Sen. Elizabeth Dole, a Salisbury Republican, introduced an amendment to add Helms, who died July 4, to the title of a $50 billion bill considered Wednesday in the Senate. Her measure never came up for a vote.

Helms, a deeply conservative Republican from Raleigh, was the frequent nemesis of gay activists. "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy," he once said.

* edit Incidentally and thanks to Sid, the bill was for global AIDS relief.

Now I get naming stuff after dead politicians, even recently dead politicians and especially recently dead unpopular politicians. Legacy is important to some. If you're going to do it though, shouldn't you pick something that makes sense?

While it's true that the quote comes from the 80's (which doesn't excuse it's ignorance) and that Senator Helms worked later in life to soften his opinion, this just leaves me scratching my head. Does it make sense to anyone else?

Roger Simon at Politico weighs in on The New Yorker's recent cover:

... [T]his is what is called the Idiot’s Veto: If a single person might not get a joke, then you should not tell the joke. All humor (and everything else) should be reduced to the lowest common denominator just to make sure nobody misunderstands anything.

This would, of course, remove a lot of the humor from life. Shows like “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report,” both of which are almost pure satire, would have to go off the air. And the late-night comics would have to shut up. And many writers would have to stop writing. All in order to have an idiot-proof society.

What say you? Is the cover offensive? Good satire? Bad satire?

You know it's not really an election year until JibJab makes a cartoon about it!

Click through to view.

Continue reading "JibJab" »

Today is my day for making up words. Deal with it!

So Sid makes a point that Obama is making that move to the center that seems fairly common this time of year as the candidates start to scramble for those people in or near the middle. My comment to him was that compromise is necessary to the democratic process. You need to be able to give and take.

In this day and age that seems to be a novel concept. Maybe it has always been so. In any event I think that one can and should go towards the center on a concept like abortion. Polarizaton solves nothing. You end up with a stalemate. I am actually anti-abortion from a strictly moral place, but in terms of my politics I have been labeled pro-choice (or anti-life depending upon your POV). I think that it is VITAL to be able to cross the aisle on hard topics. Compromise is not a dirty word. It is hard work and I think you do need to have lines you won't cross, but some give and take should be expected. What say you?

By this time, most of you are at BBQs, eating burgers, drinking beer, blowing hands off, etc. If you're not, you're supporting the terrorists. (Don't worry; I'm getting ready to go do all that.)

But, at the risk of making this a "remember the reason for the season" post, I'd urge you to think a little about what we're celebrating: our declaration of independence from England. Read the text of the entire Declaration of Independence after the jump. It's always a good read -- as is anything written by Thomas Jefferson -- especially if you haven't read it in a while.

Said John Adams about the second of July (the day we actually declared independence):

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

Continue reading "Happy Fourth of July!" »

This might be the only time you see me quote from a Robert Novak article, but here goes...

His tenuous 13-year relationship with the Republican Party, following his retirement from the Army, has ended. The national security adviser for Ronald Reagan left the present administration bitter about being ushered out of the State Department a year earlier than he wanted. As an African American, friends say, Powell is sensitive to racial attacks on Obama and especially on Obama's wife, Michelle. While McCain strategists shrug off defections from Bruce Bartlett and Larry Hunter, they wince in anticipating headlines generated by Powell's expected endorsement of Obama.

It can apparently buy 94 Democrats in the House.

From MAPLight.org:

Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)

88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008). See below for list of these 94 Dems.
...
"Campaign contributions bias our legislative system,” said Daniel Newman, Executive Director of MAPLight.org. “Simply put, candidates who take positions contrary to industry interests are unlikely to receive industry funds and thus have fewer resources for their election campaigns than those whose votes favor industry interests."

This is absolutely sickening news. Selling out your constituents is one thing. Selling out your freedom is blatantly criminal. I hope this gets picked up in the mainstream.

Obama's first general election ad:

An interesting article on Keith Olbermann.