The Green Knight has a few words of wisdom for Bill Frist (R-TN) and his jihad scheduled for tomorrow.  May his words fall on good ground, and spring up, and bear fruit a hundredfold - though I hold little hope of it.

I'd also like to add:

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called Sons of God.

He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

At Tuesday’s [South Carolina House] meeting, according to the newspaper account, Rep. John Graham Altman asked why the bill’s title “Protect Our Women in Every Relationship (POWER)” just mentioned protecting women.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Harrison suggested calling the bill the “Protecting Our People in Every Relationship Act,” or “POPER,” the newspaper reported.

A voice on the tape is heard pronouncing it “Pop her.” Then another says “Pop her again,” followed by laughter.  (MSNBC)

Rep. John Altman Graham, if you recall, was the guy who valued the lives of roosters over the lives of women, essentially blaming female victims of domestic violence for being beaten more than once.  Many women were aghast and outraged by his comments, not comprehending what could cause such wanton disregard for human life.

Now we know.   Rep. Altman and his cohorts think it's funny. 

Funny that one-third of American women report being physically or sexually assaulted by a husband or boyfriend.  Funny that an estimated 503,485 women, per year, are victims of stalkers.  Funny that child abuse occurs in 30-60% of family violence cases in families with children.  Funny that while women are overall less likely to be victims of violent crime, they are 5-8 times more likely than men to be abused by an intimate partner.  Funny that, in 1996, 30% of all female murder victims in the US were killed by a husband or boyfriend.  Funny that a child's exposure to such violence is one of the leading factors in the tendency toward future violence in that grown child.  Funny that 40% of girls 14-17 report knowing someone who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend.  Funny that domestic violence costs the US anywhere from $5-10 billion in annual medical expenses, police and emergency costs, workplace absenteeism and other areas.   (Statistics from NDVH.org)

Yeah, that's just a real laugh riot.  Hoo-hoo, I just can't stop the chortling.

Pop Her

What else needs to be said?  Those words make the state of women in this country today exceedingly clear - we may be able to vote, but the men in power still see us as chattel to use as they see fit.  In fact, in South Carolina, women are worth less than roosters, given less protection under the law than poultry, and subject to the idea that popping them is amusing.

Now, Rep. Altman claims that it was just a joke, and anyone who took offense is just too damned sensitive.  I'm sorry, Mr. Altman, I don't find violence against anyone even remotely mirthsome.  My parents raised me better than that, with a respect for human life you obviously lack, and a tendency to be appalled at the suggestion that beating the shit out of someone might be good for some kicks.  I believe Rep. Altman and others contend that it was just a joke, not really advocating hitting women repeatedly, just sort of imagining it and getting their rocks off laughing.  Ho-kay.

Except I don't buy that excuse.  It's not okay to imagine white men getting beat up for no better reason than their genitalia and laughing.  Maude no, people tend to get up in arms about those white men folk getting hit for no good reason.  I imagine Mr. Altman might actually take issue with that almost as much as rooster-on-rooster fighting.  It's not okay to joke about black people getting beaten for their race, or Jewish people for their heritage - hell, those are officially "hate crimes." 

When asked to explain the disparity between the penalties for chicken fighting (felony, first offense) and beating women (misdemeanor, even after multiple offenses), Altman said:

People who compare the two are not very smart and if you don't understand the difference, Ms. Gormley, between trying to ban the savage practice of watching chickens trying to kill each other and protecting people rights in CDV statutes, I'll never be able to explain it to you in a 100 years ma'am.

He's not quite right.  People who compare the two, and have the chicken win, aren't necessarily dumb.  They're morally bankrupt, sure, but bright enough to keep getting elected anyway.  Chickens beating the crap out of other chickens is bad, I agree.  Forgive me if I think humans beating the crap out of other humans is worse, and that humans deserve at least the same legal protections and considerations as poultry.

Pop Her Again

Altman doesn't think chickens beating chickens is a laughing matter, but men beating women is just a real hoot. 

Frankly, I don't want him to explain it to me.

*****

Shakespeare's Sister links the SC House attitude against women to the national attitude against the GLBT community.  It's a must read.  Gilead is on the horizon.

What’s a good, high-minded pastor to do when confronted with parishioners forced to work with gay people? Does he counsel tolerance, turning the other cheek, loving one’s neighbor, doing unto the least, looking to the beam in one’s own eye, or keeping one’s brother?

Not if he’s Ken Hutcherson, pastor of the Antioch Bible Church in Washington state.

None of that namby-pamby, sissified stuff briefly alluded to in the New Testament for Mr. Hutcherson, no sir. When faced with gay people working for a living at Microsoft, a company long known for its support of equal corporate rights for gays and lesbians, Hutcherson scheduled two meetings with MS top executives, demanding that MS withdraw support for an anti-discrimination bill, and that "the company fire Microsoft employees who testified this year on behalf of the bill" threatening to organize a national Christian boycott of MS and its products if the company failed to meet his demands.

So what did Microsoft, grand behemoth of the software industry and on record as supporting the GLBT community for more than 10 years, do? Did it laugh in the face of Dr. Hutcherson and his hateful, loathsome commands? Did it wax diplomatic and say, "Sorry, Ken, we just can’t help you on this one?" Did it don the supercape of bravado – for which it is sometimes famous – and say, "You just try it?"

No. No, it did not. Microsoft caved. Somewhere between the first and second meetings, Microsoft decided to withdraw its support, citing a refocusing of their corporate legislative energies and opting to maintain official "neutrality" on the subject. A Microsoft spokesman, Mark Murray, insists the pastoral offensive had nothing to do with the company’s decision. Denmark, however, still smells.

The bill, which would have protected gays and lesbians against discrimination in employment and housing, among other issues, failed by one vote. David Duke must be so proud, for it is his legacy we’ve inherited, just shrouded in a slightly different cloth.

***

Edited to add: Shakespeare's Sister reposts a John Aravosis article on her site, and weighs in with much the same feelings as my own:

I’m calling it like I see it: There’s an entire network of sick fucks who want to legislate the oppression of gays and women under the guise of religion. They’ve hijacked the term “Christian” for their own, because it makes it harder to attack them, but there’s nothing Christian about what they’re doing, and there’s nothing American about what they’re doing, either.

Toddle on over and read it.

Via Echidne of the Snakes, reposted here in full:

Dear friends and colleagues,

A judge is being followed 24/7 by bodyguards to protect him against death threats and hate mail that he has been receiving. You might think this story comes from Iraq, but it's happening in San Francisco right now. It's happening to Judge Richard Kramer, who recently issued a historic decision that determined it is against California's state constitution to deny civil marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

According to a good friend of mine who speaks with Judge Kramer regularly, Judge Kramer is depressed that mail against his decision outnumbers mail in favor by a ratio of 10 to 1. He is depressed because he is bathing daily in a bath of vituperation and hatred. He is depressed because the people who oppose his decision are not interested in the rule of law but the rule of ideologies and emotions.

So i am asking you a favor: please take out your pen - yes, your pen, i ask for your hand in this - and write Judge Kramer a brief note of support.

If you are straight, please mention this.

If you live out of state, explain how it might touch and affect you to know that a California judge has had the courage to interpret the law scrupulously and in accordance with the evidence and our fundamental principles of equal justice for all, as our system requires.

Please note that Judge Kramer is known to be a conservative and prudent jurist. He is a married Catholic and a Republican, and was appointed to the bench by a Republican. So it is difficult to write off his opinion as one biased by a liberal or personal agenda.

And please, forward this email on to your own list, and ask your friends and colleagues to write as well. If we do not support and defend people who act with integrity and stand up for what is right, who will?

Your letter should be sent to:

Judge Richard Kramer
Civic Center Courthouse
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-4514

Thanks for taking today's action.

The Green Knight, conscientiously polite.

And

Echidne of the Snakes, thoughtful commentary from one of those women bloggers who don't exist.

Go read 'em.

 

Via Trish Wilson:

Women's Lives Aren't As Important As Gamecocks

I had read about this in e-mail this morning, but Sheelzebub also wrote to me to tell me about her post on this infuriating subject. In South Carolina, at this moment, cockfighting and beating women are both misdemeanors. However, a bill just passed that now makes cockfighting a felony. A bill that would have made beating women a felony was tabled. So, you will get five years in jail for cockfighting, but beating a woman remains a misdemeanor that will get you only thirty days in jail.

Dunno about you, but in general I tend to rank humans above poultry on the scale of importance.

Rep. Altman responds to the comparison, "People who compare the two are not very smart and if you don't understand the difference, Ms. Gormley [a local reporter], between trying to ban the savage practice of watching chickens trying to kill each other and protecting people rights in CDV statutes, I'll never be able to explain it to you in a 100 years ma'am."

[snip]

Rep. Altman spoke about domestic violence, "There ought not to be a second offense. The woman ought to not be around the man. I mean you women want it one way and not another.

"One way and not the other?"  A modicum of respect and not beaten to death, you mean?  Crazy freaking women, always asking for handouts and special consideration.  I guess we should just be glad that trained roosters now enjoy legal protections we wacky wenches (mothers, sisters, daughters) could never hope to deserve.

You think this is rotten, read the rest of the article.  Rep. Altman gets today's SLoC Schmo of the Time Period Award.

Lovely.

HOUSTON (Reuters)- The Texas House of Representatives passed a bill this week that would ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents, outraging gay leaders and delighting social conservatives.

[snip]

The Republican-controlled House passed the bill by a vote of 135-6 on Wednesday, but it still must go the Texas Senate for approval. When that would happen was not yet known.

Because Texas has so many foster parents just lined up and waiting, as if for the premiere of Star Wars, Revenge of the Sith, for children to love. In FY04, the state of Texas alone claimed legal responsibility for 24,453 children, only 17,109 of whom were in any foster-family care.⁽¹⁾ The bigotry of these people – contending that no family at all is better than a loving one that happens to include homosexuals. Research consistently suggests that children have better developmental outcomes when they are raised in families.⁽²⁾

The NSCAW (2000) found that children living in out-of-home care for one year are generally satisfied with their living arrangements and schools, but children residing in group care are less satisfied with certain aspects of their experience. Children in group care are almost 4 times as likely as those in non-kin foster homes and are 10 times as likely as those in kinship care to report that they do not like the people with whom they are living. They are more likely to report never seeing their biological fathers or mothers. When compared to children in family foster care, children in group care are 3 times more likely to report seeing their birth mother less than once a month. When compared to children in kinship care, they are 4 times more likely care to report seeing their birth mother less than once a month.⁽³⁾

Which just goes to show you that once the kids are birthed, the "Culture of Life" doesn’t give a flying flip about them or their needs. Happy, healthy, well-adjusted teenagers and adults simply aren’t a priority. Not when a political axe has an opportunity to meet a well-worn grinding stone. Happy, healthy, well-adjusted adults are actually counterproductive to the cause, as they tend to be less bigoted, and consequently less interested in usurping the rights of others to serve their own demented agendas.

Studies have shown that children in family foster care function better than children in group care in a number of areas. Children in family foster care attain higher levels of education (Festinger, 1983); have a lower likelihood of arrest or conviction (Festinger, 1983); have fewer substance abuse problems (Jones & Moses, 1984); are less likely to be dissatisfied with the level of contact they have with their siblings (Festinger, 1983); are more likely to have close friends (Festinger, 1983); have stronger informal supports (Jones & Moses, 1984); and more positively assess their lives (Festinger, 1983).⁽⁴⁾

Let me get this straight, better to be an uneducated drop-out felon with a drug problem than to walk in the door and say "Hey, Moms. I’m home."

"There's a risk that more of the children will go into homosexuality because it's a cultivated and learned behavior," [Texas Republican Robert Talton, sponsor of the bill] told reporters. (Reuters)

Oh, I get it. Better to be an uneducated drop-out felon with a drug problem than to develop a stable, long term, supportive, loving relationship with someone who happens to be of the same gender. Gotcha. Yes, Maude forbid someone have the gall to care for an unapproved person. The horror! A world populated by Eleanor Roosevelts, Jane Addamses, Susan B. Anthonys, Barbara Jordans, Zackie Achmats, and Bayard Rustins, among others. The horror, the horror! Why, if gay people were allowed to be parents, the world would certainly end.

Oh wait. Gay people have been parents for centuries, yet humanity perseveres. Sort of throws a wrench in those works, don’t it?

… orphanages are cyclically embraced as a promising alternative for children in foster care, but there is growing concern about their impact as research has established the negative physical, developmental, psychological and social consequences of institutional care on children and youth. Research makes clear that the decision to place children into institutional care settings significantly lessens their chances for permanency, particularly opportunities to be adopted. Approximately 60 percent of children adopted each year from the foster care system are adopted by their foster parents. When children are placed in institutional settings, these potential adoptive family resources are not available. Although there is no definitive number as to how many children are currently in orphanages, data does show that of the 542,000 children in foster care in September 2001, 10% (56,509 children and youth) were living in some type of institutional setting.⁽⁵⁾

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, "Culture of Life," my ass. If having two dads or two moms is to become a crime punishable by isolation, social stigma, and addiction, sign me up for the counterculture.

(1) 2004 Data Book. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Austin, TX. 2004.
(2) Institutions vs. Foster Homes: The Empirical Basis for the Second Century of Debate. Rick Barth, University of North Carolina, School of Social Work, Jordan Institute for Families, Chapel Hill, NC. February 2002.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid.
(5) A Return to Orphanages?. Madelyn Freundlich, Leslee Morris, Emily Blair, Children’s Rights, New York, NY. July 2004.

I did not grow up in a vacuum. What has this to do with anything, you ask. Why, everything.

I was raised in the Church of Christ, a fundamentalist version of Christianity that takes the bible literally and requires adherents to subscribe to a doctrine of sola scriptura, meaning "scripture alone." If the bible says so, then it is so. If the bible is silent, then the church is to be silent, and leave the decision to the conscience of each individual.

My father went to seminary and aspired to the clergy. My mother graduated from a church-affiliated college. Growing up, if the doors were open, we were there. I attended Sunday school, and learned scripture, and sang hymns. To this day, though I disavow religion, I can still take pleasure in some of those hymns. Sung a cappella at full voice, there is sometimes no greater joy than vocalizing one’s admiration for all of creation through song. My parents, though not as avid practitioners as they were through my teens, still believe. My sister, whom I admire and love deeply, still devotes her Sundays to church, albeit of the Methodist persuasion, and my children even attend a daycare with a decidedly Christian bent.

I am an agnostic with one foot in atheism and I do not accept religion for myself. But I do not violently oppose religion, nor seek its eradication.

People I love dearly, and strangers I admire, claim a religious affiliation. More than just affiliation - for them it is moral compass, spiritual joy, loving inspiration and benevolent mercy.  Though I am an agnostic, I do not fault them for their belief. I love them for who they are, all that they are, including faith in God.  If such faith makes them happier, or healthier, or more productive, or more tolerant, or even just more complete, then I firmly support (and have even been known to encourage) them in their practice.

I support the right to practice even for those who twist Christianity into hatred and warfare and pain.

It is, after all, one of the prime foundations of our nation – the right to believe as we see fit. I am neither "out to get" Christianity in general, nor to persecute Christians in particular.

Until those Christians see fit to persecute the rest of us, at which point I do draw a line.

The right to practice one’s religion is not concomitant with the right to impose one’s religion on others. If Mormons attempted to legislate a federal ban on caffeine, or if Scientologists attempted to display Dianetics in every courthouse, or if Moonies passed their own defense of marriage act invalidating any marriage but a group ceremony officiated by Sun Myun Moon, or if Congress passed a law requiring all judges acknowledge the Pope as the basis of all just law, the country – even the Christians claiming persecution now – would be up in arms. "Your rights end," they would claim "where mine begin." And they would fight tooth and nail against it.

And I would agree, as I do now.

I am not against faith. Faith inspired Ode to Joy, David, the Big Bang theory. Faith, abiding and enduring, created some of the greatest art, song and science known to man. I respect both faith and the right of others to express it as they see fit. Until and unless they require the same mode of expression from me.

No, I have no problem with faith, but with demagogues who would contort and corrupt it for their own personal gain, with ideologues who would distort and deform it to defraud a people and enrich their own coffers. I have a problem with liars and dictatorial pricks who use faith to hoodwink an entire country into believing their God is under attack, when in fact it is only the corrupt leaders who are. Faith is fine by me, you see. Totalitarianism is not, be it theocratic or otherwise.

I could easily eat my way through Italy. Good thing, too:

Your Inner European is Italian!

Passionate and colorful. You show the world what culture really is.

More News from the Filibuster Front:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) sought to soothe some colleagues' fears today, assuring other Senate Republicans that he meant his crusade against the filibuster, a time-honored tradition and necessary part of Senate procedure, was to be targeted only at judicial nominations.

If I must act to bring fairness back to the judicial nomination process, I will not act in any way to impact the rights of colleagues when it comes to legislation (Reuters)

Pragmatic Republicans, especially those with a sense of history extending past 2000, recall a time when their party successfully used the filibuster to preserve existing gun rights and stop pro-union measures.  Those who are honest also recall using the filibuster to stop judicial confirmations for candidates they felt would be most unsuitable.  Strangely, this is not unlike the way in which Democrats have used the procedure since 2000.

Many in the conservative community, particularly among the religious right, favor banning filibusters against judicial nominees, charging Democrats have unfairly used them to block highly conservative candidates.

Sure, Senate Democrats have used the tactic to block highly conservative candidates.  Just as Senate Republicans, yea even the mighty Doc Frist himself, used the tactic to try to block the nomination of Judge Richard Paez and others.  That Republicans were largely unsuccessful in their filibusters, seeing the appointments seriously delayed but not alotgether avoided, is more due to Clinton's choosing more moderate, palatable candidates than InCurious George has done.

That's actually the way to get appointments through, you know, pick someone capable, reliable, ethical, and at least marginally palatable to both sides.  This seems to be too difficult a lesson for InCurious George.  One wonders if he hadn't ought to revisit the kindergarden for a spot of remedial playground diplomacy.

Democrats have filibustered 10 of Bush's most controversial judicial nominees, while helping confirm 205 others.

See that?  10 since Bush took office.  10.  They've confirmed, albeit noses firmly pinched in most cases, 205 others.

[Senate Republican Whip Mitch] McConnell said Democrats should be concerned they have created a tradition that requires judicial candidates to muster at least 60 votes.
"I think this is incredibly shortsighted," McConnell said, adding the next president could be a Democrat whose judicial nominees are routinely filibustered.

Like, say, oh I don't know, Bill Clinton's?  It's no great leap of logic, Sen. McConnell, when it's already happened - and in the last decade, at that.  The difference between us is that I (and others liberals) accept that, and expect it, and - in fact - rejoice in the power of the minority to block the tyranny of the majority, regardless of which party might be in which position.  That's what real patriots do.

The State Department stopped publishing a terrorism report after the terrorism center concluded there were more attacks in 2004 than in any year since the report began in 1985.  (Kansas City Star)

*$&#&*#$???

[Some] officials charged that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's office ordered the report eliminated several weeks ago because the 2004 statistics raised disturbing questions about the Bush's administration's frequent claims of progress in the war against terrorism.

How totally out of character.

A senior State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the allegation that it was being done for political reasons was “categorically untrue.”

If it is "categorically untrue," which I seriously doubt, then why is the denial issued on conditional of anonymity?  If I were accused of deliberate deception of the electorate on an issue as universally important as actual terrorism in the interest of malicious self-preservation and such an allegation were, indeed, "categorically untrue," I'd be crowing it from every corner in every little two-light town I could find.  I'd hire skywriters, and I'd, categorically, sign my name to the statement.  Rice has proven, repeatedly, that she finds most lies pretty tasty anyway, so what's so unpalatable about denying responsibility for the political elimination of a report stating that the world is, indeed, less safe now than before BushEtAl were given carte blanche to screw the rest of the world?

Could it be ... Satan?  Well, okay, fine Ms. Secretary Rice, you categorically deny it out of your blind side, but quashing the report won't make the underlying facts go away.  Might ake them more difficult to prove for a while, but as acts of terrorism continue to rise, we won't need to look for government issued reports to cover them, we'll only have to turn on our TVs, or browse the web, or look in our own backyards.  Ignoring the tornado doesn't make it go away, dumbass, it just leaves you stuck out in the open when the damn thing strikes. 

The Senate Foreign Relations committee agreed unanimously today to postpone passing John Botlon's proposed UN Ambassadorship out of the committee and onto the floor, reports Reuters, after Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) said that he was not prepared to vote for the nominee.

Though both Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) had previously made noises of concern over Bolton's nomination, until today neither had indicated definitive unwillingness to confirm Bolton's nomination.  Dick Lugar (R-IN), committee chair, had reportedly been prepared to force a committee vote today.  With Republicans outweighing Democrats 10-8 on the committee, a straight party-line vote was expected to pass Bolton onto the full Senate, where Democrats were preparing to take steps, possibly filibustering, to hold the nomination.

But then Voinovich threw a wrench in the works, and indicated that he might not be able, in good conscience, to vote for a man who couldn't pass his "kitchen test."  It seems a pattern of unsavory conduct does make a difference to some people, even when it's a nice, permanently puckered Republican yes-man who is the subject of inquiry.

After Voinovich announced his hesitation, Hagel also requested a delay on the committee vote.  Which, of course, closed the party gap, 8-10 and the other team's favor, thereby requiring Lugar to table the vote pending further investigation or risk angering the President with the loss of such an obedient plant in an otherwise plum position.

Bolton may yet see confirmation, regardless of his abundant lack of talent in diplomacy (an abiding characteristic of this administration, and evidently a prerequisite to employment), but at least this part of the process is working - at the moment - as it was designed to do.

About damned time.