posted by perkiset on Sep 27

The Republicans, lead by Trent Lott, claim that all crimes are crimes of hate. That’s why, adding hate crime legislation to a military spending bill is senseless, inappropriate and simply wrong, and they will do their best to preserve the expected Presidential veto of the legislation later this week.

The Democrats, headed up by Ted Kennedy, claim that, if anything, this is MOST appropriate, citing that a bill to fund our military against terrorism should be no less supportive of domestic terrorism – and hate crimes are exactly that.

Interestingly, the bill is only an addition to existing legislation. Currently, the federal hate crime legislation says that you will be charged differently and quite harshly for crimes against another with proven racial, religious or gender-based motivation. The new bill adds gender identity ie., homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites etc.

So why are the Republicans so up in arms? First off, during the Rubber Stamp days of the Bush administration, they added all kinds of riders and supplemental legislation to bills that had nothing at all to do with the original intent of the law. This is done all the time by the way – it’s a method to get something through Congress without having to go through the entire process of getting a bill to the floor. Don’t let the Repubs fool you – they’ve been doing this for just as long and as effectively as Democrats.

The point here, is GAY. Republicans cannot allow themselves to be seen as surrendering to gay issues in ANY WAY because of the religious right that now so thoroughly dominates the discussion on the “Family Values” side of the aisle.

Republicans say that “Any legislation that singles people out for better treatment than others is wrong.” That’s simply a cop out. The law does not give any one person a significant advantage over another. You might as well have them admit that they perceive this legislation to put the needs of black people, women and gays above the rights of Clean Livin’ God aFearin White Folk. That is a lie: The bill specifically states that you cannot perform crimes based on race… not on being an African American. On gender… not if you are a woman. On Sexual orientation… not if you are gay. This means that if a black man beats up a white man in a fit of prejudice he is just as liable to get spanked by the law. If a woman kills a man because she despises his testicles, she is fair game by the Attorneys General. And if a group of gay men round up some breeders and force then to listen to Barbara Streisand albums they may be eligible for the death penalty.

But all of that is not very likely, is it? Really, the people that do the beating, terrorism and murder is men - particularly white men (at least when it comes to hate crimes). Republicans simply don’t want their buddies’ to get bagged for their behavior Back In The Holler.

What with the likes of Larry Craig, Mark Foley, David Drier, Ken Mehlman, Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy and so many others, Republicans are simply proving themselves to be the Hypocrisy Party. And when it comes to protecting people because of their race, religeon or sexual orientation, Republicans are trying hard to rewrite “Hate” into a family value.

posted by perkiset on Sep 26

In a continuing effort to redefine his legacy, Bush spent a bit of time photo-oping with children at PS 76 in New York today. In a grammar lesson that pretty much sums up his commitment to the educational growth of our children, he told us all that “Childrens do learn,” adding to an already impressive and prolific list of grammatical gaffes. Standing in front of a small “No Child Left Behind” banner, the ironic parallels to “Mission Accomplished cannot be avoided.

The whole, “I’m for the children” thing will be a difficult sell, since he is prepared to veto the new legislation granting health care to about 4 million children that have none. Saying, “Now is not the time to be pulling money from hard working people’s pockets,” OK, perhaps since tax revenues are down and expenses are up, this might be out of reach for us right now.

Um, wait: What’s with the “I need 190 billion more for Iraq” thing? Interestingly, and in an astoundingly ill-timed effort, Bush and his team have given the nod to the Pentagon requesting another 190 billion for the war effort. Best get that checkbook out after all – sounds like Bush is only uncomfortable about taking your money for things other than those that really help us all.

posted by perkiset on Sep 26

Gelding President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whined to Christian Amanpour on CNN this morning about his reception at Columbia University.

Speaking of the protestors, “It is obvious that they were under pressure from various political factions to be there.” And regarding the protests and welcome in general, “There are many things I wished did not happen.”

Well welcome to America Mr. Ahmadinejad. That is the very essence of free speech. Take THAT lesson back with you to the 18th century backwater of a country you don’t even really lead. Free speech, nigh, freedom in general is a tough thing to maintain – take it from us – we’re having enough difficulty on our own – but the way to a free people is to celebrate their ability to confront you with questions that you wish you did not have to deal with.

The foolish rumblings from the right wing continue today, even though it seems as though the White House was A-OK with Ahmadinejad’s visit. Curious to me, except that since Columbia (and in fact the vast, vast majority of institutions of higher learning) are predominantly left-leaning – so any controversy that floats there way will certainly be seen in a positive light on Pennsylvania Ave.