion." It is to Sally Kern's, Matt Barber's, and "Bill's" discredit that their gay hatred prohibits them from seeing this.

Yeah, you're right

Matt Deatherage — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:17:47 GMT

I was thinking "Judeo-Christian" but wrote "Christian" in haste, and therefore was wrong. I've changed it from describing three non-"Christian" members out of 535, or 99 44/100% "Christian," to 99% Judeo-Christian (two Muslims, two Buddhists, one atheist). "Muslims" feels like an old and outdated word to me, but so does "Protestants," and I think it's still right. The AP Stylebook says Muslim is "the preferred term to describe adherents of Islam."

I'd also left out a paragraph about how rallies and protests will not help, and I thought I added it on March 16, but it was caught in "local drafts," so I've added that as well. It's the third paragraph from the end. I'll quote it here if you don't want to search through the text:

This is why rallies, protests, and other such attempts designed to shame Sally Kern into renouncing her words will never work. To her, asking her to admit that the law should treat gay people equally is like asking her to renounce Christ. This is who she is. She may, in her heart, not hate gay people at all, but her public life is devoted solely to using the power of the state to enforce her religious beliefs on everyone else. Nothing will ever, ever change her mind. The Oklahoma House of Representatives will not expel her, so the voters of District 84 must do it.

Do not do business with Capital One

Matt Deatherage — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:02:09 GMT

I'm thinking about starting a new "Things I learned when I was really sick" category to pass along what I learned when I had almost no energy for over a year, but I'm not sure how many posts there'd be. The constant fear of employer-based health insurance is that you're just one job mistake away from losing everything if you get really sick, and while it didn't come down to that for me, I found that most companies I did business with were incredibly patient and understanding.

Most of them made arrangements for automatic payments because I didn't have the effort to do massive bookkeeping after trying to take care of the medical bills. Those companies (including, oddly enough, MBNA and First USA-later Chase-now Bank of America) gave me no problems. Others, like Discover and American Express, did not allow automatic payments, but did work with me when I got my energy back to get things settled.

Capital One falls into neither of these categories. I had a small account with Capital One to use on household matters (groceries, mostly) each month. It didn't have a large credit limit, and I didn't want one on that card. That turns out to have been a really good idea, because when I got sick, Capitol One got absolutely psychopathic.

You should not do business with Capital One because, if you get sick like I did and they treat you like they treated me, this is what will happen to you:

When you go online to try to find a way to set up automatic payments, you won't find it. When you call them on the phone and make it through the 35-minute phone tree, they'll tell you that they'll send you the paperwork for automatic payments. They won't. You'll repeat this two more times, and then finally, they'll tell you that they'll set it up for you themselves.

They will not set it up for you automatically themselves. If you're sick and have no energy, you probably won't notice this for a few months.

When you do notice it and try to log on and make a payment, they'll lock you out and tell you to call a new telephone number. You will not be able to get through on this number after 45 minutes of waiting, multiple times, which is a lot of time to spend on something when you have very few good working hours per day.

If you finally get through to them, they'll tell you that they've "turned your account over" for collection, even if you've been talking to them since the beginning about making automatic payments. Combined with being locked out of your account, this means they've been refusing your payments for months now. You would probably feel hesitant to mail a check to people who tell you in their "instantly updated" online system that you can't make any payments.

Rather than turn it over to a collection agency, Capital One will turn your account over to a law firm.

This law firm will send you a bill for something like 150% of your last Capitol One balance, with absolutely no supporting documentation. When you ask them, in writing, to provide documentation for this, their response is, "We have confirmed with our client that this is the correct figure." In other words, Bugsy says you owe him this much money, and when asked for proof, he asks Mugsy if it's true. You point out that this is not exactly "documentation" and that you would like to see actual numbers on paper justifying this figure. They will not be forthcoming.

The law firm will say that as long as you're communicating with them, they won't go to court for the money. This is also not true, as you will be served with a lawsuit approximately two days after they tell you that they're not going to file one.

The law firm will then contact you saying that they are most interested in working out a settlement, and wish to hear from you. You will respond that you are also interested in resolving this and asking them to justify the figures they're quoting and propose something. You will do this repeatedly. You will not hear back from them.

You will finally hear back from them with the explanation for the figures they're quoting, but only when the lawsuit (the one they filed after telling you they wouldn't) has reached summary judgment against you, after you were not notified of any of the proceedings. They will then demand 210% of your original Capital One balance, with interest accuring at 28% per year, and tell you that if you do not respond with settlement information, they'll basically start towing things away. (That would be at your residence where they didn't notify you of any of the court proceedings.)

They will conclude this by saying "You will be treated with dignity and respect." Given the history, you choke on your lunch reading this and accrue more medical bills.

I had much larger debts with other companies that were extremely professional and understanding about my situation and what I needed to do to get back on my feet to pay them off. The ones that took automatic payments never got in arrears at all, although at times I had to really scramble in my good hours to make sure the money was there. Capitol One was my smallest non-store credit card, but they were the first to stop responding, the most dishonest about trying to work with me, and the fastest to escalate what should have been a simple, easy repayment.

If my balance on that card had been in five figures instead of the very very low four figures, I probably would have had to declare bankruptcy. No other creditor has been this inflexible, and there's nothing special about me. If they'll do it to me, then especially with the credit crunch, I'd bet you a dollar they'll do it to you just as fast or even faster.

So, if you have a Capital One credit card, I strongly recommend that you cut it up right now, and pay off the balance absolutely as fast as possible, and never have any dealings with this firm again. Shred their junk mail (yes, during all of this, Capital One has been sending me new "pre-approved" credit card offers), hang up on their phone calls, and just get them out of your life. They're not a great card issuer when everything is great, but if something turns south, they're the first ones to screw you over.

I have no great love for MBNA or Bank of America, but they gave me all the tools I needed to manage the situation. Discover and American Express did not, but once I had energy to talk to them, it all got worked out in short order. Capital One was, and is, a nightmare. I urge you to avoid them at all costs.

Low sodium salsa, quick and tasty too

Matt Deatherage — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:22:03 GMT

I've found so many good things to help with low-sodium eating on The Intertubes that I figured I'd try to give something back. This is an adaptation of the linked Cook's Illustrated recipe, which originally appeared in the July-August 2002 issue of the magazine. It appears in modified form in the book The Best 30-Minute Recipe, and that's from where I start.

Like any denizen of the southwest, I like salsa, but it's hard to find any of them that I can eat. Most grocery-store salsas have anywhere from 130mg of sodium to 250mg of sodium per two-tablespoon serving, so if you get a basket of chips (even unsalted ones) and eat a third of a cup or so, you've shot your day's sodium requirement. Making fresh salsa isn't too hard, but I like cooked salsas like in the jar in the grocery stores. Fresh salsas taste more like "pico de gallo" to me, and while that's good, it's not salsa.

The solution, as offered in the book? Use canned diced tomatoes, which are mildly cooked as part of the canning process. It gives a taste a lot closer to the salsas I miss. Just be sure to use a good brand of no-salt diced tomatoes. I use Eden Organic diced tomatoes, which have no salt added by design. They come in a white enable-lined can to avoid that "canned" taste, and you can order them online if your grocery store won't stock them. (If your grocer can't get Eden Foods from his distributor, he can order them directly from Eden.)

My version of the recipe doubles the Cook's Illustrated version because their original version only makes one cup of salsa, and that doesn't last very long, even though it's not hard to make. If you want to make half a recipe, you could use something like Eden Organic's Diced Tomatoes with Green Chilies for deeper flavor. Those don't come in 28oz cans, though.

OK, here's the recipe:

Ingredients:

1 small jalapeño chile, minced, seeds and ribs removed for less heat

½ small red onion, peeled and chopped coarse

2 small cloves garlic (or 1 large clove)

¼ cup fresh cilantro leaves (washed and dried)

1-1½ teaspoon salt substitute (I recommend AlsoSalt)

¼-½ teaspoon adobo seasoning

4 teaspoons lime juice from 2 lines

1 28-ounce can of best-quality no-salt-added diced tomatoes, thoroughly drained

Add all ingredients except tomatoes to bowl of food processor and pulse until minced, about five 1-second pulses, scraping sides of bowl as necessary. Add tomatoes and pulse until roughly chopped, about two 1-second pulses.

The original recipe calls for one chipotle chile en adobo sauce, minced. The vinegary adobo sauce and the chipotle (a smoked jalapeñ pepper) add depth of flavor, but also adds something like 350mg of sodium to the recipe. Penzey's adobo seasoning mix (garlic, onion, black pepper, Mexican oregano, cumin, cayenne) adds a lot of the same flavor with no sodium. It's not in the original recipe.

The original recipe calls for ¼ teaspoon of table salt, which is a far cry from my list of 1-1½ teaspoons. Why? I'm looking for that cooked salsa flavor, and regular diced tomatoes have about ½ teaspoon of salt in a 14-ounce can, or 1 teaspoon in a 28-ounce can. I'm trying to replace that flavor with salt substitute, but of course, you're free to use less (or no) salt substitute and adjust flavors later.

An easy way to get more "bite" to the salsa without adding sodium is to add more fresh garlic. I mince the garlic before running it through the food processor to make sure I smash as many garlic cells as possible. It's breaching the cell walls that releases the two chemicals that give raw garlic its pungency. I mince the jalapeño, too, so that there are no big chunks left. (You can also leave in seeds and ribs on the jalapeño to add more heat. The capsaicin that makes peppers "hot" clings to the ribs, seeds, and inside membranes, so leaving them in makes the salsa hotter, even though the ribs and seeds themselves are indigestible, serving mostly as fiber.) I don't mince the cilantro ahead of time (the recipe in the book doesn't say to; the recipe online does) because the food processor does that well enough.

The online (original) recipe adds:

To Make Ahead:
The salsa can be refrigerated, wrapped tightly in plastic wrap, for up to 2 days. Season with additional lime juice and salt before serving.

I just keep it in a jar in the fridge, and it doesn't last long enough to go bad. Cook's calls this "One-Minute Salsa," but it takes me more than one minute to make it&emdash;usually about ten minutes, including washing the food processor, but it's extremely cheap (compared to $4/jar for salsas that contain 1500mg or more of sodium), and the entire recipe here (doubled from the original) contains 244 calories, 0.2g of fat, and just 39mg of sodium. I'll snack to that!

Re: Why Sally Kern matters

Russell Finn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:23:25 GMT

Without in any way trying to dilute the main thrust of your argument, I was struck by this statement: "The other 532 members, out of 535, say they are Christian." I'm sure it was your back problems that made you forget Joe Lieberman and the other 36 Jewish members of Congress (according to Wikipedia, which I realize it not authoritative, but I'm having trouble tracking down up-to-date statistics for some reason). It also claims there are two Buddhist members (although one is non-practicing), and one atheist (Pete Stark).

Still, if we subtract away those 40 members, we're left with 495 out of 535 claiming to be Christian, or 92.5% -- hardly an oppressed minority, and in fact over-represented compared to the population at large. (I will not speculate on the percentage of members who are nutbar Christian extremists, other than to suggest it's depressingly high.)

Keep up the good fight.

Why Sally Kern matters [updated]

Matt Deatherage — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:33:33 GMT

[The third paragraph from the end is new. I actually thought I had posted this on March 16, but I recently noticed the new graf wasn't there, so I fixed something else, too.]

My back hasn't been treating me all that well this past week, but I'm sure you've kept up anyway with the Sally Kern saga. I'm sure you heard that the Oklahoma GOP caucus gave her a standing ovation for not apologizing for her comments, that she has not backed away from them, and that the state (and, in fact, national) conservative communities don't just support her, but may in fact elect her Bishop of Something.

Over and over, her supporters say, "She's just exercising her right to free speech," and her detractors say that as a legislator, she has a higher responsibility. Her supporters then say that her detractors (or "liberal godless pinko commie heathens") are trying to take away her right to her own opinion because she's in office, and so on, and so on.

The entire "free speech" argument, emanating from Kern herself, is designed to obscure the true and serious problem—that Sally Kern, and those who agree with her, are statutorily and constitutionally unfit to be legislators, and have no place in United States Government.

Harsh? Yes, but true. Follow along.

As this adulatory article makes plain, Sally Kern's first, if not only, guiding principle as a legislator is "Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ."

Kern said, as a pastor’s wife, she knows the most important thing is for a person to have a personal relationship with Jesus, but “if we don’t live in a society favorable to faith, we won’t be able to share the gospel message.”

She said she believes the world is becoming antagonistic toward the Christian faith.

“If God’s people don’t get involved, we will lose the freedom to open our doors and share our faith,” she admonished. “We will be limited in what we can do. There are things going on in this country where people’s Christian faith is being challenged.”

Reiterating that this country was founded on biblical principles, Kern said if the church today doesn’t learn the true meaning of the first amendment instead of a distorted view of separation of church and state, Christians are going to lose religious freedoms.

Sally Kern knows, of course, that this is a vicious lie. When she speaks of "Christians losing their freedoms," she means not having the "freedom" to bar behaviors for the sole reason that her religion does not like them. Sally Kern considers Islam a "threat to America," but while she demands absolute freedom not only to practice but proselytize her religion, her conservative allies rail against attempts by members of other faiths to adhere to their beliefs.

“Our founding fathers wanted to separate the institutions of church and state, but never intended to separate faith from the public square,” she said. “Politics definitely influences our everyday lives. Our beliefs should be influencing society.”

Many others have noted how delusional Rep. Kern must be to have even the slightest belief that Christianity is not "influencing" American society. It's so uninfluential, in fact, that only 43 of the last 43 presidents believed in Jesus Christ, and only 100% of this year's major presidential candidates identified as "Christian." A mere 99% of members of Congress identify as Judeo-Christian, too. (That's the right percentage: two House members are Muslim, two are Buddhist, and one is an atheist. The other 530 members, out of 535, say they are Jewish or Christian.)

But the problem is not that Sally Kern believes these things, which she is entitled to do. The problem is that she wants to enact laws to enforce these ideas.

“If Christians would go to the polls and vote biblical values, we would have a biblical society,” she said. “We have to exercise our right to vote and stand up for biblical standards, or we are going to lose our freedoms.”

Kern said, according to a Gallup survey, only nine percent of people who call themselves Christian have a biblical view of the world.

It should go without saying, but does not, that Sally Kern's idea of a "Biblical view of the world" means "agreeing with Sally Kern's interpretation of the Bible." When she says that people with this view should "go to the polls and vote biblical values" so "we would have a biblical society," she is stating in clear and unambiguous terms that she wants to enact laws that force her "biblical viewpoint" on the rest of the state, and probably the nation.

When Sally Kern talks about "Christians losing freedom," she means that Christians no longer have the "freedom" to fire gay people just because they're gay. She means the "freedom" to force her particular brand of prayer on a captive audience of public school children, while her allies protest and interrupt any government-provided prayer from other faiths.

In short, Sally Kern sees equal rights for gay people (whether Christian or not), and for people of other faiths, as "losing her religious freedom" because it means she won't be able to use the force of law to push her message and suppress theirs.

This was never about freedom of speech, something most people figured out quickly when they realized her only legislative claim to fame was an attempt to force the state to censor library books that her religion did not like.

No, what this is about—what this has always been about—is Sally Kern's singular, overwhelming, driving desire to enforce her religion with the law.

She wants to block access to information she does not like, but since she realizes she can't get away with that, she casts it as "protecting the community." When it's pointed out to her that it would also "protect the community" to be tolerant of everyone's viewpoint, and that gay people in Oklahoma might not get murdered if important people like Sally Kern didn't say they were the single biggest threat to America, she literally cannot understand what you are talking about.

Sally Kern believes that the universe was created by a loving God, who wrote down His rules for living in His universe in a book called The Bible. She believes that exactly one interpretation of that book is not only correct, but also infallible and unquestionable. She believes that the one true interpretation of the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin (and that all the other things listed as "sin" in the same book of Leviticus are, somehow, not sins anymore), and that God will not only punish those who commit this sin, but also punish those who let this sin go unchecked.

When you try to tell Sally Kern that she should be tolerant of other people's point of view, her internal monologue tells her that "tolerance" is the work of the devil, and that if she lets up even for one day in her crusade to implement God's Word on Earth, then all that love she professes for Jesus Christ will do no good. When the Rapture comes, she'll be "left behind." When the Day of Judgment arrives, she will be found wanting, and condemned to burn in horrible pain for all eternity for not keeping The Word, just like you will for proposing that maybe, just maybe, her interpretation of the Bible might not be the only one, or might not be accurate at all.

And she is, and should be, completely free to believe this. I would take up my pen to support her right to believe that, just as I take it up here to support the rights of other people to believe differently. But it doesn't stop there. Sally Kern is a legislator in Oklahoma, for the sole reason that being a legislator gives her a chance to pass laws that enforce her religious beliefs on the rest of the state.

The entire purpose of statutory proscriptions on activities is to make sure that people who engage in those activities face penalties. If there's no penalty for ignoring a statute, the statute might as well not exist. When Sally Kern wanted all public libraries in Oklahoma to remove material that might portray gay people as healthy and normal, she proscribed the penalty for failure to comply: losing all state funding, effectively closing the libraries that didn't obey. In Sally Kern's "reclaimed" Oklahoma, your local library would not have the "freedom" to decide that there was nothing wrong with being gay, because Sally Kern's religion has already decided for you that being gay is wrong. If you choose to act on your beliefs, you lose your library. You only get to keep your library if you act on her beliefs.

This is the only reason Sally Kern ran for the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Sally Kern wants to create laws that promote her religion and punish those with other beliefs. The penalty may be a loss of state funding for something like a library, because not a lot of people seem to care about libraries anyway (for better or worse). But Sally Kern and her allies strongly support laws recriminalizing gay sex, including sex offender registration for everyone caught doing it. They want all mention of topics they dislike, from homosexuality to Islam to reproductive rights, banned from public schools, public libraries, and ideally from public discussion. The only way those laws would have any teeth at all is to provide penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment for those convicted of breaking them.

That's what this is all about. Sally Kern wants to create laws that punish people who act on beliefs other than her beliefs, up to and including imprisonment. She wants to use the power of the state to ban those things that do not fit her "biblical worldview" and allow only those things that do. This, by her own admission, is her entire reason for becoming a legislator.

In short, Sally Kern openly and proudly wants to make Oklahoma a fundamentalist theocracy. Her "free speech" is not and never has been on the line. Yours, however, is squarely in her sights, as is anything else you do that she and her church find objectionable.

This is why rallies, protests, and other such attempts designed to shame Sally Kern into renouncing her words will never work. To her, asking her to admit that the law should treat gay people equally is like asking her to renounce Christ. This is who she is. She may, in her heart, not hate gay people at all, but her public life is devoted solely to using the power of the state to enforce her religious beliefs on everyone else. Nothing will ever, ever change her mind. The Oklahoma House of Representatives will not expel her, so the voters of District 84 must do it.

“Our founding fathers wanted to separate the institutions of church and state, but never intended to separate faith from the public square,” she said. “Politics definitely influences our everyday lives. Our beliefs should be influencing society.”

Sally Kern has made it abundantly clear that, as a legislator, she will not stop until her views are controlling society. She and any others who would attempt to enforce their beliefs on others have no place writing, interpreting, or enforcing the laws in a nation and state where all people, regardless of any beliefs they hold, have equal protection under the law.

This is the letter to Sally Kern that I've been waiting to read

Matt Deatherage — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:58:25 GMT

…and that, I'm sure, Rep. Kern will not have the capability to take to heart. Read it now, you won't regret it.

And thank you, Tucker, whoever you are.

Oklahoma's new voter ID law

Matt Deatherage — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:04:42 GMT

Ah, the beauty of having archives. Nearly everything that needs to be said about the new "show photo ID before voting in Oklahoma" bill that passed through the state House yesterday on a party line vote (that means Rep. Sally Kern voted for the poll tax!) was said here, with a follow-up here, about two and a half years ago.

In case you don't want to click through, some highlights:

If you have to pay even one cent to the government just to able to vote, then by definition, it's a poll tax. The cost of being alive to vote is not a poll tax. The cost of being eligible to vote is not a poll tax. The cost of a driver's license is not a poll tax if you want a driver's license. The cost of an ID card that you get solely because you have to present it to vote is a poll tax. The reason for implementing it doesn't change its definition.

[…]I think people who are used to driving and carrying a driver's license everywhere are kind of inured to the idea that some people don't do this. Some people don't carry photo ID or credit cards everywhere. Some people don't routinely carry items that have to be cancelled and replaced if they're lost or stolen. I doubt more than a third of currently registered voters could tell you where their Voter Registration Cards are right now.

Plus, there's a quote there from an article on the Baker-Carter commission on voting problems that explains the inequity in this idea that "it's not unfair because everyone has to do it":

Absentee voters - who are disproportionately well-off - need only sign their ballot to prove validity, while voters who show up at the polls would have to present a photo ID. And although the commission recommends IDs be free, some states may still charge fees and establish other practical barriers that would be tantamount to a modern-day poll tax.

Although I have not read the legislation in question, the linked article's summary of the eight "acceptable" forms of photo ID did not seem to include any that were absolutely free of charge. I also wonder if it requires showing photo ID to get an absentee ballot. I still wouldn't support a law that puts restrictions on voting to solve a non-existent "voter fraud" problem, but I'd be encouraged if the GOP had managed to remember that their voters, not just the other party's voters, should have to show photo ID as well.

Yoo hoo, OPUBCO...

Matt Deatherage — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:41:51 GMT

…why isn't this labeled as the blatant advertisement that it clearly is?

Is this hate speech? [warning for the dense: modified quotes]

Matt Deatherage — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:42:14 GMT

A lot of commenters at News 9's Web site do not think this is "hate speech":

An Oklahoma lawmaker's anti-evangelical comments are attracting national attention.

"The evangelical agenda is destroying this nation; it's just a fact," Rep. Sally Kern is heard saying on a YouTube video posted Friday.

In an exclusive interview with News9.com Kern (R-Oklahoma City) admits it is her voice on the recording and stands by her comments. She said she's just stating the facts on what she believes.

"I'm not evangelical bashing, but according to God's word that is not the right kind of lifestyle," she said. "It has deadly consequences."

[…] Rep. Kern said the Christian community, especially in Oklahoma, should not be surprised by her comments because she's made similar statements in the past.

Kern said the attention isn't necessarily wanted, but she says she won't shy away from her opinions and beliefs, either.

"What is wrong with me as an American exercising my free speech rights on a topic that is a very big issue today?" she said.

One of Kern's most controversial claims is that evangelicals and Christianity is more of a threat to the United States than terrorism.

Kern said she doesn't know who taped the speech and when it was recorded.

"Shame on the person who didn't have the courage to come and say, 'I'm going to tape you and put it out on YouTube,'" she said.

Karen Parsons is a local activist. She said the majority of Oklahoman's don't care about religious affiliation.

"They care whether or not people are attacked," she said. "They care about whether or not their kids are bullied in school and it's this kind of speech, this kind of hate speech that gives the bullies the license to do it, and that's got to stop."

Parsons also said that Kern's comments are an embarrassment to Oklahoma.

"Hate speech has such negative consequences. The words really mean something." Parsons said. "She's a legislative leader and people pick up on her words and they take them to be the truth."

Rep. Kern also said that Christianity is "the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam." She said evangelical churches "are going after your young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the Christian religion is an acceptable religion." She said Christians "are inflitrating city councils," and that Christianity is like toe cancer:

One of my colleagues said we don’t have an evangelical problem in our community…well you know what, that is so dumb. If you have cancer in your little toe, do you just say that I’m going to forget about it since the rest of you is fine? It spreads! This stuff is deadly and it is spreading. It will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.

Is that hate speech? People aren't "born" Christian, after all, they choose to be Christian. If that's the way they are, then as long as they keep it behind closed doors, people shouldn't be attacking them, but God said that this hateful lifestyle is not His wish for His people, and that's just the simple truth. If the Christian's can't handle it, it's not hate speech, it's just me expressing my opinion.

If you think this is Christian-bashing, be sure to go read the original unmodified article, and especially the hundreds of comments attached to it. The quotes above are changed only in the group that Rep. Kern identified as "destructive," the "biggest threat our nation has," and like "toe cancer." If you think the above version is Christian-bashing, then the original is gay-bashing. Period.

And while Kern has absolutely no evidence of gay people "inflitrating" or "indoctrinating" anyone, there can be no argument whatsoever that Christians are "going after our young children," "inflitrating city councils" (and all levels of government), and "want to get into the government schools so they can indoctrinate" the children in favor of their agenda. They freely admit it, and attack anyone who says that other religions or beliefs should somehow have the same opportunity.

I believe that "God's Word," about which Rep. Kern professes such admiration, says this about the idea of accusing other groups of doing what Christians openly advocate for themselves:

²God will be as hard on you as you are on others! He will treat you exactly as you treat them.

³You can see the speck in your friend's eye, but you don't notice the log in your own eye. ⁴How can you say, "My friend, let me take the speck out of your eye," when you don't see the log in your own eye? ⁵You're nothing but show-offs! First, take the log out of your own eye. Then you can see how to take the speck out of your friend's eye.

I wonder if Rep. Kern's Bible includes the New Testament. Many fine local Christian bookstores will sell her one if she doesn't have one. Perhaps the Gideons could send her one.

Why "working the refs" works

Matt Deatherage — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:11:02 GMT

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Top brass at Disney were called on Thursday to defend their decision not to release the controversial miniseries "The Path to 9/11" on DVD and to justify CEO Robert Iger's $27.7 million pay package.

"Path," a 2006 ABC miniseries critical of President Bill Clinton's handling of terrorist threats, was so controversial that leading Democrats asked Disney not to air the program. Disney, after making some hasty edits, ran it commercial-free.

The problem with The Path to 9/11 is not that it was "critical of President Bill Clinton's handling of terrorist threats." The problem with The Path to 9/11 is that the film is full of blatant lies, the kind that are easily proven to be lies. From top to bottom, it was a neocon hack job intended to blame the Clinton administration for the Bush administration's outright failure to pay any attention to the huge warning signs of a looming Al Qaeda attack in the summer of 2001.

For example?

As Media Matters noted, despite ABC’s assertion in the
July 2006 press release that the network regarded it as "absolutely critical" to "get it right," The Path to 9/11 contained inaccurate and even fabricated scenes that cast the Clinton administration as insufficiently aggressive in combating terrorism and that showed President Bush taking aggressive action not indicated in the 9-11 Commission report. In addition, the film was sharply criticized by former Clinton administration officials, journalists, and conservatives alike, who noted that significant parts of the "docudrama’s" content were not supported by the 9-11 Commission’s findings.

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, described one scene in the film as a "total fabrication." Further, Berger and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated in a September 8 letter, "Actors portraying us do contemptible things we never did, and say things we neither said nor believed." Conservative author and journalist Richard Miniter criticized parts of the film as "based on an Internet myth" and having "no factual basis." In addition to Miniter, numerous others criticized the film’s accuracy, as Media Matters has noted:

On the September 8, 2006, edition of CNN’s American Morning, conservative radio host and former Reagan administration official Bill Bennett acknowledged that "the Clintons had a point" in pressuring ABC to correct the film and admonished ABC for "falsify[ing] the record," adding, "I think they should correct those inaccuracies."

On the September 7, 2006, edition of CNN Headline News’ Showbiz Tonight, Harvey Keitel, the film’s star, noted that "[i]t turned out not all the facts were correct" and stated: "Where we have distorted something, we have made a mistake, and that should be corrected. It can be corrected."

On the September 7, 2006, edition of CNN’s Paula Zahn Now, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz criticized ABC for "putting a movie on a serious, sensitive topic on the fifth-year anniversary of 9-11 that contains fiction."

On the September 7, 2006, edition of MSNBC’s The Most, Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, criticized the film for treating facts "cavalierly," as well as ABC’s response to critiques of the film, noting: "[T]hey [ABC] said that complaints about the film are irresponsible because they are still editing the film, yet they were very happy to send out review copies."

On the September 8, 2006, edition of MSNBC’s Countdown, host Keith Olbermann interviewed former FBI agent Tom Nicoletti, who said he was hired as a consultant during the film’s production but objected to numerous scenes in the film that he said reflected "improper research." In particular, he faulted the film’s depiction of former FBI special agent John O’Neill, who was killed in the 9-11 attacks and is portrayed in the film by Keitel. Nicoletti told Olbermann that he resigned as a consultant to the film based on scenes that remained inaccurate despite his input, and that in his opinion The Path to 9/11, "should be reshot and a lot of it corrected."

Moreover, the film’s writer and producer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, has admitted that at least one scene was fabricated. That scene falsely portrayed Berger hanging up on CIA Director George Tenet as he asks for authorization to let CIA officers and Afghani fighters raid an isolated compound in Afghanistan in order to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. The New York Times quoted Nowrasteh as saying that "Berger did not slam down the phone. That is not in the report. That was not scripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place."

They changed the facts, from top to bottom, not for "dramatic" purposes, but to make the Bush administration look good and the Clinton administration look bad. Yet all Reuters can manage to say about this is that it was "critical of President Bill Clinton's handling of terrorist threats." It was falsely critical of Bill Clinton's handling of terrorist threats, but the wingnut noise machine has been so successful in their efforts to change the rules that conservative lies about Democrats are not "lies," just "controversy."

Any falsehoods about conservatives, however, remain "unpatriotic," if not actually "treason." Yeesh.

(Via Reuters Entertainment News.)