counter statistics

Saturday, March 19, 2005

Mainstream Media Misrepresents the Bachmann Amendment

Andy from Eleventh Avenue South nails it.

Andrade on Students for Family Values/KKK comparison

The way you word the question, it is obvious that you hope to paint conservatives into a corner by endorsing (tacitly) the KKK by saying they should get fees.

However, that is exactly what the Supreme Court case has wrought with its ruling.

As for SFV, SFV has never been a partisan group, I always made sure of it when I was leading the group, and everything SFV did was completely within the rules governing 501c3 orgs, and no one can prove otherwise.

And SFV has had an excellent record with the way it spends its money. We've held more events and done more outreach, we've had more people attend our events, than the Women's Student Activist Collective, consistently over the last three years, despite getting half the funding.
Marty Andrade


Students for Family Values appears to me to be an anti-gay group. This was from reading the forums last fall. That's why the comparison to the KKK - but I think the KKK is too extreme a comparison. A better comparison would be the Council of Conservative Citizens. There are other issues SFV works on - abortion, creationism, guns - but homosexuality seems to be the favorite issue.

What also seemed to be rather evident is there were clear tensions between the Republican and Constitution Party activists in the group. I also thought it showed a lack of commitment to the marketplace of ideas for SFV to shut down the forums. It reminds me alot of the disputes between the democrats and greens in Minneapolis.

It appears you and Andrew Gettis concur on the meaning of the SCOTUS decision.

Friday, March 18, 2005

Neva Walker on Bonding Funds for Urban Vultures and Colin Powell Center

Matthea Little Smith (Neva's campaign manager) responded to my post on the Central Chat list:

This is my response to Matthea's post.....

Matthea: While Neva is a supporter of the Colin Powell Center, with the other serious issues facing the legislature the past few years, the Center hasn't been the high active priority of her work.

EY: Since Art is asking for 6.35 million of bonding funding, for the Colin Powell Center, and Neva Walker has been supporting this (When I talked with Keith Ellison about this program, he said that part of the reason he had signed on was because Neva had asked him to.)

Matthea:

However, I believe, if this program does not come to fruition, because someone blurs the political lines, and keeps children in the Phillips and surrounding neighborhoods from access to programs that will enrich their lives, again, the children of WILL be "left behind".

My hope Eva, is that you will address Art on his politics, not Neva or Peter, for that matter, on their great work to ensure our children have access to programs that enrich their lives.

EY: Why not fund programs for children with groups that have a better track record of respecting parents of non-christian kids - rather than undermining the parents? I'm addressing Neva Walker and Peter McLaughlin because they both have supported bonding
funding for Urban Ventures. Peter McLaughlin supported this project by having Hennepin County pass a resolution in support of it. Neva Walker has been pushing for this bill in the house.

I'll forward this email to Neva, and the other emails I've sent. Neva no longer represents me in the legislature - I have been contacting Keith Ellison on this issue - who does represent me. I've also contacted the house bonding committee about this.

It's really pretty appalling that the public schools, parks and libraries are getting cut - but the legislature and Governor Pawlenty wants to waste over 6 million on bonding funds for Urban Ventures.... A project that the 58th District Republicans have opposed in a 2004 resolution.

It's good that Art and UV has now distanced themselves from the anti-gay prayer effort. I still question whether any UV program would serve kids whose parents
don't want them to participate in the ministry part of the program.

Rep. Walker replied to this:

From: "Neva Walker" rep.neva.walker@house.mn
To: lloydletta@yahoo.com
Cc: Brian.Shekleton@co.hennepin.mn.us, Commissioner.McLaughlin@co.hennepin.mn.us,
"Keith Ellison" rep.keith.ellison@house.mn, art@urbanventures.org, duanecoleman@urbanventures.org, mattheas@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Urban Vultures and Colin Powell Center Joining in
Prayer for Bachmann Amendment

Eva, I appreciate the copy. I will not get into it with you via email over the support that I have for this project. If you want to pass this on to my constituents some who may have a concern, I will gladly discuss my position with them.

I am thankful that Matthea took the time to respond initially to your emails.

As for Keith, I never personally asked him for support of the project. However, my name could have been used to get him to sign on to the bill. This happens a lot at the Capitol.

It is my understanding that this project is currently at $2 million in the bonding bill. It has been the Governor and other GOP members that have pushed for this in the past years. I have been clear that although I support this project, I have other higher bonding priorities. I am not sure what you mean by I have been "pushing" for this project. Do I support it? Yes. Have I gone to my colleagues stating this was my number one project? No.

Finally it is easier to say fund other projects than for it to really happen. First proposals have to come forth. Then there is a long process that the bonding committee goes through before decisions are made about who will get funded.

Neva


Developing . . .

Thursday, March 17, 2005

State of the Twin Cities Gay Press

Andy from Eleventh Avenue South has a good take.

Blogs, email lists, and gay portal sites are the way I get gay political news - not twin cities print gay press.

Urban Vultures and Colin Powell Youth Center Disavow Connection to Anti-gay group

I posted earlier about Urban Vultures and the Colin Powell Youth Center being listed as endorsers of a Pray for the Bachmann amendment event....

I got this from Art Erickson today:

Non-Political Position of Urban Ventures and Colin Powell Youth Leadership Center

We recently received notification that the Urban Ventures and Colin Powell Youth Leadership Center names were listed in a document entitled "A Declaration and a Call" that appeared on the Midwest Chaplains web site. The inclusion of our name was done without our approval and a retraction is forthcoming.

Urban Ventures is a non-political organization that does not take positions regarding public policy issues. Our legislative focus is State Bonding and the Colin Powell Youth Leadership Center’s single measurable goal is to help underprivileged youth graduate from high school and go onto some form of post-secondary education.

Underprivileged youth need our assistance and the Colin Powell Youth Leadership Center is a strategy that is intended to help.

We seek your continued support on behalf of the 13,000 youth that live within one-mile of our site and the 25,000 youth that will use the Center on an annual basis. The Colin Powell Center will serve kids that live in Minneapolis, St. Paul and many of the Western Suburbs. It will be open to all kids.

We value your endorsement and hope that you will look favorably toward our $6.35M state bonding requests.

Art Erickson
CEO & President,
Urban Ventures Leadership Foundation

Duane Coleman
Vice President, Development
Colin Powell Youth Leadership Center


I contacted Dan Hall at Midwest Chaplains, and he told me some woman (he wouldn't say who) had put together the list of endorsing organizations and mistakenly put Urban Ventures and the Colin Powell Center on this list.

Urban Ventures recently sent out a letter talking about the sanctity of marriage.

Restoring Family Life in the City

"Every successful marriage is a social service agency in itself. Marriage is the cornerstone of a successful society" - John Turnipseed, Urban Ventures Family Center

At the same time we are utterly committed to the idea that we must restore fathering and mothering and healthy family units in our urban communities. Dating, marriage, weddings, marriage growth retreats...family picnics and vacations ... moms and dads involved in their children's education and connected to their schools and after-school activities . . . moms and dads coaching.


This was signed by Art Erickson and John Turnipseed in January 2005.

It's a good first step for Urban Ventures to state on the record that their programs are open to all children. They did not state publically that they will not coerce kids into participating in prayer in order to participate in sports.

Urban Ventures has a history of not respecting parents who don't agree with their religion. This is from a post to the Minneapolis Issues list by David Piehl:

My former neighbor, Jane Strauss, sent her children to an Urban Ventures summer program some years ago that was funded in part by the neighborhood. Jane's summary of the program was "it was supposed to be recreational activities for the kids, instead they fed my kids ham and cheese and talked about Jesus!" Rather inappropriate given the fact that Jane is an observant Jew, and was raising her children as such. I wonder if Urban Ventures plans to include the increasing number of Somalian children, most of whom are muslim, in their program?


Another post by Liz Greenbaum describes a similar situation:

When parents are signing their children up for classes - soccer, swimming, art classes, dance, music lessons - no one should have to "check out" an organization to see if they have a hidden agenda. They are exactly what is expected - soccer, swimming, art etc. and nothing more. If Urban Ventures were on the up and up about this, they wouldn't have taken the kids to the far corner of the field away from parents' ears to do this. They intentionally hid what they were doing, and believe me, had no intention of cluing the adults into their subversive agenda. If you want to know how it went I can get you in touch with the parent who experienced this - they tried to stop her from going over to see what her daughter was talking about. Personally, I find this extremely disturbing that a parent would be blamed for not checking it out thoroughly enough.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Judge Scalia: Judicial Activist

IGF's Paul Varnell explains:

During the March 2 oral argument of constitutional challenges to government displays of the Ten Commandments, Scalia observed that the commandments were "a symbol of the fact that government derives its authority from God." A little later he added that display of the commandments sends the message that "Our laws come from God."

Now this view of American government is offered entirely without evidence and not only deeply dangerous to republican government but at every point demonstrably false.

Scalia's claim is dangerous because based on what we can learn from ancient religious texts, gods typically give commands, offer no reasons for their commands, require unquestioning obedience, brook no argument or dissent and tend to destroy those who disobey. If governmental authority comes directly from a god, governments have no reason to follow any other practice.
The idea that government should determine God's will is contrary to the founders' vision.

In theory, any such government is obligated to obey the god's will. It is exactly this theory that underlies fundamentalist Muslim hostility to democracy — that democracy is non-Islamic because it is rule by the people instead of by Allah. But of course it is the government itself or officially approved religious authorities who determine what God's will is.

Scalia's view that government derives its authority from God seems indistinguishable from the medieval doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. But modern governments, even monarchies, long ago abandoned that claim, no prominent American statesman — and no Supreme Court justice — has ever asserted it, and the founders of the United States rejected it in the strongest terms.

The very Preamble to the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that the American government obtains its authority not from any god but from the people themselves: "We the People of the United States," it says, "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That is, the people form the government and grant it powers. Nowhere does the Constitution mention God.

The theory behind this — what we might call "the metaphysics of republican government" — is set out in the Declaration of Independence. There, Thomas Jefferson and the 55 other signers explain that "all Men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and that the governments they institute derive "their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

In short, the idea is that the Creator gives unalienable rights to human beings, who in turn grant to a government only enough power to protect their rights. The government receives nothing at all from God — no authority, no rights, no powers.

If someone tried to cavil that the Declaration was technically not a government document, we can point out that both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make clear that the people themselves have primary possession of rights and powers, even of the ones they transfer to the government.

The Ninth Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Note the word "retained" — that is, the people had the rights in the first place before they formed a government.

The Tenth Amendment adds, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." Note the word "delegated." The government's authority is derived from the people — and in the U.S. context, pre-existing state governments — not from God.


How does Scalia get away with claiming to be a "strict constructionist"?

AmericaBlog Bashes Ken Mehlman for Doing the Right Thing

Here:

Mehlman goes soft on opposing gay marriage, just as CA court says it's okay
by John in DC - 3/14/2005 03:29:00 PM

Just in time for Mehlman Monday.

Republican party head Ken Mehlman, who refuses to say on the record if he's heterosexual, today told the Associate Press:

It's not his job as head of the party to tell states whether they should allow same-sex couples to wed or form civil unions. "Certainly our platform states that the party is committed to ensuring that there is traditional marriage," he said, but he didn't think the party should take a position on state initiatives.

Funny. During the Bush presidential campaign, that Ken was in charge of, Bush and Kenny thought it was totally okay to link John Kerry to the extension of marriage rights to gay couples in that state. Now Ken thinks the topic is off limits.

Funny again. Both blogACTIVE.com and AMERICAblog.com, among other online observers, have been saying it's just a matter of time before all of these gay and ambiously-asexual senior Bush appointees start to go soft on the family values agenda. And what do you know, Ken is now backing off of gay marriage, the number one priority for the religious right over the next four years.


So I suppose Aravosis would prefer that Mehlman actually get the RNC to push this nonsense. This generated several good comments:

Aravosis:

No one is happy when Dems cave on gay marriage, but then again, I don't know too many sane people who think many politicians can openly embrace gay marriage and survive, especially in the south, let alone while running for president. There's a big difference between your bigoted, homophobic party using gay marriage to bash Dems, and Dems caving on the issue IN RESPONSE TO YOUR PARTY SHOVING IT INTO THEIR FACE DEMANDING COMMENT, knowing fully well that if they defend gays on this issue publicly it could mean a death sentence for their careers.


North Dallas Thirty: There are two problems with that logic. First, if Kerry and the Dems thought caving on gay marriage was going to somehow appease the "moral values" voters, they need to go back to their focus groups. Kerry literally, in my estimation, had nothing to lose -- because he still supported abortion and was still tagged as an antireligious "Massachusetts liberal", it didn't ultimately matter WHAT his position on gay marriage was. You act as though his opposition to gay marriage WON him votes, where I strongly disagree.

Second off, there is a middle ground between supporting antigay legislation and state constitutional amendments and supporting gay marriage -- and it's called "refusing to support antigay legislation or state constitutional amendments". Kerry never had to support gay marriage -- he just had to oppose amending state constitutions to prevent it from ever happening as discriminatory. It's not a difficult position -- in fact, it was the one he'd theoretically taken before on DOMA and the FMA. Why couldn't he do it this time?

In short, John, there were no bullets in the terrorist's gun. Kerry pandered to win votes he would never get, and he got millions of dollars in time, support, and cash from HRC and other gay groups for doing it. Had he taken the stance that, regardless of one's personal beliefs on gay marriage, it was discriminatory and wrong to amend the state constitutions, I sincerely believe that the majority of these amendments would not have passed -- and failure to pass them at the state level would have put the possibility of the FMA beyond recovery.

Put bluntly, John, by letting Kerry "preserve his political career" against a nonexistent threat, his stance on discrimination against gays was legitimized -- and is now law in 11 states.

Nathan: While I don't agree with everything NDT has said, I do think he's raised some valid points. I think John is wrong in saying that supporting gay marriage would have been political suicide, and I think that this is emblematic of the attitude of much of the left, which is to treat anyone who opposes gay marriage as a bigot whose mind cannot be changed (although this perception is undoubtedly true for some). In my mind, the fact that most Americans say they oppose gay marriage really reflects a failure of the LGBT community and the left to make their case to the American people. If, in the wake of the Goodridge decision, the Democrats had responded by aggressively reframing the issue in terms of basic rights and by emphasizing the distinctions between religious and civil marriage, I doubt that all 11 amendments would have passed - if not in Louisiana, then in Michigan and Oregon. Instead, almost every prominent Democrat responded (and, sadly, continues to respond) with the copout, "Gay-marriage-no-civil-unions-yes-FMA-no-unless- activist-judges-overturn-DOMA," and generally running away screaming from the issue. That gave the Christian right and its GOP allies free reign to falsely frame the issue as "redefining marriage" versus "defending traditional marriage."

So, anyway, I agree with John that the Repubs are responsible for deciding to use gay marriage to win votes. But he's giving the Dems too much credit for their spinelessness.


When I spoke to the College Republicans at the University of Minnesota, they were not aware that John Kerry opposed gay marriage. What's ironic is the position Kerry took on the issue made him look like a waffler - which was a perception that hurt him with voters big time. He could have said he opposed gay marriage, but also opposed writing discrimination into the federal and state constitutions.

Stillwater Gazette on the Anti-Gay Bachmann Amendment

Here.... The Editorial chastises the Democrats for lack of courage. It's an excellent editorial.

Marriage Amendment

We're disappointed that Sen. Michele Bachmann has decided to resurrect her quest to amend the Minnesota Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

First introduced by the Stillwater Republican after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down that state's "Defense of Marriage" law in 2003, Bachmann's proposal has the net effect of banning same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage: that's what this fight is about - not polygamy, group marriage or any other "alternative arrangements" that supporters of the amendment are quick to note will also be banned.

Amending the constitution to apply second-class status to any group of citizens is wrong and immoral. But that's exactly what this proposal does.

"The approach to these things changes over time," said Sen. John Hottinger, DFL-St. Peter. "(A constitutional amendment) ties the hands of our future citizens - putting words of discrimination in our constitution is never a good thing."

He's right. If Bachmann's proposal were to pass both houses of the Legislature and win the approval of state voters, it could still one day be overturned by a follow-up constitutional amendment.

But the words of a constitutional amendment are with us forever.

One can laugh now at the temperance movement of the early 20th century that led to prohibition (the U.S. Constitution's 18th amendment), but enshrining discrimination in the constitution isn't funny. It would be an embarrassment and forever serve as a reminder of a particularly narrow-minded period in the history of the state and the country.

Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council, said the "continued legal assault" on marriage has made a constitutional amendment necessary.

We won't argue that marriage has been under "legal assault" for years.

But the battlefield is divorce courts across the country. Taking aim at same-sex marriage would be akin to declaring war on Peru, rather than Japan, after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

But as disappointed as we are with Bachmann's decision to bring the politics of same-sex marriage back to the Capitol, we're not surprised.

For whatever reason, she has become the darling of the political right for championing this and other conservative causes.

What really bothers us, however, is the lack of true fight being put up by Senate DFLers at this point.

Sure, many of the state's leading DFLers are opposed to the measure, but we don't want them to run from it, defeat it in committee or counter it with controversial constitutional amendments of their own. Bachmann's proposal needs to be defeated on the Senate floor.

Last year Republicans claimed that DFLers were scared to vote on the marriage amendment, which passed overwhelmingly in the GOP-controlled House, but never made it to the floor of the DFL-led Senate.

Short of defeat by the full Senate, the marriage amendment will likely be the 800-pound gorilla at the Capitol until the end of the 2006 legislative session. Certainly nobody wants to see a repeat of last year's protracted, circus-like fight over this issue.

Could defeating Bachmann's proposal hurt DFLers in next year's election?

Maybe. But it's worth noting that Republicans saw their majority in the House almost completely eliminated in last November's election - and they were the driving force behind the marriage amendment.

But political calculus shouldn't figure into this debate.

Discussing his decision to sign a law allowing civil unions in 2000, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said his political aspirations weren't part of the equation.

"I never got a chance to ask myself whether signing it was a good idea or not," the former Democratic presidential candidate said. "Because I knew that if I were willing to sell out the rights of a whole group of human beings because it might be politically inconvenient ... then I had wasted my time in public service."

While not entirely analogous to the choice facing Senate DFLers, Dean's decision-making process provides a good example for them to follow.

Sometimes it's better to risk defeat for an honorable cause than lose nothing through cowardice.

Who knows? Voters might even reward marriage amendment opponents for showing courage and integrity that's increasingly rare in today's politics.

_ Stillwater Gazette, Thursday, March 10


Thank you Stillwater Gazette..... It's worth recalling that Stillwater's Rebecca Otto lost in the last election - despite her attempt to pander to bigots by supporting the Bachmann amendment.

Southworth v the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents

Marty Andrade continues to read Lloydletta.... He commented:

The supreme court case is "Southworth v. Board of Regents 2000"

Read up on it.


Kind of ironic.... The Students for Family Values Fee Request included the full text of this decision.

From the decision:

The First Amendment permits a public university to charge its students an activity fee used to fund a program to facilitate extracurricular student speech, provided that the program is viewpoint neutral.


So Marty - how would you answer my question:

The question is whether the Fees Committee acted on grounds that SFV spent money unwisely in the past, or has been a partisan organization (Joel Flake - a former SFV Officer has made this claim), or whether Brian Edstrom's claim is correct that this is viewpoint discrimination.

Would a KKK College Affiliate also be able to sue for not receiving University Fees on the basis of "viewpoint discrimination"?

Urban Vultures and Colin Powell Center Joining in Prayer for Bachmann Amendment

From a reader tip:

I remember watching you discuss the homophobic nature of the Urban Ventures and the Colin Powell Center on the Minneapolis Issues list.

Well, I just found this:


They signed on as doing a prayer and fast for marriage. What is the background on them? Are these government funds?


Good questions.

Here's some of the text:

Whereas:
At this critical point for both our state and nation with many important issues being debated in the public square and with many difficult decisions facing our legislators that will impact the future of our great state; and

Whereas:
The definitition of marriage is being challenged, a change that will impact the moral fabric of our state for future generations, and state legislators are being called on to make decisions on this issue; and

Whereas
In this hour of history's calling, Minnesotans look to God for encouragement and strength to make moral decisions especially concerning the Defense of Marriage; and

Now Therefore:

We, the Minnesota Christian Network, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, March 16, 2005, to be:

A Day of Repentence, Prayer and Fasting for marriage in the State of MN, and we humbly encourage our citizens to turn to God. May we open our hearts and our minds to seek wisdom and courage for the decisions before our leaders and ask God to grant them divine help to make decisions that honor him.

Endorsing Ministries include: Urban Ventures and the Colin Powell Center


Go to the Midwest Chaplains website and they link to an article by the "Pro-Family News" - from the Anti-gay Minnesota Family Council - about their efforts.

Developing. . .

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Viewpoint Discrimination

Earlier I asked:

The question is whether the Fees Committee acted on grounds that SFV spent money unwisely in the past, or has been a partisan organization (Joel Flake - a former SFV Officer has made this claim), or whether Brian Edstrom's claim that this is viewpoint discrimination.

Would a KKK College Affiliate also be able to sue for not receiving University Fees on the basis of "viewpoint discrimination"?


Andrew Gettis from Young Constitutionalists responds:

It doesn't matter what viewpoint is requesting money (no matter how reprehensible it is). If there was a KKK College Affiliate, and they met the requirements for funding, the University would be required to fund it equitably to other groups.

Of course, I'm sure you would be just as uncomfortable as I would having your money going to that organization; that's why the mandatory fees process should be changed to an elective one. Doesn't that seem fairest?


It will be interesting to see if the ambulance chasers from Pat Robertson's legal arm will help Students for Family Values sue the University. Or will the Fees committee decision get overruled by University Administrators....

Blogger Berg Demands City Pages Apology

Previously on Blogger Berg's Profession....

Here....

The ramifications of this piece of the story are bigger than Ms. Priesmeyer no doubt believes. Senator Bachmann is a candidate for federal office. I am a public figure - a larger figure in local broadcasting than, say, Nick Coleman. Just because a reporter's subjects are in the public eye doesn't exempt them from the demands of accuracy. Ms. Priesmeyer may be accustomed to reporting on the canoodlings of local musicians while hanging out at garbage can parties in the Wedge, but she's in the big little league, now. We must demand better of our freebie handout media.

So I demand that Ms. Priesmeyer either produce evidence of this "hug" from "behind", or apologize. I also demand a retraction in "Babelogue".

Where is the justice?


What a whiner.

Monday, March 14, 2005

"Learned Foot" vs Lloydletta

Previously on Lloydletta vs the MOB......



Don't drink that Koolaid. Hat Tip: Tom Swift of that Pair 'o Dice.....

Learned Foot is another MOBster who is rather obsessed with Nick Coleman (the MOB seems to have a group obsession with Nick - the gerbil of the apocolypse). From his blog entry declaring a Fiskwa on Nick Coleman:

Why was he named WOTW, you ask?

'Cuz he got Eva Young kicked out of the MOB. And she was on Coleman's Spittle Fest today to bitch about it. Let's go to the tape:

Dimwit Sidekick: gigglegigglegiggle

Coleman: So these MOB BLOG-gersssss are just a bunch of lonely guys that do it to pick up chicks at some Irish bar every Thursday night. By the way, I'm quite upset that these loons are befouling a fine Irish bar. So what did Swift say to get you kicked out of this MOB?

Eva Young: Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Coleman: Was it because you're a Republican? (?????? -ed)

EY: Uhhhhhhh. No....

Coleman: Was it because you're a lesbian?

EY: Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. No...

Coleman: OK. Tom Swift is the Wingnut of the Week! Thanks for talking to us Eva. You're one of our favorite guests.

EY: Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

OK, four things:

1) Again, congrats Swiftee. I wish I could be the WOTW. You rock!

2) St. Paul needs to come out and state the reasons as to why exactly Eva was kicked out of the MOB. I think we all know, but we never heard anything about it from the Capo. Disinformation is Nicks game, not ours.

3) PROPOSED NEW MOB RULE: If Nick Coleman likes you, it is an automatic bar to membership.


Finally there's some criteria they are proposing for MOB membership - rather than just reacting to Swiftee's hysteria.

4) It's time to start really pounding the shit out of Coleman. Let's see how many hours of his show that we can get him to devote to us. You folks out there that have not been pulling your weight, listen to a segment of his show (15 minutes' worth can supply a day's material) and start fisking and fact checking. Let's give this guy an aneurysm. FISKWAH!


Tom Swift has stepped up to the plate and started the Coleman Fatwah - er - Fiskwa blog.

Who knows if I was that inarticulate when I talked with Coleman about the MOB booting. I hope not - but I know I've had a persistant cough which has turned to pneumonia (which sounds much worse than it is). I didn't hear reviews from others who listened. However, now it seems that this Learned Foot character (where did he get that name?)

Here are the comments:

I thought Nick had awarded that honor to the MOB as a whole. I had to pull my own eardrums out with a red hot tweezers after suffering through a few seconds of Eva Young's stumbling gibberish so I may have missed the actual bestowal.

Regardless, the MOB in general and Swiftee in particular should be quite proud.
Atomizer | 03.02.05 - 10:58 am | #

Gravatar Well I have to admit that I'm gratified to be named as WOTW, but more importantly I'm happier than a tool-belt wearin' lesbian in a hardware store to get a link on KAR!

Speaking of TBWL's I don't think that Eva's sexual fantasies had anything to do with her booting..we love lesbians..

...word on the street is that she got booted cause she smells funny, but don't take that as gospel.
Swiftee | Homepage | 03.02.05 - 3:48 pm | #


Tom Swift shares more of his lurid fantasies about what he believes are gay sexual fantasies.

Gravatar I caught that bit of hellishly bad radio today. I thought Nick would devote a few minutes to Eva and the Wing Nut of the Week, but it took him a good fifteen minutes to painfully drag the story out of her, punctuated by his snide and decidedly unfunny commentary.

The pathetic thing is that I think he's more concerned with the goings on of the MOB than any of the members are. The man really needs to get a life.
the elder | Homepage | 03.02.05 - 6:11 pm | #

Saw this before, but didn't comment on it. I think I might link to it.

Check out the DumptheBachmanndumpers.blogspot.com - I'd suggest that as an addition to the MOB.

Lloydletta


Developing. . .

More on HRC's Joe Solmonese

From the Advocate:

The announcement of Solmonese's hiring brought praise not only from Democrats on the Hill but also from some of the most moderate Republicans. "Ensuring that every American is treated fairly and equally has no partisan boundaries, and I'm pleased that Joe is committed to working with Republicans as the new head of HRC," said Republican senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Added Republican Rob Simmons of Connecticut: "Since I've been in Congress, HRC has always displayed a long-standing commitment to bipartisanship. I have very little doubt that Joe will aggressively maintain this tradition, and I look forward to working with him."


It would be interesting to get the take from Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Would the departure of Cheryl Jacques help rebuild HRC's relationship with Specter?

From Steve Miller's Culture Watch:

Update: Log Cabin put out a press release. At first, taking the headline at face value, I feared they were in fact sending a congratulatory message. But it's actually pretty snide:

The selection of an experienced Democratic activist will allow HRC to solidify and strengthen Democratic support for equality. As the leading voice for moderate and conservative gay Americans, Log Cabin recognizes our unique responsibility to make new allies in the Republican Party," said Log Cabin Political Director Chris Barron.

"Log Cabin is expanding its commitment to work with people in the Heartland, conservatives in red state America, and with people of faith. In addition, we are pursuing an aggressive legislative agenda that includes Social Security reform...."

Well, it's good that somebody is going to focus on something beyond solidifying MoveOn.org's support for gay equality!


Realistically Log Cabin Republicans doesn't have the budget or person power to be an effective lobbying organization. Historically they have always excelled at a high profile press strategy.

So I'm happy to see that moderate Republicans in congress are expressing an interest in working with Solmonese. I'd like to see HRC become a leaner and more effective organization. Far too much money is spent raising money for HRC - and this distracts from HRC's core mission.

As I said earlier, Solmonese should make it a point to attend Log Cabin Republicans upcoming convention in the Big Easy.

Confronting Anti-Gay Animus in the Black Church

Keith Boykin bears powerful witness.

Boykin is guest hosting Michelangelo Signorile's show on Sirius OutQ. HRC's new ED Joe Solmonese will be the guest. I hope some Gay Republicans who have been skeptical of Solmonese will call in.

Blogging Beyond the Men's Club

Newsweek has an interesting post about diversity in the Blogosphere.

At a recent Harvard conference on bloggers and the media, the most pungent statement came from cyberspace. Rebecca MacKinnon, writing about the conference as it happened, got a response on the "comments" space of her blog from someone concerned that if the voices of bloggers overwhelm those of traditional media, "we will throw out some of the best ... journalism of the 21st century." The comment was from Keith Jenkins, an African-American blogger who is also an editor at The Washington Post Magazine [a sister publication of NEWSWEEK]. "It has taken 'mainstream media' a very long time to get to [the] point of inclusion," Jenkins wrote. "My fear is that the overwhelmingly white and male American blogosphere ... will return us to a day where the dialogue about issues was a predominantly white-only one."

After the comment was posted, a couple of the women at the conference—bloggers MacKinnon and Halley Suitt—looked around and saw that there weren't many other women in attendance. Nor were the faces yapping about the failings of Big Media representative of the human quiltwork one would see in the streets of Cambridge or New York City, let alone overseas. They were, however, representative of the top 100 blogs according to the Web site Technorati—a list dominated by bigmouths of the white-male variety.


A while back Gene Expression analysed Pharyngula's blogroll for gender bias. They listed Lloydletta a male authored blog. As I commented at the time on PZ's blog:

I hope I'm on your blogroll because my blog is decent, not because I'm female. I think there are more male blogs than female blogs which also skews the results.

I'd hate to see someone analyse my blogroll. I have more men than women on the blogroll.

It's pretty hilarious that people think my blog is written by a guy. Reminds me of the time that some idiots on the Bush2000 list accused me of being transgender.


Hat Tip: Captain Ed.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

City Pages Criticizes Powerline Fawning Fan Fest

Mitch Berg must have been trolling for his own name on the net, and comes across this account of the Center for the American Experiment's bash for the Powerline boys.

SAYING SO LONG TO DAN AT THE CAE

Molly Priesmeyer attended Wednesday night's goodbye-and-good-riddance party for Dan Rather and files this note:

****snip*****

"Courage" might have gotten the biggest laughs, but "hero" was the watchword of the night. "You guys are just heroes," one woman from the Center of the American Experiment told the Power Line and Fraters bloggers. And Sen. Michele Bachmann offered praise for blogger Mitch Berg: "You’re my hero!" she exclaimed, while hugging him from behind. Apparently, "hero" now means anyone who savages the president’s many detractors. Then again, this is 1952, and those commie bastards deserve it.


Mitch Berg cries foul!

Neither I nor any of the guys I spoke with recalls Senator Bachmann "...hugging me from behind". I'm a single guy. I remember these things.

And is Priesmeyer seriously comparing the bloggers present - a bunch of middle aged family guys with full-time jobs and mortgages and kids to raise, who write a bit in their limited free time (and still write more, and better, than the likes of Priesmeyer or Nick Coleman), people like Rocket and Trunk and, by the way, me - with the House Unamerican Activities Committee? With a megalomaniac Senator who used the full weight of the US government to (let's take the lefty canonical tale of the events at face value for now) squash the reputations, livelihoods and lives of innocent people for political gain?

I had no idea I was such a big cheese!

Sorry, Molly. You're going to be on the "facile stereotype" beat for a while longer.


I suppose Mitch has forgotten about the Powerline boys post calling former president Jimmy Carter a traitor. Mitch continues:

But then, the City Pages are a place where the editor thinks the Strib is conservative, a place where the blogmaster openly called for armed revolution if Bush won the election, a place that linked to a site that showed a flash animation of Michele Bachmann dancing with Hitler to support an article about te candidate.

Maybe it's time for the City Pages to declare intellectual bankruptcy.


City Pages also busted David Strom and Mary Kiffmeyer in a lie about how the supposedly "independent" complaint about the City Pages voter registation booth came about.

What's interesting is that City Pages seems to understand blogging and other internet technology better than most other print media here. The Strib and the Pioneer Press don't have blogs. City Pages does.

The Strib isn't "conservative", but calling them "communist" isn't accurate either.

Captain Ed also commented - from the perspective of having not gone to the event himself:

As for the McCarthyism, accusing a roomful of people of being racists without providing the least bit of evidence for such except a headcount at a well-publicized event that was open to anyone with $35 (as Preismeyer's own presence demonstrates) is a sterling example of the practice. Preismeyer and City Pages prove themselves to be disciples of McCarthy in their smear of political opponents with unsubstantiated and vile allegations. If they consider themselves journalists, they are deluding themselves. The City Pages has sunk to the level of parody, except no one's laughing at their hatred.


Actually the City Pages reporter said the audience at this event was lily white. She did not say the event was racist. That is fairly common for events of this type - whether sponsored by liberals or conservatives. I do see racial minorities at both Democratic and Republican city conventions.

I watched some of the CSPAN coverage of the event, and didn't think to pan the crowd to try to count racial minorities. I thought the most interesting question was "how do you find the time to keep the blog up"? They answered that they would write on the blog before going to work in the morning and after they got home at night - and that they would surf the net for news stories during their breaks at work.

I seem to have gotten a Parody Blog from a MOBster Wannabe

Previously on the Sopranos:

Current Episode:

The Blog is called Dumpthebachmanndumpers.blogspot.com and is based on the DumpBachmann blog. It's not nearly as entertaining as Pharyngula's spoof blog - which includes musical tributes.

Here's the first post (spelling and grammar is from the original):

My Mission

My name is Viva Jung. No, it is not my real name. I am a person who lives in Richfield, MN, works for a major airline, has four kids, and has been hanging around the fringe of politics for about five years.

And in that five years I have gotten to know a number of people. Unfortunately one of them is Eva Young.


I have no idea who this person is.

Not that she's an esspecially bad person, but there are two things about her

* she prowls the city, night and day, looking for anyone referring to gay people in any way. if they are not gay, she will assume there motives are discriminatory or attacking gays, even if they're not.
* She'll then badger whomever crosses her half to death. The woman is going to get a restraining order against her someday. I'll laugh.


I assume this guy is referring to this and this.

Debating people on public forums on gay issues is "badgering" people. Putting someone's own words out to a different audience also isn't badgering them. Mitch Berg does this all the time on his blog. In a recent example, he posted about a bizzarre attack on David Strom from a Union leader.

Yesterday I saw that Tom Swift was talking about her on his blog. I did a little digging, and saw that she has her own blog and, even though she lives in Saint Paul or Minneapolis - not in District Six - she has a blog dedicating to attacking the Michelle Bachman campaign, who is running for District Six congressional seat.


Yes, that's the Dump Michele Bachmann Blog..... Check it out.

Anyway - on the offchance that you're one of the eight people in Minnesota...excuse me, I meant the metro, who takes Eva Young seirously, I'm here to try to help. Together we'll map the paths of her endless obsesions as related to Michelle Bachman.


It's interesting that rather than defending Bachmann, this blog goes after me personally. I didn't know that one had to live in District 6 in order to comment on their elections.

As I said before, I'm rather envious of PZ Myers of Pharyngula. The blog spoofing him, Phawrongula includes some musical tributes. "Viva Junge's" (I suppose that's a spoof on my name) is just angry.

This guy's blog will probably get admitted to the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers.

Developing. . .

Minnesota Daily on Students for Family Values Getting a Zero Funding Recommendation

Here.

After initially granting Students for Family Values $15,000, the committee’s final report calls for no funding for the group. The fees committee also increased funding for the Minnesota International Student Association and the campus chapter of Habitat for Humanity.

The recommendations will now go to Jerry Rinehart, the University’s associate vice provost for student affairs, who can overturn decisions. Rinehart will hold a public hearing March 24 before presenting his recommendations to the Board of Regents in May.

. . .

In a 5-4 vote, the committee recommended no funding for Students for Family Values. The committee’s majority rationale said it had “(no) confidence that funding of any type will be spent within this organization.”

It also said the small group’s $83,000 request shows fiscal irresponsibility.

Students for Family Values President Brian Edstrom, who is on the Student Services Fees Administrative Units Committee, said the group will appeal to Rinehart. The group is also planning a legal case against the University, Edstrom said.



STUDENT SERVICES FEES RECOMMENDED
REQUESTS RECOMMENDATIONS
Initial Final
Students for Family Values $83,000 $15,000 $0
Minnesota International $105,650 $29,400 $59,600
Student Association Crisis Point $22,649 $0 $0
Entrepreneurship Club $15,000 $0 $0
The Wake student magazine $120,000 $90,850 $90,850
Habitat for Humanity $5000 $0 $5000
Queer Student Cultural Center $27,500 $27,500 $27,500
Graduate and Professional Student Assembly $376,729 $376,729 $376,729
Hmong Minnesota Student Association $46,000 $4,500 $8,500
TOTAL(including groups not shown) $1,641,277 $1,182,919 $1,303,485
SOURCE: STUDENT SERVICES FEES COMMITTEE

“The message is the fees process is unconstitutional — the way the University is implementing it,” Edstrom said.

He said the Supreme Court’s decision in University of Wisconsin v. Southworth, which called for “viewpoint neutrality” in fees processes, supports his group’s case.

Fees committee policy also requires members to make “responsible, viewpoint-neutral recommendations.”

The committee seemed overtly biased at Friday’s public deliberations, Edstrom said.


The question is whether the Fees Committee acted on grounds that SFV spent money unwisely in the past, or has been a partisan organization (Joel Flake - a former SFV Officer has made this claim), or whether Brian Edstrom's claim that this is viewpoint discrimination.

Would a KKK College Affiliate also be able to sue for not receiving University Fees on the basis of "viewpoint discrimination"?

Developing. . .