The Schenley Park Tea Party

Yesterday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on a July 4th "tea party" (herefore to be known as Hickapalooza) held in Schenley Park, near Carnegie Mellon University. The party was meant to protest all forms of government intervention, ranging from taxes on cigarettes to health care reform. Above all, the "party" sought to condemn the policies of President Obama, with at least one sign calling his election the "suicide" of America.

My Gut Reaction: If they think the country is on such a wrong course, why don't they f---ing leave? It's not like they'd be particularly missed.

Analysis: The article about Hickapalooza is a case study in right wing hysteria. Especially galling is the statement from one woman, a Czech immigrant who lived under Communism, that universal health care would turn the United States into a Communist country. Having experienced a Communist regime, the woman should have realized that if America had actually become a communist country, she and her comrades would never have been allowed to mount a protest. They would all have been rounded up by the secret police.

These people do not seem to recognize any viable role for the state, other than fighting wars and making certain they get to keep their guns. One actually wonders whether they would feel more comfortable in a country where government has effectively ceased to exist, such as Somalia.

If this is the best the conservatives have to offer, I think we can look forward to a full eight years of liberal rule.

A Palin Scandal?

Tana Ganeva, writing on the Alternet website, provides a great deal of evidence to suggest that Sarah Palin, soon to be ex-governor of Alaska, may have resigned her post in order to escape one of several public scandals, ranging from things that cropped up during her vice-presidential campaign, to one or two new ones. Particularly of note are Gov. Palin's dealings with an Alaskan contractor, Spenard Building Supplies, which built one of Palin's houses and later the Wasilla Sports Complex.

My Gut Reaction: I told you so.

Analysis: Although some Palin supporters such as Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, think her resignation may be a brilliant, if bizarre, political move, the amount of scandal murmurings in the background suggest that she's trying to get out of Dodge before all hell breaks loose.

The Spenard Building Supplies issue, which may become the subject of a federal investigation, is particularly intriguing. Unlike the other scandals that Ganeva writes about, which are frankly old news, this is a new issue, one that may evolve into a media frenzy, particularly with the number of Republican governors who have had problems recently.

Of course, it is too early in the game to be certain of anything. Given Gov. Palin's tendency toward political gaffes, it might just be another sign of incompetency on her part.

Breaking News: Palin Is Gone!!!

WashingtonPost.com has reported that Sarah Palin is planning to resign at the end of this month, apparently to prepare for a Presidential bid. The move comes as a surprise to members of her own party.

Analysis: Something seems fishy here. Why would she resign three years before the election? It could mean something bad is brewing in Alaska, and Gov. Palin wants to keep clear of it. Not necessarily something illegal, but perhaps a major budget crunch or some other major political development that she wants to steer clear of.

The coincidence of this development with a controversial Vanity Fair article denouncing Gov. Palin and drawing from interior GOP sources also seems rather interesting. I don't know what it is, but some sort of machination is going on here.

So Much for Free Expression

An article in The Progressive magazine, as well as a blog post on the Mondoweiss blog document the suppression of a Palestinian literary festival by the Israeli army. The Palestinian Festival of Literature, a celebration of Palestinian writing and arts, was deemed subversive by government officials.

My Gut Reaction: It's rather unwise to suppress literary festivals when you promote yourself to your allies as the only real democracy in the Middle East.

Some Disturbing Observations on Honduras

Greg Grandin of The Nation, in an article excerpted on the Upside Down World website, warns that the U. S. State Department may be considering exploiting the coup in Honduras to pressure President in Exile Manuel Zelaya to adopt policies that would serve American economic interests. As he notes, the State Department has refused to refer to what has happened in Honduras as a coup.

My Gut Reaction: We must not allow State Department bureaucrats to stand in the way of supporting genuine democracy.

Analysis: If what Grandin says is true, we may face a return to the corrupt dealings in Latin America and the Caribbean that I discussed in my previous post about Honduras. As Grandin notes, under the Clinton Administration, the restoration of Jean-Bertrand Aristide to the presidency of Haiti was predicated upon the acceptance of IMF policies. There is evidence that the State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be pursuing a similar course with Honduras.

An Insult to the First Amendment

Pittsburgh-area U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has done it again, trampling on other people's freedoms to advance her own moral agenda. As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports, Rob Zicari and Janet Romano, the heads of the now defunct Extreme Associates, a pornography production company, have both been sentenced to a year in prison after being prosecuted for five years by Buchanan.

Their company produced highly graphic, sadomasochistic pornography, known as "horror porn" which the U.S. Government under President George W. Bush deemed obscene. As an episode of the PBS television show Frontline documented, their videos could include subject matter such as rape.

My Gut Reaction: U.S. Attorney Buchanan is a Puritan throwback who should not have anywhere near the power she now has.

Analysis: In my opinion, the prosecution of Extreme Associates by Buchanan violates the spirit, if not necessarily the wording, of the First Amendment. Over a period of five years, spending who knows how much taxpayer money, she wore down Zicari and Romano, who are married, driving them out of their careers and ultimately their home for making films with consenting adults. When their resources ran out, they had no real choice other than to plead guilty.

That's right. No snuff films. No actual rape took place. No children were involved. All this for a fictional movie. This is unacceptable.

As an article published by the Pittsburgh City Paper demonstrates, Buchanan has a habit of pursuing cases that revolve around morality rather than the public safety. For instance, she pursued a drug paraphenalia case against Tommy Chong, and another obscenity case against an internet author whose work focused on child molestation.

Is this really the kind of person we want enforcing our laws? Someone whose main interest appears to be forcing her ideas of morality on the rest of the world. Is this what we think American justice should be like?

Some may point out that the majority of people would find the work of Extreme Associates disgusting and offensive. They would probably be right. I would probably find their videos difficult if not impossible to watch, as I personally find it uncomfortable to watch a female get hurt, even if I know it is simulated. But that is not the point.

Others may point out that Extreme Associates and its owners to a certain extent courted government prosecution by going on Frontline. Furthermore, after the charges were filed, Extreme Associates continued to sell the videos being targeted, labeling them as the "Federal Five." But that is also not the point.

The point is that the government should not be regulating the type of films people can produce when they involve consenting adults, and government officials certainly should not be pursuing filmmakers for periods of over half a decade. This is an abuse of government power, and sets a precedent that threatens the liberty of all.

What particularly makes this prosecution galling is that Extreme Associates, Zicari, and Romano were all based in California. Buchanan had a government agent based in Pennsylvania order a copy of one of the company's videos so that she could prosecute them herself. This is a practice known as forum shopping.

We need to stand up to such prosecutions, and label them as what they are-abuses of government power, and infringements on American liberty and the freedom of speech.

Don't Hold Back on Honduras

An article on Yahoo News describes the increasing isolation of the new military regime in Honduras, with the nation under threat of suspension from the Organization of American States (OAS)and the United States recognizing Manuel Zelaya as the legitimate ruler of the country. Zelaya intends to return to the country in three days, in spite of threats by coup leader Roberto Micheletti. (I refuse to refer to him as President.)

My Gut Reaction: President Obama, the United Nations, and the rest of Latin America should open ten cans of diplomatic whupass on Micheletti and his military backers. Sanctions, withdrawal of diplomatic recognition, freezing foreign assets, the works.

Analysis: The reaction to the Honduran coup marks a sea change in how America and the rest of the hemisphere reacts to military uprisings in Latin America. Gone are the days when the US government would endorse or even assist in the overthrow of leaders such as Hugo Chavez and Salvador Allende. By standing against this usurpation of democracy, President Obama shows that he takes the call to liberty seriously.

This is not only a matter of human rights and democracy; it is a prime opportunity to restore America's reputation in the world. It will go a long way to erase the memory of the 1973 coup in Chile, as well as the Bush Administration's endorsement of the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez. We may finally have a chance to restore our reputation in Latin America.

My Question Is: What Do Agnostics Do?

Unrest in Iran

By now, most readers of this blog will be aware that the results of the Iranian election have generated massive unrest in that country. The likelihood is that this unrest is in response to a genuine attempt to steal the Iranian election. As Juan Cole demonstrates in a posting to his blog, Ahmadinejad almost certainly lost the Iranian election when one combines the supporters of his opponents with undecided voters who supported reform and would almost certainly back his opponents.

One can only hope that the opposition's supporters win out. This is not out of some fallacious hope that an opposition victory will cause all Iranians to suddenly love Israel or convert to Christianity. Rather, one should support the Iranian opposition out of a principled support for democracy.

Why George Tiller Matters

A letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer this Sunday suggested that the murder of abortionist George Tiller should receive less attention than the killing of Pvt. William Long outside of a recruitment center a day or so later. This letter is nothing more than an attempt to distract from one of the main problems facing this country-the continued threat of religious fanatics to civic society and individuals.

The letter writer, Robert Pallies, claims that the murder was inspired by the "hateful" rhetoric of the anti-war movement. (Hmmm...I always thought it was pro-war rhetoric that was considered hateful.) However, the anti-war movement has nowhere near the power of the anti-abortion fanatics. As mentioned in a previous post on this blog, Tiller had previously been the target of prominent media conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly. Pvt. Long had received no such targeting; he was in many respects the victim of a random attack by a maniac.

Perhaps the conservatives want to distract people from the fact that their movement is increasingly spawning violent extremists. They want us to ignore the fact that these extremists wish to impinge on everyone else's rights. We shouldn't let them.

The Real Murderers

This week's murder of abortionist George Tiller reveals the true face of the anti-abortion movement. As Dr. Marty Klein points out on the Carnal Nation website, pro-lifers such as Bill O'Reilly had repeatedly referred to Dr. Tiller as a baby killer on his daily news program with millions of viewers. Similarly, fanatic Randall Terry referred to Tiller as a "mass murderer" in an act of faux mourning for his death.

It's time we set up a new category of hate crime to cover those who use religion to advocate violence against pro-choicers. These Christian jihadists are a threat to civil society and modernity. It is time to fight back.

Why I Support the Palestinian Cause

A comment by another blogger, Stephen M. Flatow, has led me to examine why I support the Palestinian cause in the first place. Contrary to what Flatow seems to assume, opposition to Israeli policy does not necessarily imply anti-Semitism or opposition to Israel's existence. A deeper examination of my motivations will make this evident.

Perhaps the deepest roots of my support for the Palestinian cause lie in my ethnic heritage. My roots include the Irish, the Polish, and Native Americans. All three groups share one common trait: they have faced violent struggles to free their homelands from foreign domination. To a certain extent, I recognize the Palestinian struggle as analogous to those earlier struggles, a valid effort to assert dominance over one's homeland.

Some will no doubt comment that the Israelis are essentially doing the same thing: struggling for an ancestral homeland. However, I feel it is worth noting that while the Jewish people were largely absent from Palestine for centuries, whereas the Palestinians have been displaced more recently. They have a far greater claim to the land.

Another factor is my concern for human rights in all countries. Flatow comments that he wonders why Caryl Churchill, the author of Seven Jewish Children profiled in an earlier blog post, does not give attention to Sri Lanka, Darfur, or other human rights hot spots. As anyone familiar with my blog can attest, I have a strong concern for human rights, with a particular focus on China. Israeli actions that impact civilian populations naturally draw my attention, as part of my broader concerns.

Notice that none of this translates into anti-Semitism. Flatow claims that anti-Israeli activism derives largely from hatred of Jewish people, citing one instance where an anti-Israel protest in Fort Lauderdale in which there was a pro-Nazi chant. The use of an isolated incident to claim an entire movement is anti-Semitic is simply comical. Indeed, Flatow's treatment of Seven Jewish Children suggests that he looks for anti-Semitism in any expression of opposition to Israeli policy, a trait common to many, if not all, backers of the Israeli occupation.

Yet Another Terror Plot That's Not All It's Cracked Up to Be

The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss reveals the alleged plot against synagogues in New York may not have been as great a threat as politicians and law enforcement officials are alleging. As his article demonstrates, the informant at the center of the plot was apparently an identity theft suspect recruited by the FBI to infiltrate potential terrorist groups.

However, the informant went beyond infiltrating to create his own terrorist cell, recruiting people to a plot conducted by himself. The actual threat posed by the suspects, one of whom is a schizophrenic, may well have been nill.

That has not stopped the panic-mongers from sounding the alarm bell. Stephen M. Flatow warns about the "cancer" of terrorism within our cities, never mind the fact that virtually all the terror plots discovered after 9 / 11, have been shown to be law enforcement fabrications.

First Things First, Let's Kill All the Journalists

In a disturbing report by writer Jeremy Scahill, we learn that a former Army Colonel, Ralph Peters, has published an article endorsing the killing of journalists who do not subscribe to official American explanations of events. He claims in the Journal of International Security Affairs that the media have played a prime role in defeating America in Vietnam, and creating difficulties in Iraq. (Hmmm...guess the Viet Minh and the insurgents had nothing to do with it.)

Such a position is not only a threat to free speech; it threatens the ability of the world in general to learn what is going on in war zones, and to judge the justice of a particular war. Yes, journalists take risks when they visit a conflict zone, but that doesn't give the military, whether ours or someone else's, to target unarmed non-combatants. (And even Col. Peters admits they are unarmed.)

Seven Jewish Children

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to witness a performance of the controversial new play Seven Jewish Children by Caryl Churchill, produced at a local Unitarian Universalist Church on Morewood Ave. I found it to be a genuinely moving performance, with excellent acting by students from the University of Pittsburgh. The play focuses on the experience of Jewish children ranging from the time of the Holocaust to current day Israel.

Some people have tried to interpret this play as anti-Semitic, claiming that a line referring to blood on children is a throw-back to the old blood libel. Having seen this play myself, I can definitively say this allegation is not true. Those who interpret the play this way have either never seen it, or have deliberately misconstrued it.

The latter interpretation is suggested by the reaction of one woman in a discussion group after the performance. She ranted that the play was biased, "anti-Israeli propaganda." She saw anti-Semitism largely because she was looking for it from the beginning. Her attitude brought to mind the woman in a pre-play discussion who argued that Israel could solve the issue of Palestinian population growth by means of mandatory birth control. Such people are not to be taken seriously.

In all, I highly recommend that anyone who has the chance should see this play.

Edmund Andrews Follow Up

A follow up to the previous blog entry:

Megan McArdle has posted Edmund Andrews response, issued to PBS, but refuses to acknowledge its significance, carping that it wasn't issued to her. As Andrews explains, the first bankruptcy stemmed from the activities of her first husband, and was filed jointly with him because of legal reasons. The second stemmed from a loan from her sister, whose idea of resolving family conflict apparently involves lawsuits.

I feel that Andrews's response vindicates my position. His wife wasn't responsible for what happened. McArdle whines that she still qualifies as a "serial bankrupt," but I think Mrs. Andrews should be granted the benefit of the doubt.

Did the Andrews family make mistakes in their financial arrangements? Lords yes. Do they warrant the vilification they've received? Even Ms. McArdle admits they don't. Unfortunately, she seems unwilling to apologize for her role, however unintentional, in generating it.

Megan McArdle, Econo-Fascist of the Week!!!

The Atlantic Magazine blogger Megan McArdle has just received a new, one time only award from this blog:

ECONO-FASCIST OF THE WEEK!!!

What has Ms. McArdle done to deserve this prestigious award? Her capping achievement is a blatant attempt to smear the wife of Edmund L. Andrews, a New York Times writer who has written a book, as well as an NYT Sunday Magazine article, regarding his financial troubles. McArdle basically uses his wife's financial history, which includes two bankruptcies, one apparently connected to a divorce,. to imply that Andrews, and her, are getting what they deserve, and that we should ignore calls for financial reform.

Such coldheartedness is characteristic of McArdle, who has opposed bailouts of California, the auto industry, and just about everyone except Wall Street. Charity does not seem to play much of a part in her vision of life and the world.

(Note: Yesterday, I printed a rather inflammatory comment about some of McArdle's friends, who died in 9 / 11. I apologize for this, both to Ms. McArdle and my readers. Although I stand by the feelings that provoked it, I should not have stooped to McArdle's level.)

Letter in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

I had a letter published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today attacking a recent article by the paper's religious columnist, Ann Rodgers. The article was a poorly thought out critique of the new movie Angels and Demons, accusing it of bigotary against Catholics. Rodgers haplessly attempts to portray the Catholic Church as benevolent and undeserving of suspicion.

Really, Ms. Rodgers, were you asleep during history class and, for that matter, the past ten years? Did you just happen to ignore the revelations of cover ups by the Church hierarchy of wide spread sexual abuse within Catholic-run schools? For that matter, did you know about the collaboration between the Catholic Church and Fascists such as Francisco Franco and Benito Mussolini during the early twentieth century? Hell, when I was attending Northeast Catholic High School in the year 2001, the teachers were still trying to whitewash Franco.

With all that in mind, it's not really difficult to see why the Catholic hierarchy might be viewed as an object of suspicion.

Irony of Ironies

Rather eerily, given my post of this morning, a shoot out broke out in the East End of Pittsburgh, in the neighborhood called Stanton Heights, killing three police officers. We express our condolences.

This only goes to show just how deep a problem this is. We have two mass shootings, in two different parts of the country, within twenty-four hours of each other. This is not just a local issue; it is a national issue. The need for a stand against the right wing gun lobby has never been clearer.

America: Land of the Gunshot Wound

Yesterday, we had yet another bloodbath courtesy of some maniac with a gun. This time it was a Vietnamese immigrant who was pissed off over the fact that he couldn't learn English. His nuanced response: to kill a group of his fellow immigrants.

When the hell are we going to wake up, America? I'm all for liberty, but allowing every maniac in the country to amass their own personal armory is just insane. Rather than considering the "rights" of gun owners and enthusiasts, maybe it's time to start considering the public's right to safety. The interests of the many outweigh the needs-or in this case desires-of the few.

We will no doubt here the usual course of protests from the libertarians citing the Second Amendment and the occasional mass shooting outside of the United States, as in a recent post on Reason's Hit and Run blog noting the coincidence of shootings in Alabama and Germany last month. However, posts like this one always ignore the obvious issue. Germany has this type of thing every few years, while we seem to have them every few weeks, not to mention all the individual shootings.

It's time to stand up for sanity.