Today, the House Democrats will waltz into the mark-up of the Labor HHS Subcommittee and proudly present a bill that puts their stamp of approval on domestic abstinence-only-until-marri age programs--an ideological boondoggle that threatens the health and well-being of America's youth.

By James Wagoner

The most appalling aspect of this sell-out is that that the Democrats will not only fully fund the worst of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs--they'll give them a $27 million increase--the first in three years!

When respondents in a mid-February Pew poll were asked to use one word to describe President Bush, the single adjective offered most often was "incompetent." Meanwhile, a recent Newsweek poll revealed not only that Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low, but also that a majority of respondents simply wish his presidency was already over. These rebukes cannot sit well with someone who has proclaimed himself "The Decider," who has become infatuated with the title "Commander-in-Chief," and who once told Bob Woodward "That's the interesting thing about being the President...I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

There's a battle waging today in America that will decide the future of the Middle Class.

On one side are those like Thomas Jefferson who believe that a free people can govern themselves and have the right to organize their government to create a strong middle class - which will, in turn, keep the government democratic. On the other side are those like Thomas Hobbes who believe that only a small elite can and should govern and that the people should be willing to pay the price of poverty in exchange for security.

Next week, CBS plans to air a documentary about some of the events on 9/11/2001.  The documentary is controversial, even though it was shown before.  What makes it controversial is not revisiting the raw horror of that day,  it's that people -- some of them recorded live in the midst of these events -- curse.  After all, you have to remember 2/1/2004 changed everything.  Daring to let a four letter word through the nation's television speakers could cost CBS more than half a million dollars per offending syllable.

The Republicans, who so often poke the left as pushing a "nanny state," have made radical increases in fines for "indecency" part of their pretense at family values.  But as usual with the current crew in Washington, they've missed the target.  Not only have they failed to stop the real obscenity that threatens our country, the radical right has become the largest source for filth and indecency.  They've turned the Republican Party into the biggest pornographer in the world.

We've all seen it.  That smug little smirk on the face of Donald Rumsfeld as he addresses lesser mortals.  That irritating two beat giggle that terminates a Bush sentence.  That endless grin of Alberto Gonzales as he lies over and over.  That look of air-headed superiority is the natural face of Conservatism -- the face that says they're right, you're wrong, and facts aren't even an issue.  

If there's anything that conservatives are sure about it's, well, everything.  They've been convinced for decades that they were the bearers of the secret flame, the guardians of truth, the holders of all the cards.  

So what do you think will happen now that every single thing they've done has ended in utter disaster?  Do you think they'll start to doubt themselves?

Buddy, you never met a conservative.

History repeated itself yet again this week, with new charges of treason and anti-Americanism being directed against the New York Times.

There's nothing new about conservatives attacking the Times, of course. It's been going on for as long as I can remember, certainly. What's strange about this particular attack is the impetus. I'm sure you know what's happening, of course, but let's record it for posterity's sake. A while back, the NYT reported on an government info-gathering program aimed at terrorist-connected bank accounts. There was nothing unusual about the program or the reporting, but the right wing flew off the handle. Why? Good question.

The program was never that secret; information about it has been on the White House web page for more than four years. That's not why I'm perplexed, however. What gets me is that the article was largely positive.

The diary below was originally posted in my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal on April 23rd.

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) otherwise known, as brain fingerprinting will revolutionize how governments worldwide administer security and criminal justice. The potential repercussions for privacy rights are devastating. In years to come governments as well as corporations will possess the tools to examine an individual's brain waves and attempt to determine if they're lying.

In effect, FMRIs are neural imaging of one's brain waves. The technology allows researchers to map the brain's neurons as they process thoughts, sensations, memories, and motor commands. Since debuting a decade ago, brain fingerprinting has facilitated transparency with the cognitive operations behind behavior such as feeling stimulated by music or recognizing a familiar face in a crowd.

There have been several excellent takedowns of the odious David Horowitz recently, one by our own Bill Hare, and a series by the relentless Aaron Barlow, one of Horowitz's most trenchant critics.  In one of his more extended critiques this past week, Barlow shows how Horowitz's pretense toward intellectual thoroughness through his use of prosopography (the collective study of a group of people to identify common trends and traits), is a sham, for the very simple reason that he has pre-selected those professors he deems to be most "unhinged."

There is a spot-on reply by commenter pico to this particular entry, one that highlights something that is at the very heart of conservatarian propaganda:

On a broader note, what Horowitz is doing is not surprising: this method of argumentation is the Right's most common and most pernicious: argument by anecdotal evidence.  Think about it:

• A school in some podunk community changes the lyrics to "Silent Night" = War on Christmas.

• A minority is offended by some term his/her boss uses = Political Correctness run amok.

• A comment left on Michelle Malkin's weblog = the Left is unhinged.

• A teacher asks for a moment of silence instead of outright calling it prayer = War on Religion in the classroom.

This is Bill O'Reilly's favorite technique, incidentally.  No background, no research, no context - just stories about 'crazy' people that are used to formulate his personal war on culture.

Newsweek has done a story on the evangelical movement to reduce global warming and protect the environment, which I think speaks to a vital opportunity.

From the article:

[Richard] Cizik, who first arrived in Washington in 1980 as a foot soldier for the Moral Majority, is a self-described "Reagan movement conservative" and Bush supporter, who opposes abortion, gay marriage and embryonic-stem-cell research. He promotes those positions as vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the lobbying group that represents 30 million American Christians and more than 50 denominations. But in recent years, Cizik, 54, has also been at the forefront of a Biblically inspired environmental movement known as Creation Care, which holds that Christians have an obligation, described in the Book of Genesis, to "replenish the Earth" as God's stewards. "This is not a Red State issue or a Blue State issue or a green issue," Cizik says. "It's a spiritual issue."

Canadians will elect a new government on January 23, and, unless trends change, the Conservatives will not only win a minority government, they are on the edge of a MAJORITY government.  The Conservative Party in Canada, led by Stephen Harper [who bears an uncanny resemblence to Spongebob] is much like the American Republican Party, heavily influenced by the so-called Christian Right.  

No wonder it's getting more difficult to find "facts." It's become a full-time job for many citizens, organizations, agencies, and online journalists just to record reality these days--before it turns into "re-written history."

Even our premiere media outlet, which purports to feature government officials speaking in their own words, has been Bushwhacked.  Specifically, we're talking about the Washington Journal and FAIR's recent report on the balanced coverage.

Washington Journal's guest list, tabulating all 663 guests who appeared on the show in the six-month period from November 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005. FAIR examined the guest lists and categorized the participants by gender, ethnicity, party affiliation (if any) and occupation. Interestingly enough, the study also looked at the think tanks most prominently represented on the show.

According to FAIR, here are the facts:

Of the partisan guests, Republicans outnumbered Democrats nearly two to one (134 to 70). Not a single representative of a third party appeared during the study period.

People of color made up only 15 percent of Washington Journal's guestlist (100 out of 663). People of African and Asian heritage accounted for 4 percent each, while those of Middle Eastern and Latin American descent represented 3 percent each. No Native Americans were identifiable during the six months studied.

Male guests outnumbered women by four to one, at 80 percent to 20 percent. Moreover, 69 percent of guests were white males, while just 3 percent were women of color.

Journalists accounted for nearly a third of all guests (32 percent), the largest single occupational group on the guestlist. Of opinion journalists, 32 were right-of-center while only 19 were left-of-center.

Citizen-based organizations and public interest groups accounted for just 9 percent of total guests.

Tuesday's impressive wins by new governors Tim Kaine in Virginia and Jon Corzine in New Jersey will be attributed to many different factors.  Some will say that they ran good campaigns.  Others will suggest that Corzine scored points through some of his votes in the Senate, such as his vote against the bankruptcy bill.  And still others will make good observations that both of them are trustworthy, quality individuals who know how to address an audience.

I have a slightly simpler take on Tuesday's overwhelmingly positive results - and to understand it, we must start just over three years ago, when this election season really began.

Sept. 12, 2002: "Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq."

Over the past week, there's been an uproar nationally and in this neck of the woods over an editorial that ran in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last weekend.

In the opinion piece, now being referred to as "The Asterisk Editorial", the Journal Sentinel editorial staff wrote that "In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

This comment has resulted in tremendously platitudinal backlash, with right-wing hypocrites throwing around terms like "thinly veiled Liberal racism" and recalling old strawman phrases like "acting white".  But such claims are intellectually dishonest in the context of this editorial, and come down to a simple strategy: The right-wing is playing the race card again.  And this time, like usual, they're laying a 2 of clubs and calling it an ace of hearts.

Continued...