Blue Guy in Red Land

The Democrats stood up to Alito better than I feared they would.  Still, we have four Democrats who should be singled out for "Hall of Shame" designation.  I can forgive Nelson of Nebraska, Condrad of North Dakota and possibly even Byrd of West Virginia for all are up for re-election in very Red States this year.  However, Johnson of South Dakota has no excuse.  Johnson is not up for re-eleciton until 2008.  Perhaps Johnson was spooked by what happened to Daschle last year.  The progressive community really rallied around him to save his seat in 2002, and this is how he repays us.  He slaps us in the face by voting for a candidate who has sworn to do everything in his power to undo the progress made in the last 100 years.   

I realize it could hurt us, but if Johnson is in trouble in 2008, the progressive community should not lift a finger to help him.  There’s no reason to support someone just because he/she has a "D" behind their names if that person will not vote to protect our vital civil liberities.  Two years is a long time in politics, and Johnson could have afforded to vote "NO".  That he didn’t is inexcusable.

The Democrats who deserve our THANKS for standing up to Scalito’s Right Wing Agenda on the Supreme Court and could have rough 2008 re-election fights are:

1. Mary Landrieu - Louisiana
2. Max Baucus - Montana
3. Mark Pryor - Arkansas

Those Democrats who voted against Scalito and are up for re-election in 2010 in tough states are:

1. Evan Bayh - Indiana
2. Byron Dorgan - North Dakota
3. Blanche Lincoln - Arkansas
4. Ken Salazar - Colorado

Not all of these Senators voted to sustain the filibuster led by Kerry and Kennedy.  I don’t blame them for not triggering the nuclear option, but the Democrats should have come together enough to plan who would vote to end the filibuster, so that ONLY the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster would have been recorded.  Having 72 Senators on record to end the filibuster was a political mistake, I think.  But if it gave cover to Senators, especially those listed above, to vote NO on Scalito, then I’m OK with it.

Friends in the progressive world, remember those who voted against us on this, and in the case of Tim Johnson, make him feel the consequences.  Also remember those who took a "risk" in supporting us on Alito, and help them out if they are in a tough spot when they are up for re-election.

I finished reading this Washington Post article this morning about bills appearing in legislatures across the nation debating the right of health care workers to REFUSE treatment or services because of their religious or moral beliefs.  Anyone now want to seriously tell me that the right in this country does NOT want to create an Old Testament-based theocracy in America?  I’m so angry over this issue that I could spit nails.  I’m almost speechless.  Almost.

The first rule they teach you about medicine, even when you are premed and taking a bioethics course like I did in college, is "First, Do No Harm."  It blows my mind that someone would actually endure years of education and training in medicine or pharmacy and seriously think they should have the right to pass judgment on their patients and refuse to render service.  People are supposed to enter the medical fields to heal the sick, not heal only the sick you approve of.

Many of these states are focusing solely on the right of pharmacists to refuse to give a woman birth control pills or the morning after pill based solely on that pharmacist’s moral or religious beliefs.  The pharmacists’ role is to fill prescriptions from a doctor and to provide advice on drug interaction, side effects, and proper use of the medication.  Nothing more.  If Susie has the clap because she’s a slut, the pharmacist does not have the right to refuse her antibiotics to teach her a lesson on sexual morality.  I think having to go to the doctor for a case of clap would be lesson enough.  Even if it wasn’t, it is NOT the pharmacist’s job to provide moral judgement about clients.  He or she should fill the damn prescription, answer any questions, and go on to the next customer.  If that is too difficult, than perhaps Dr. High-and-Mighty should not have gone to pharmacy school.   Perhaps open a "Christian Taliban Drugs" store and watch it fail.

Other states apparently want to give more blanket "protection" against coercing health care workers to do their jobs.  If victims of gang violence come into the emergency room, workers should have the right to refuse treatment because they find gang bangers morally reprehensible.  Perhaps they should refuse to treat someone with syphilis for moral reasons.  Perhaps refuse pain medication to a woman who was beat by her husband for being "sassy".  Perhaps refuse treatment of any sort to GLBT people out of moral repugnance for their "lifestyle".  There is no line where the "right to refuse" treament will be considered inappropriate.  You can have any reason or no reason, call it a moral or religious belief, and boom, you can sit down and read a book without your boss being able to do anything.

This is not about religious freedom.  This is about religious bigotry…the bigotry of the religious against those they don’t like.  Mostly, I’m talking about evangelicals here.  I’m sorry, but if your morals will not allow you treat anyone who comes in the door of your business no matter what their personal story (assuming they can pay, of course), then you should NOT be in health care.  Pharmacist’s should not have the right to refuse to fill a valid prescription.  Doctors, nurses, etc. should not have the right to refuse treatment because they disapprove of the patient.  Employers who have these types of hateful people on staff should be able to punish or fire them when they refuse to do their job. 

If the Christian Taliban wants to have "Christ-centered" care, they are welcome to form their own medical practices, private hospitals, etc.  Let patients decide where they get care.  It’s up to the provider to decide whether a valid treatment is provided or not.  It’s up to the patient.  The American people should be livid that such proposals are even being taken seriously in this country.

Maureen Dowd wrote a column in the January 18, 2006 New York Times entitled "Looking for a Democratic Tough Guy, or Girl."  As usual, it was a well written article and made the point that if "the Democrats are like the dithering ‘Desperate Housewives,’ the Republicans have come across like the counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer on ‘24′: fast with a gun, loose with the law, willing to torture in the name of protecting the nation. Except Jack Bauer is competent."

Oh, Maureen, how right you are, and as someone who is a Democrat and loves his party along with his country, it pains me to acknowledge the truth of that analogy.  Ms. Dowd is aobut the 5th columnist or so within the past couple of weeks that has made largely the same point about Democrats. We have a platform, and we do have ideas, but damned if anyone can articulate them.

Everyone seems to know the formula, but no one’s offering something that would work. I think we need someone to stand up to Bush and his thugs and say, "NO, Mr. President, you are WRONG. We Democrats do NOT have a ‘pre-9/11′ view of the world. We are painfully aware of the dangers that terrorism and despotism pose to this country and its freedoms. Where YOU and YOUR PARTY are deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong is your insistence that in order to protect American lives and freedom, we must destroy those very liberties that make America unique. You want to save us by destroying us. You have demonstrated time and again that you will lie or finagle facts and laws in order to get your way. You will pound our civil liberties into an unrecognizable pulp in order to ‘protect’ us. We Democrats will not cower in the face of any threat to this nation. What we will do when we regain power is attempt to rebuild the shattered credibility and alliances that you have destroyed. We will work with our partners across the world, but we will not dictate to them nor will we sacrifice what’s good for this country. If doing what is right for America means we tell our partners and allies, ‘Sorry, but this what is best for the US and here’s why we must go this route’ we will do so. We will not be soft, but we will also not destroy what makes this nation great. We will not destroy our civil liberties in order to ‘protect’ them. We will work with Congress to pass laws that will make tracking terrorists easier while respecting the rights of Americans. This is something you do not respect Mr. President. Your actions have showed time and again that when it comes to doing what you decide is the correct path, you will let nothing…not the Constitution, not laws, not Congress, not the Courts, nor public opinion stop you. You are reckless, Mr. President, and that places us in more danger in the long run than any of your actions to stop further terrorist attacks has saved us. It’s time for the recklessness and disregard for laws, treaties, and civil rights to stop. That’s why Democrats need to regain power."

Alas, I don’t know if there is such a leader in the Democratic Party right now.  John Kerry seems to have found a spine in Europe, rushing back to DC to lead the filibuster against Alito along with Senator Ted Kennedy.  Of course, it doesn’t stand a chance of succeeding, but it would be nice if the filibuster was sustained once before being overtuned by 60 senators voting cloture.  I don’t think that will happen, but at least the Democrats will have tried SOMETHING to derail Alito.  And when Alito is on the Court and voting for opinions are radical right wing readings of the Constitution, we can remind the country who is at fault….the GOP.

So far, the Democratic Hall of Shame for promising to vote "aye" on Alito’s confirmation has three names:  Robert Byrd (WV), Ben Nelson (NE), and Tim Johnson (SD).  Now Nelson, I understand.  He comes from a deeply red state and he’s up for re-election this year.  I can begrudgingly give him a pass on this, although I’d hope that verbally he’d blast the President for putting forward ideologues, albeit a qualified ideologue.  I know, I know…but a guy can dream!  Johnson and Byrd I just don’t understand.  I guess Byrd is in more trouble with his re-election campaign than previously thought.  I was surprised to learn that Nixon once sought to appoint him to the Supreme Court.  Tim Johnson doesn’t face the public until 2008, but I guess what happened to Daschle made him pee in his pants.   His statement in support of Alito clearly stated he would not have picked Alito, but that he was "mindful" of the 96 votes for confirmation that Ginsberg got in 1993.  I guess supporting Alito is payback for the support in 1993?  Who knows?  I just know that Tim Johnson, whom we all fought so hard to keep in the Senate in 2002, has just spit in the face of progressives everywhere who care about fairness and justice…and unlike Byrd and Nelson, he doesn’t have a tough reelection campaign this year as an excuse.

Samuel Alito (aka "Scalito") is about to be confirmed for a lifetime seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.  He’ll get out of the Judiciary Committee by a 10-8 partisan vote.  Unfortunately, the chair of the committee (Sen. Specter) doesn’t seem to care that Alito is certain to overturn Roe and other protections based on the right to privacy.  He’s  like a Southern mother who’s 40 yr old son is still single, owns a flower shop, and a has a longtime "roommate" named Steve: in denial.

By now, we know that Alito promises to be open minded and fair, and has even trotted out some "liberal" judges to say he’s not got a partisan bone in his body.  Of course, his letters during the Reagan years belie this argument, not to mention his record of siding with government and conservative causes nearly 100% of the time when his discretion was not bound by precedent.  He touted his membership in an organization that was notoriously racist and sexist but only because he was mad that ROTC was kicked out of Princeton, even though this group did NO work on ROTC whatsoever.

This week, we saw that Bush did well in his pick of John Roberts as Chief Justice.  Roberts joined his ideological soulmates Scalia and Thomas in dissenting from a 6-3 decision telling the Attorney General he overstepped his authority by trying to punish doctors who legally prescibe lethal doses of medication under Oregon’s Right-to-Die law.  Of course, when it suits conservatives, they are all about states’ rights.  They scream that if you want abortion or gay rights, the only way to get them is through the ballot box.  But when the ballot box doesn’t go their way, suddenly it’s the federal government’s role to BAR the actions of democracy for the good the nation.  Hypocrites.  Roberts has declared his allegiance to the Scalia faction, and Alito will join him there.  That means Scalia basically controls 4 votes on the Supreme Court, one vote shy of a majority.

These are perilous times in our great nation.  We have a president ignoring whatever laws he deems to be inconvenient, who spies on Americans and claims it’s a "terrorism prevention program", and a court system that is veering sharply to the right.  Bush has appointed 25% of the judges on the courts today.  He’s not picking old people either; most of the people he’s picking are in their 40s and could be on the court for another 30 years.  They can be counted on being firmly with the religious right on issues of the day from abortion to gay rights. 

I think Roe is finished.  If there is one more retirement in the Court, then Bush will have his 5th vote to overturn Roe.  Barring that, his justices will interpret O’Connor’s undue burden standard to mean, "Hey, as long as you aren’t making abortion illegal, it’s not ‘undue’.  Otherwise, all restrictions and impediments are fair game."   

As disgusting as I find the prospect, perhaps we should let the right wing start to have its way.  The American public has NO idea what kind of wackos they have put into power.  The interference with the Terri Schiavo case was just one example.  Let’s go back to back alley abortions and young girls dying in old warehouse while some butcher leaves her barren or dead.  Let’s see the Supreme Court allow states to regulate contraception so that women will no longer have control over their bodies.  Let’s go back to the days where women were expected to remain virgins until their wedding night and then give their men as many babies as he wanted.  How much is America willing to put up with?  How about reversing the right to privacy?  After all, it’s not spelled out in the Constitution itself, even though any idiot with half a brain understands that the rights that are guaranteed mean nothing if privacy is not a protected right.

Perhaps pundits are right.  Maybe outrageous court decisions are the way to get America to wake the hell up and kick the "Christian" Taliban-dominated GOP out of power.  The price though will be steep, and I don’t think it’s necessary for us to pay it.  However, with the electorate seeming to believe whatever lies are fed to them by the Bush machine, maybe some harsh realities are in order.  Maybe scores of young women need to die, scores of gay people get lynched openly, and the government have the "right" to search your home or person any time they please before people will wake up and realize that this GOP is destroying America and our freedoms.

Some say that the Democrats should fight harder to stop Alito.  With what?  The American people have hobbled Democrats to the point they don’t have the votes to stop anything.  If they try to filibuster, the GOP will simply revoke that right.  The Dems could retaliate by bringing the Senate to a screeching halt, but odds are good that the GOP will just turn that against Democrats in the fall and claim they "need" a filibuster proof majority of 60 in the Senate.  All they lack are 5 seats.  The danger is not worth the risk at this point.  Progressive purists just think the Democrats should throw caution to the wind and fight to certain death.  Maybe it wouldn’t be bad to filibuster, but then have the "gang of 14" vote to end the filibuster.  At least a statement would have been made that the party wasn’t going to just roll over while Bush installs right wing fanatics on our courts.  The Democrats in the "gang of 14" would then have to face voters who could reject or reward them.  My senators are two Republicans who both basically promised to do whatever Bush wanted in order to get elected.  So I could write or call until I’m blue in the face, and they will ignore me.  Any Democrat though who votes for Alito and doesn’t live in a deep red state should be ousted at the first chance for dereliction of duty to protect the Constitution from all attackers, DOMESTIC and foreign.

We’ll see which Democratic Senators enter the hall of shame by voting to confirm Scalito and bring us all within one vote of having a world view from 1789 firmly in control of our nation.

I have a blog on MySpace where I focus on ruminating on my personal life.  It’s kind of like a diary, but I need to keep it updated more often.  This blog will focus on political stuff, so the personal stuff will be held at:  Thoughts on My Life . 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - THOMAS PAINE

I keep thinking about these two quotations, especially in the wake of the apparent lawlessness of the current Bush regime.  I finally found the exact quotations since I had them paraphrased (somewhat badly) in my head.  I look at these quotations and wish that I could reach into the past and bring Franklin and other Founders back to the present and show them what’s happening.  I’m sure their reactions would not be pretty for the American public seems willing to trade in our republic for a authoritarian regime all in the name of terrorism.

We have people in Atlanta that are all in a twitter over some child painting an American flag on the middle of the street in a cul-de-sac in Duluth, GA.  First, it’s not a real flag…it’s a painting of one.  But you’d think that people enforcing the anti-graffiti ordinance and having the flag painting removed were the greatest threat since Osama Bin Laden.  It’s a PICTURE of a flag people!  And besides, since when is it respectful or patriotric to put an image of our national flag on the ground for someone drive over?  Newsflash!  It’s NOT.  Under the US Flag Code, you must BURN an American flag that touches the ground.  Of course, this is a painting, not a real flag.

A Washington Post-ABC News Poll showed that 51% of respondents felt that in the fight against terror, it’s fine for the government to engage in the warrantless wiretapping of telephone calls and e-mail. In other words, it’s fine for the president to break the law, just so long as he’s fighting "terror".  I do understand that if you’re emailing known terrorists in Pakistan, Iraq, or wherever, you should be monitored.  I don’t think there is a reasonable person in the United States who would disagree with that.  What I DO object to is the notion that the President can’t be "bothered" with showing what he’s doing and why to a judge either before or after the fact.  If the FISA process is too complicated or cumbersome, then amend it.  Bush rammed through the original Patriot Act with all kinds of interesting intrusions on American privacy, but the Congress went along with it.  So far, the Courts haven’t knocked those provisions down either.  Our system is working as far as the Patriot Act is concerned.  What’s more, people know about the law, and have been able to debate it just as Congress did.  You cannot tell me that having a law to set up a new system for this War on Terror would not get serious consideration in Congress.  Such a law wouldn’t even have to get into details, but set up a system of checks and balances so that a President (this one or any future one) won’t easily be able to abuse his authority to spy on Americans.

It seems the public, though, largely buys the argument of "Well, if you don’t have anything to hide, then you shouldn’t object.  He’s only going after terrorists."  Yeah, RIGHT.  The current President has created a regime based on deceit.  This is a president that misled us into war, and lied openly to us about warrantless spying.  Sure, we should just take Bush’s word because he’s a BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN.  Sorry, not good enough.   I don’t trust this president to not abuse his authority or discretion, as he has done time and again.  And I dare any supporter of Bush to say that they feel completely comfortable with the thought of President Hillary Clinton exercising these same exact powers that Bush claims for himself.  I know the GOP has aims to fix the election system to perpetuate their power indefinitely, but eventually, a Democrat will retake the White House.  If the GOP could come back from Hoover, the Dems will return to power as well.

There must be a reason that Bush doesn’t want anyone looking over his shoulder as he orders the NSA to spy on Americans.  If his purposes were legitimate, he would have welcomed such oversight that gave him the flexibility he says he needs.  But no!  He claims that his role as Commander in Chief allows him to ignore the Constitutions protections against tyrrany as long as the endless "War on Terror" continues.    Just today, the Washington Post reports that the Bushies are trying to revive a law that has already been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court through a subpoena of Google’s searches.  They want to show that people look up porn, and somehow that an unconstitutional law can be saved as a result.  So not only is Bush promising to ignore laws he doesn’t like (like the ban on torture) but also court rulings he doesn’t like.

Between Bush’s abuse of power and the growing GOP Congressional scandal starring Jack Abramoff, the stench of corruption and authoritarianism is growing more putrid by the day.  Our Constitution is seriously under assualt by the current crop of GOPers in power.  We have a chance to stop them in November, but I am starting to question whether we will have the guts to do so.   If 51% think breaking the law is fine as long as you promise it’s to get terrorist, then our system of government and the American way of life is seriously in jeopardy.

What will it take for the public to WAKE UP and understand what is being done to the Constitution we all revere?  How far can Bush go before people realize that he desires the power of a dictator or American Emperor?  Will it be too late by the time people do finally realize what he’s doing?  I hope not, but that hope grows dimmer by the day.

The American Family Association (AFA), a far right wing action group, issued an email alert today that said in part: 

     "I watched the Book of Daniel show on NBC tonight just so I could

     see if it was as bad as you said. Mr. Wildmon you have it wrong -

    it was worse than you described. The so called pastor takes drugs,

     smokes, drinks, takes the Lord’s name in vain. He supports

     homosexuality and drug use. He broke the law by giving out

     prescription drugs to a Bishop. Two Bishops were committing

     adultery. They mis-quoted the Bible. The program portrayed our

     Savior in a joking way. There was a corrupt Catholic priest. The

     maid smokes pot. The Bishop drinks, the pastor’s wife is a drunk

     and her sister is a lesbian and the son is a homosexual. One son

     sleeps around. I found this program very offensive to my Christian

     beliefs. They were poking fun at our Savior."

A good friend of mine says they need to lighten the hell up. Yes, they do.  I taped the show and watched it Saturday night. Keep in mind, I’m an Episcopalian, so if anyone should be offended, it would be me. The show portrays a flawed man who is an Episcopal priest and a descendant of THE Daniel Webster.  Since his dad is also a bishop, the priesthood runs in the family.

Daniel Webster is a very flawed man. He is addicted to pain medication, and his talks with Jesus often turn to this topic. Christ chides him for needing the pills and shames him into not taking them. Yes, the Christ in this show is lighthearted, kind, and has a sense of humor. Is it what you’d expect if Jesus regularly showed up to chat with you? Not really, but after watching the show, I’d hope Jesus would be able to laugh and joke with me as He does on this show. I know that offends the delicate sensibilities of the Religious Right who believe only in an authoritarian God and Savior who would speak very firmly with you at all times. These are the same people who think Ariel Sharon had a stroke because he pulled out of Gaza.

The wife is a drunk, and I’m sure that will become an issue later. However, it’s also apparent that she is the one with the responsibility to take care of everything in her family. Her sister is a bisexual mess who prefers to live as a lesbian now that her husband (who stole millions from the church school fund) is dead. She also has a daughter who was selling pot in order to raise money to buy anime programs. All her children like to tease each other mercilessly at the dinner table, even though they are old enough not to. Her husband even schedules sex for them on Friday nights. That she has a drinking problem isn’t that shocking.

As for drinking in general.  Episcopalians drink.  We aren’t called "Whiskey-palians" for nothing. We serve wine with just about every meal we share together in church.  That priests and bishops drink is not shocking.  It would only be bad if they developed a drinking problem, but the mere fact of drinking is not mocking of men and women of the cloth.

I’m a bit surprised that the AFA hasn’t attacked the female bishop. It’s one of the things that the developing world’s Anglican churches hate us for. We dare give women spiritual authority over men!  *GASP* Shocking, I know. We even have an OPENLY GAY bishop! Most people involved in hierarchal churches such as the Methodists, Episcopalians, and Catholics, can tell you that politics plays a big role in who gets ahead. It’s like that in every church, but showing it honestly doesn’t not mock Christian faith.

The two bishops committing adultery are Daniel’s bishop and his father.  The thing the AFA viewer doesn’t mention is that Daniel’s mother has Alzheimer’s and is quickly deteriorating.  It’s obvious from the show that her husband loves her and misses her, but he also acknowledges that she is a stranger to him now. That’s the nature of Alzheimer’s.  It destroys your mind and your personality. Sure, he shouldn’t be boinking the female bishop.  Again, it goes back to the flawed human being notion. These people are doing the best they can to do God’s work, but they struggle with it, and they are not perfect. I’d personally rather have two bishops having an affair than a bishop molesting children. But that’s just me, I’m sure.

The son’s homosexuality is not celebrated.  It’s clear that Rev. Daniel is quite uncomfortable with it, but he loves his son, so he accepts it. The grandfather bishop doesn’t know, and the grandson feels the need to go out of his way to hide it from him. The Episcopal church is in the middle of a grand conversation about homosexuality, and many clergy agree with the actions of Rev. Daniel where he loves and supports his son as best as he can.

The corrupt Catholic priest is not corrupt…he’s just related to the Mafia. Every good Catholic family likes to have at least one child each generation enter the priesthood. This priest is a friend of Daniel’s and is also related by blood to the Mafia. Those connections help Daniel find the money his brother-in-law stole so that his church’s school could be rebuilt.

I’m sure the AFA disapproves of the interracial relationship between the adopted son of Daniel and a blond girl. The boy was adopted from China, but he’s a part of the Webster family and he’s in love with a pretty blond white girl. Her parents are determined to break them up, because, as the mother says to Daniel’s wife, "I don’t intend to have little Oriental grandchildren running around the Christmas tree." I’m sure that the AFA feels this portrayal was mocking of the Christian tradition of racial purity, or whatever BS they can come up with.

The point is that the Book of Daniel is not mocking Christianity, and it is not diminishing the Savior.  The Right tends to forget that the Savior was also a human being. Human beings joke, laugh, and talk.  It’s apparent that Christ knows how to best talk to Daniel to get through to him. It’s not something to run from.  In fact, it could actually bring people into a faith that often comes across as a holier-than-thou, judgmental, puritanical, no-independent-thought religion. As a Christian, it is THAT particular portrayal that offends me, not the Book of Daniel.

Perusing the blogosphere on a lazy Friday afternoon, I’ve come across some disturbing posts regarding the movie Brokeback Mountain.  Some folks must be desperate to read things into the movie, either for their own political purposes or because they really don’t like gay people.  To all the people I’m about to talk about, I have only message:  YOU ARE LOOKING TOO HARD INTO THIS MOVIE!  CHILL THE HELL OUT! 

1. Andrew Sullivan has this to say about Brokeback Mountain:  "[T]he idea that a movie with bareback gay sex in it would have been this successful even five years ago seems unlikely to me. That bareback sex would be a way of revealing deeper love is even more astonishing."   Out of all the things people could pick out of this movie, Andrew focuses like a laser on this aspect of the movie.  A couple of points.  First, by focusing on the sex act itself, Andrew is hopelessly playing into the game of the religious right when it comes to gay people.  They are freaked out by gay sex, and probably a little turned on by it too - which is why they hate us so much.  The relationship in the movie is MUCH deeper than any sex act.  Second, this movie takes place before the HIV/AIDS pandemic.  Men didn’t wear condoms with their wives, let alone with each other.  The worst thing people feared in the 1960s was pregnancy.  Everything else had a pill or a shot to clear it up (except for herpes, of course).  The fact that Ennis and Jack are having bareback sex the whole time did not escape my attention, but in the context of the film, "safe sex" was not an issue.  The movie ends right before HIV/AIDS exploded on the landscape, and certainly before HIV/AIDS reached backwoods Wyoming and Texas.  The message of the film has NOTHING to do with exploring unprotected anal sex or saying that such sex is a form of "deeper love".  With this kind of philosophy, along with proclaiming that having HIV/AIDS is really not that big of a deal and has allowed him to have the best sex of his life (bareback, of course), is it any wonder that Andrew has been positive for years?
2. Some guy named Ross from Andrew Sullivan’s blog complained that Brokeback Mountain "is a study in the contrast between homosexuality and heterosexuality, and the former is - almost without exception - presented as preferable to the latter, as purer and more beautiful, and ultimately as more authentically masculine."   He illustrates his point by saying that while the wives in the film are treated sympathetically, they are really objects of pity.  Scenes of domestic life are portrayed as only being about screaming children, mounting bills, tiny apartments, instrusive in-laws, and a feeling of suffocation.  For the characters of Jack and Ennis, that is EXACTLY what the "straight" lives they choose after their summer on Brokeback Mountain entailed.  For them, the suffocation and isolation was neverending, and domestic life offered only what they described.  This Ross character goes on to whine that NO model of successful "heterosexual masculinity" or "heterosexual relationships" are presented since the largest straight male characters are bigoted (Jack’s father-in-law), cruel (Jack’s father), or a sissified weakling (Alma’s new husband after her divorce from Ennis).  He then goes on to make the argument that the movie presents an ideal of "no girls allowed" erotic masculinity where "real men are gay."  Ummm, OK.  Excuse Ang Lee (the director) for not having Jack and Ennis be swishy effiminate ranch hands in the 1960s.  Pardon the script from daring to show gay men as MEN rather than the character of Jack from Will and Grace.  Seems to me that is Ross guy was looking entirely too hard for reasons to dislike the film.  He does make some points, but he takes his observations out of context.  Would the changes he wanted fit into the story of love denied between Ennis and Jack?  The movie was about them, not a perfect heterosexual couple next door.  Give me a break!
3. Yesterday, Gene Shalit, the movie critic from The Today Show did his review of Brokeback Mountain.  You’d think a man with an 1870s mustache and Albert Einstein-on-a-bad-day hair would be on the progressive side of things.  You’d be wrong.  Ol’ Gene apparently doesn’t like homos as his personal feelings bled quite openly into his review.  The most egregious thing he said was that Jake Gyllenhall’s character, Jack Twist, was "a sexual predator" who tracked down Ennis like a horny dog and lures him (unwillingly) into a series of sexual trysts over the years.  He then mocks Jack Twist’s desire for something more than "a couple of high altitude fucks a year" (quoting the movie, not Shalit) in the movie.  Katie Couric looked somewhat stunned and managed to mumble something about Brokeback Mountain being a groundbreaking movie before the commercial break cut her off.  At least with the Ross guy, he was criticizing the movie itself and what he saw lacking from the story.  He did not attack the characters and mock the relationship of the major characters as beneath his contempt like Shalit did.  NBC owes its viewers an apology for Shalit’s unprofessionalism, and while their at it, get the man a hair cut and a shave!  UPDATE:  Gene Shalit has apologized for his remarks!
4. The good folks from Topeka, Kansas’ Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps are at it again.  Phelps has released a statement saying:  "Thank God for 12 dead miners.  They died in shame and disgrace, citizens of a cursed nation of unthankful, unholy perverts who have departed from the living God to worship on "Brokeback Mountain," and who have replaced the Bible with "The Da Vinci Code.""  It seems Phelps and his demon spawn have become totally unhinged.  First, Brokeback Mountain is not a real place.  It’s MADE UP.  And last I checked, The Da Vinci Code was a bestseller, but not displacing Bibles.  The man’s nuts.  When this tragedy first happened, Phelps released a statement saying, "Thank God for 13 Trapped Miners in fag-infested West Virginia."  Fag-infested?  In WEST VIRGINIA?  Has he even been to West Virginia?  I have, and the last thing that state is crawling with is homosexuals, open or otherwise.

I figured that the right would start frothing at the mouth over Brokeback Mountain sooner or later.  I just didn’t expect fellow homos to help out (Sullivan) or for the criticism to be so OUT THERE.  Then again, that’s all it really could be if you’ve actually seen the movie.   I hope this movie wins big at the Oscars, not only because it deserves to win, but just to piss the right wing off.

We have seen some wild college football games on TV in the last couple of weeks of bowl games.  My Virginia Tech Hokies played like the Chokies of the ACC Champsionship for 3 quarters before coming alive to finally beat Louisville 35-24 in the Gator Bowl.  Auburn just gave up with Wisconsin in the Capital One Bowl.  Poor Georgia had a nightmarish first quarter in the Sugar Bowl where WVU acted like the defense wasn’t even on the field.  That game ended in a sneak place on 4th and 6 when WVU faked a punt and ran for first down to preserve their lead instead of giving Georgia a chance to tie it with a field goal.  Who knew that FSU that would wake up and play like a decent team after going 8-4 in the season?  I couldn’t stay awake to watch it, but a triple overtime thriller with Penn State and Joe Paterno beating Bowden and his gang was great.  It proves my theory that once FSU clinched the division, they didn’t give a crap b/c they knew they "only" needed to win the ACC Championship to get to the BCS…hence the blown final games of the season against NC State, Clemson, and Florida.  I hope Bobby Bowden knocks some sense into those fools, b/c it’s embarrassing for the ACC Champion to have so many losses.  Let’s not forget Miami’s brutal 40-3 rape by LSU in the Peach Bowl….I mean, DAMN!  Who saw that coming?  Where were the Hurricanes?  Reminded me of the days when they were on NCAA probation and had their scholarships cut. 

The 2005 Bowl Season came to a close last night with the Rose Bowl National Championship between #1 USC and #2 Texas.  In a closely fought battle, Texas overcame USC with 19 seconds to go with a final touchdown by QB Vince Young. Texas won the 2005 National Championship over USC (going for it’s 3rd straight national title) by a score of 41-38.  While I’m glad that the USC streak is over, and I’m happy for my friends in Texas whose team won….my ONLY regret is that this win will please George W. Bush as well.  If there was a way for Texas to win without pleasing Bush it would be perfect, but we don’t live in a perfect world.

Vice President Cheney said today, "If we’d been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon. They were in the United States, communicating with al Qaeda associates overseas. But we didn’t know they were here plotting until it was too late."  The "this" he’s referring to is Bush’s spy program on US citizens.  (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010400973.html)

I have sat dumbfounded over the holidays as the President and his minions have gratutiously defended their practice of breaking the FISA law and authorizing spying on communications of Americans.  They SWEAR they only look at communications of people who call Al Queda members or who might be in a mysterious cell phone of Osama Bin Laden found in a cave in Afghanistan.  This "assurance" is from the same folks who pumped intelligence suggesting that Iraq had WMDs in their haste to rush America into war.  They lied to us then, and I would not be surprised if they lied to us now.  In fact, unless I see proof to the contrary, I assume that most statements out of this President’s mouth on a controversial topic are lies.

I hate feeling like this about my government and my president.  And yes, I acknowledge that Bush is my President, as much as I don’t like that fact.  Yet, time after time, Bush has lied to us about important things regarding Iraq and the war on terror.  Why should he tell the truth now?  That leopard in the White House is NOT going to change his spots.

Now that Bush has been caught putting the Constitution into a shredder, he’s mad that he got caught.  So the Justice Department is launching an investigation to ferret out whomever leaked to the NY Times and punish them, probably by taking them as "enemy combatants" and then "rendering" them to whatever secret gulag we have had the CIA set up in God-knows-where.  I hope that the NY Times won’t give up their sources.  Whomever exposed this program to them is a patriotric American who upheld his oath as a federal employee to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC."  (Emphasis mine - pledge is real…I took it the day I started my job with the federal government.)  As a federal employee, this person pledged to protect the CONSTITUTION not the President.  When the President is breaking the law, it is the DUTY of every good citizen to expose it if he/she has the means to.  I can’t imagine anything more frightening than taking on Bush and his minions, but I pray that God protects the person who did. 

A common tactic in the talking points of the Right is to say, "Well, if you don’t have anything to hide, you won’t be spied on."  They then usually say, "Go ahead and listen to my phone calls and read my email!  I have nothing to hide."  Implying, of course, that to object to this illegal spying means that not only are you an active member of an Al Queda cell within the United States but that you must have something to hide, since you obviously have Osama on speed dial.  It’s a bullying tactic and intellectually dishonest.  Of course, no one objects to spying on people who are talking to terrorists or frequently calling suspicious numbers in foreign countries we are pretty sure have ties to terrorists.  But this is NOT a monarchy, and Bush can’t just run off and do this with no accountability.  There MUST be oversight, even if it is retroactive.  Let him run off and do his spying, but under our system of government, he MUST justify his actions later.  We should not and cannot allow a President to just spy on whomever he pleases for whatever reason he deems fit.  It’s also a good check to make damn sure that the President is spying on people for good reason, not just because they oppose him.  I suspect that Bush is doing both…spying on people calling Pakistan (which is fine if he can justify it to a court) as well as people who are his political opponents. 

That he refuses to acknowledge that Congress has the right to demand oversight of his actions by adjusting the law to suit his stated needs shows that Bush has no respect for the law or the Constitution if it gets in his way.  We have a president who refuses, in any matter REMOTELY related to the war on terror, to obey the law.  If that doesn’t frighten my fellow Americans, it should.  I would ask my friends on the right….if Hillary or Bill were doing this very thing and justifying it the same way, how would you react?  I think that answer is obvious.  Yet, I hope that my friends on the left would join the condemnation of a Democrat doing this very spying that Bush is doing.  It’s inexcusable, no matter what your party affiliation.

And it doesn’t stop there.  In the budget for FY06 just passed before Christmas, Bush made a remark about the McCain amendment banning torture by the United States (full story:  http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/01/so-much-for-presidents-assent-to.html)  Basically, Bush told Congress they could screw themselves and that he was going to torture anybody he damn well pleases if he believes it might help his war on terror.  Congress can pass all the laws it wants, Bush basically said, but it won’t stop him from doing what he pleases.  His Imperial Majesty has spoken!

In this budget, there were also Graham amendments (named for Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina - Republican, of course).  Bush is reading these amendments to the law to cut off HABEAS CORPUS (which is the right to be brought before a judge to be sure that your detention is lawful) appeals currently under consideration to cut off currently pending habeas cases, including most importantly the Hamdan case that’s now before the Supreme Court.  This, of course, is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  If you doubt me, look up Article I, Section 9, which places limits on Congressional power.  To whit, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. "  So before you go screaming that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, he did it during the Civil War which qualifies as a "rebellion" under the Constitution.  In this war on terror, we are neither under invasion NOR are we facing a rebellion…and one of these conditions is required before we even consider whether public safety requires such a move.  It will be interesting to see the Supremes deal with this argument.  I’m sure Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, O’Connor and Kennedy will see it for the unconstitutional move that it is.  But if Scalito is put on the Supreme Court soon, he will have a vote, and it appears from his writings that he thinks Bush can do whatever he wants under his "Commander in Chief" powers.  Question is…what will Scalia and Thomas do?  What about Chief Justice Roberts?  How willing are they to allow the President to shred our Constitutionally protected liberties in the name of "stopping terror"?  This should be a slam dunk 9-0 decision telling Bush that he is NOT above the Constitution and to sit down, shut up, and realize his powers are LIMITED.  But will it?  We shall see.

If we sit idly by and surrender our Constitutional liberties to Bush in the name of safety, we will deserve neither liberty nor safety (somewhat quoting Ben Franklin, I think).  Emperor George has no clothes, and we must make him realize this before it’s too late.