How many times do we need to read it and how many times are we going to continue funding these ridiculous programs. If Christian conservatives want to experiment with their own kids, go for it and live with the consequences but no need to subject everyone else to this rubbish. What makes it worse is that the US is exporting these half-baked ideas across Africa and the rest of the world.
"Vast sums of federal monies continue to be directed toward these programs. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active," Dr. Margaret Blythe of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the committee.
These programs, backed by many social conservatives who oppose the teaching of contraception methods to teenagers in schools, have received about $1.3 billion in federal funds since the late 1990s. Currently, 17 of the 50 U.S. states refuse to accept federal funds for such programs.
Anyone else notice that Hillary and her staff keep gratuitously mentioning "San Francisco" when talking about Obama's "bitter" comments? Markos noticed it too: "I remember the good ol' days when only Republicans used to demonize San Francisco," Markos wrote yesterday. A DailyKos diarist noticed it too, as did the readers at popular gay news and culture site Datalounge. As did some folks interviewed by the SF Chronicle:
So the most shocking part of the whole incident, he said, has been the appearance that "Hillary Clinton wants to ... throw in with the critique from the far right" in appearing to feed the image of an out-of-touch "San Francisco-style Democrat."
It suggests "that the Clintons are so committed to the political tactics that they'll do virtually anything to advance a step without regard for the long term implications," he said. "Most Democrats and most Republicans will not attack their opponent in such a way as to give massive fodder to the other side in the general election."
But "she's just writing the playbook for the Republicans in November..."
And we all know what San Francisco is code for. Now let's examine what Hillary was after. From the NYT:
Some Clinton advisers also said that the focus on Mr. Obama’s “guns or religion” comment was a way to put him on the spot with so-called values voters...
Value voters. That's PC media slang for the religious right. Here are a few examples of Hillary dropping the SF-bomb concerning the bitter thing:
"I am well aware that at a fundraiser in San Francisco, he said some things that many people in Pennsylvania and beyond Pennsylvania have found offensive.
CAMPBELL BROWN: But, senator, you’ve been out there on the stump attacking him pretty aggressively over this. And his response has been, and he said it pretty bluntly tonight, shame on you. You know that he is a man of faith—this is what he's saying—and to suggest that he is demeaning religion is you playing politics.
HRC: I do think it raises a lot of concerns and we've seen that exhibited in the last several days by people here in Pennsylvania, in Indiana where I was yesterday, and elsewhere, because it did seem so much in line with what often we are charged with. Someone goes to a closed door fund-raiser in San Francisco and makes comments that do seem elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing.
Again, why throw in San Francisco?
Then check out Hillary's Web site. It's littered with "bitter" San Francisco references, including the last one, that's quite damning. Here, here, here, here, and especially here:
MT Endorsement Watch: “Yellowstone County Commissioner Bill Kennedy says he is endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton…[Kennedy said:] ‘In Montana, going to church or going hunting is part of our heritage, not something we ‘cling to’ out of bitterness or frustration…Sen. Obama showed a real disconnect with rural Montana. It might work to look down on us from San Francisco, but it won’t sell when he comes back to Montana.’”
Really? From San Francisco? What is that supposed to mean? Oh, and before I have to deal with all the "Hillary is SUPER pro-gay" responses, yes she is. She's also super pro-black, pro-gun-control, and pro-NAFTA. But when it became expedient for her campaign to race-bait, embrace guns, and then claim she was always anti-NAFTA, Hillary flipped on a dime.
As for the gays, yes, the Clintons are very pro-gay, until they're not. Remember DOMA, and Bill Clinton's radio ads touting his support for the anti-gay bill? Here's the NYT coverage of the ads at the time:
In a radio advertisement aimed at religious conservatives, the Clinton campaign is showcasing the President’s signature on a bill banning gay marriages in spite of earlier White House complaints that the issue amounted to ”gay baiting.”…
Mr. Clinton signed the law early on a Saturday morning, minimizing news coverage. He said he had long agreed with the principles in the bill but hoped it would not be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals…
In fact, after proclaiming to the community how painful it was for him to sign it, President Clinton’s reelection campaign had ads up in the South touting the legislation within two weeks!
Let's also revisit my post of last June in which we learned that Bill Clinton was advising John Kerry to endorse the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. What kind of advice do you think Bill is giving Hillary about how to reach "values voters" - well, we already know his advice, throw the gays under the bus - and do you really think she's not taking it?
Let me also share the story of how Hillary's people freaked when Joe and I told them we were going to ask Hillary a "gay" question at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting a year ago (I mean, the question was about DOMA and civil unions, hardly anything she hasn't answered before). Joe literally got yelled at for even suggesting that we were going to ask Hillary something about DOMA. We were told that we had to give Hillary and her people the question in advance. We refused. We were then told that we couldn't ask her about DOMA since her husband signed it into law - apparently, it would be embarrassing to her. You'll be surprised to hear that we never got the interview. And remember that a year ago February, we were one of the only top blogs that even liked Hillary. Senator Dodd, on the contrary, had no problem answering the same question at the same meeting. Wesley Clark gave a great answer as well.
Well, not just George Bush's marriage, but the marriage of every Republican who thinks we need to amend the Constitution to stop gays from marrying, lest all of America's marriages go kaput. Alan Colmes has more on his blog, it's truly frightening. Bwahahahaha.
As the presidential race continues to heat up, we're going to hear more and more about the need for unity on major issues. I'm not unsympathetic to that idea, and certainly compromise is a vital part of politics. I like a vibrant marketplace of ideas, and I'm certainly competitive to the extent that I like to win (who doesn't?), but part of sharing a nation (or state or town or street) with other people is making trade-offs. On the other hand, this kind of give-and-take requires good faith on both sides. On some important issues, many conservatives are disingenuous about their positions -- especially when it comes to social conservatism, where too often some policy fig-leaf is used as a cover for the basic desire to punish for perceived social transgressions.
Details after the jump. Mark Kleinman writes about an amazing drug that can instantly reverse the effects of opiate overdoses. The drug is not addictive, cannot itself be overdosed on, costs less than $10 for an effective dose, and can be easily used by people with no medical training. Naturally, the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy opposes its distribution. The reason is, basically, that if heroin users died less, they'd have less incentive to quit. Seriously, that's the justification! Because so many junkies are super psyched about their addiction -- and would totally stop trying to quit if they thought it was less likely they might drop dead. And really, why should we help people -- by, y'know, allowing them to live -- who choose to do Bad Things when we can show them just how awful they are by helping bring about their death?
Right around the same time I read this, a report came out that women on the birth control pill are dramatically less likely to develop ovarian cancer -- even *decades after* they stop taking it. With the caveat that the pill isn't for everybody, for a variety of reasons, this is a great thing! To the extent that, I would imagine, it might be worth it for some women to take the pill simply for the anti-cancer benefit. But you're crazy if you think social conservatives will suddenly reverse course and promote the use of the pill, because it allows for -- horror of horrors -- sex without pregnancy, another Bad Thing. So some people are would rather women be twice as likely to develop ovarian cancer than even have the *possibility* of sex without pregnancy by virtue of the pill. Compassion, or punishment?
Compromise and unity does not equal progressives caving on these kinds of issues.
But killing a hundred thousand Iraqi people is just fine. Promoting war through the media is OK too. Heck, losing billions upon billions of dollars is just peachy as well. But don't think for one second that you can show a naked body on TV or else the FCC will fine you $1.43 million for indecency. Talk about disturbing and indecent, our priorities in government are screwed up.
For the FCC, the episode of "NYPD Blue" was an indecency twofer.
"We find that the programming at issue is within the scope of our indecency definition because it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs -- specifically an adult woman's buttocks," the FCC wrote in its ruling.
My goodness. These people require a serious dose of psychological assistance. It's always wonderful to be lectured on morality by the same Southern Baptists who stand at the top of Christian denominations with divorce rates. The Bible Belt leads the nation in divorce, yet they always cry and point the finger at everyone else as the root of evil. Look in a mirror and quit spending everyone else's money for silly puritan campaigns. If only they cared so much about peace in the world.
The latest salvo in creationism's increasingly ferocious battle with evolution is about to be fired in Lancashire. Not in a fiery sermon preached from the pulpit, but in the form of a giant Christian theme park that will champion the book of Genesis and make a multi-media case that God created the world in seven days.
The AH Trust, a charity set up last year by a group of businessmen alarmed by the direction in which they see society heading, has identified a number of potential sites in the north west of England to build the £3.5m [$7m] Christian theme park.
In June 1998, the Southern Baptist convention amended its official statement of beliefs for the first time in 35 years to declare that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." And Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister then serving as governor of Arkansas, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement (along with 129 other evangelical leaders).
Yes, that's actually the title of a long piece in Sunday's Times by David Kirkpatrick. It's an interesting read. Bush and his war in Iraq helped foster the crackup. And, there seems to be a decidedly different view of what's going on between those evangelicals who are sick of the GOP and those religious right leaders, like Tony Perkins, who are in bed with the GOP.
However "the crackup" plays out in 2008, these couple paragraphs give the flavor of the piece -- and are just fun to read and relish:
Just three years ago, the leaders of the conservative Christian political movement could almost see the Promised Land. White evangelical Protestants looked like perhaps the most potent voting bloc in America. They turned out for President George W. Bush in record numbers, supporting him for re-election by a ratio of four to one. Republican strategists predicted that religious traditionalists would help bring about an era of dominance for their party. Spokesmen for the Christian conservative movement warned of the wrath of “values voters.” James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, was poised to play kingmaker in 2008, at least in the Republican primary. And thanks to President Bush, the Supreme Court appeared just one vote away from answering the prayers of evangelical activists by overturning Roe v. Wade.
Today the movement shows signs of coming apart beneath its leaders. It is not merely that none of the 2008 Republican front-runners come close to measuring up to President Bush in the eyes of the evangelical faithful, although it would be hard to find a cast of characters more ill fit for those shoes: a lapsed-Catholic big-city mayor; a Massachusetts Mormon; a church-skipping Hollywood character actor; and a political renegade known for crossing swords with the Rev. Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Nor is the problem simply that the Democratic presidential front-runners — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards — sound like a bunch of tent-revival Bible thumpers compared with the Republicans.
The 2008 election is just the latest stress on a system of fault lines that go much deeper. The phenomenon of theologically conservative Christians plunging into political activism on the right is, historically speaking, something of an anomaly. Most evangelicals shrugged off abortion as a Catholic issue until after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But in the wake of the ban on public-school prayer, the sexual revolution and the exodus to the suburbs that filled the new megachurches, protecting the unborn became the rallying cry of a new movement to uphold the traditional family. Now another confluence of factors is threatening to tear the movement apart. The extraordinary evangelical love affair with Bush has ended, for many, in heartbreak over the Iraq war and what they see as his meager domestic accomplishments. That disappointment, in turn, has sharpened latent divisions within the evangelical world — over the evangelical alliance with the Republican Party, among approaches to ministry and theology, and between the generations.
The Dupont neighborhood is crawling with religious right fanatics attending the Values Voters summit. Haven't managed to get over to the festivities.
The media are all over the place too. Seems they are finding that there is not a lot of affection brewing for the GOP candidates today at the right wing hatefest:
Religious and cultural conservatives, a political force skeptical of the leading Republican presidential candidates, are caught in a tug of war between pragmatism and ideology.
"My head and my heart are fighting with each other," said Phil Burress, an Ohioan who has lobbied hard for federal and state bans on gay marriage.
The vexing choices facing these voters:
-Rudy Giuliani, a thrice-married New Yorker who differs with them on abortion, gays and guns but who polls show offers a strong chance to beat a Democrat next fall.
-Mitt Romney, a Mormon from Massachusetts who didn't entirely share their views in the past but who insists he now does.
-Fred Thompson, a Tennessean who hasn't been a vocal champion of their core issues but who had a right-leaning Senate voting record.
-John McCain, an Arizona senator who has a clear socially conservative resume but who dismissed their leaders "agents of intolerance" in 2000.
-Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister and true believer who has an extraordinary hill to climb for the nomination.
Tough times for the fundies. They've got no one to love.
But what about Duncan Hunter, who is possibly the biggest buffoon in Congress? Don't hear much about his campaign, but I did see what appears to be THE entire Duncan Hunter campaign parked on my street today:
Big weekend in DC for the ultra-right wingers. They're having their "Values Voters Summit" at the Washington Hilton, conveniently located in the gayest neighborhood in the city.
All the GOP presidential candidates are going to be here to kiss the butts of the religious right. The religious right types aren't so enamored with the GOP candidates as the Washington Post reminds us:
For months, Republican presidential candidates such as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and John McCain have courted evangelical Christians, meeting with religious leaders throughout the Midwest and the South.
Today, thousands of Christian conservatives will gather in Washington to confront the fact that none of the candidates has won them over.
So big test for all those Republican wannabes. Can they win over the fringe James Dobson-types of the GOP?
They've already started tripping over themselves to be the most right-wing of the right-wing according to the Associated Press preview:
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain's argument to woo restive religious and social conservatives comes down to this: "I have a record that can be trusted." GOP rival Mitt Romney's goes like this: "I am pro-family on every level, from personal to political."
The two are among the Republican presidential hopefuls speaking to a gathering of "values voters" in Washington. This influential part of the party's base has not coalesced around a Republican candidate, and all the major competitors are auditioning for the part in speeches this weekend.
In remarks prepared for delivery Friday and made available to The Associated Press, McCain and Romney separately challenge the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani, although neither names the former New York mayor who backs abortion rights and gay rights.
"We're not going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton," Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, says. Adds McCain, the Arizona senator: "This is not the time to turn our back on the progress we've made on the issues that matter most."
The Hilton is across the street from me so I'll probably swing by this event today to see it for myself. I just wish Pam Spaulding was here to enjoy it with me.
CNN's upcoming Christiane Amanpour documentary on religious extremism in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, "God's Warriors," airs starting on Tuesday. Right here in the U.S. we have an example of one of those warriors, Ron Luce, whose call to action to retake America from the "virtue terrorists" (gays, pro-choice supporters, etc.) is "Battle Cry," a youth crusade that Amanpour visits at its stop in San Francisco.
Luce screams intolerance cloaked in nifty pyrotechnics, Christian rock music, and big-screen graphics to the teen-packed venue. The evils of secular society and pop culture have forced him to tell his young charges to be ready and "armed with faith, prepared for battle." Luce talks about "virgins being raped on the sidewalks."
Rolling Stone did a piece on Luce and his movement back in April, "Teenage Holy War."
They rise, heartened; the crowd, en masse, swears off "harlots and adultery"; the twenty-one-year-old MC twitches taut a chain across the ass of her skintight red jeans and summons the followers to show off their best dance moves for God.
Someone please tell me how delusional (or cravenly manipulative) do you have to be to put on a show this outrageous:
[T]hese 4,000 teens are about to become "branded by God." It's like getting your head shaved when you join the Marines, Luce says, only the kids get to keep their hair. His assistants roll out a cowhide draped over a sawhorse, and Luce presses red-hot iron into the dead flesh, projecting a close-up of sizzling cow skin on giant movie screens above the stage.
"When you enlist in the military, there's a code of honor," Luce preaches, "same as being a follower of Christ." His Christian code requires a "wartime mentality": a "survival orientation" and a readiness to face "real enemies." The queers and communists, feminists and Muslims, to be sure, but also the entire American cultural apparatus of marketing and merchandising, the "techno-terrorists" of mass media, doing to the morality of a generation what Osama bin Laden did to the Twin Towers. "Just as the events of September 11th, 2001, permanently changed our perspective on the world," Luce writes, "so we ought to be awakened to the alarming influence of today's culture terrorists. They are wealthy, they are smart, and they are real."
Even as he tells kids to swear off pop culture, Luce doesn't swear off capitalism, cashing in for Jesus by making money selling Battle Cry books, t-shirts, and videos.
When you have cult of personality BS going at this level, you know the power over these kids has likely gone to Luce's head. At this rate, how long will it be before he's caught with a hooker, or at a rest stop blowing some guy, or, heaven forbid, molesting an underage kid? It's only a matter of time with folks like this if the current trend holds.
It's simply amazing that Giuliani is now trying to convince Republican primary voters that he isn't pro-gay, and isn't a flaming liberal. Just like Romney, and even McCain, Giuliani feels the imperative to reinvent himself in order to win the Republican primary now that the party is controlled by far-right Baptist bigots. And the funny thing is, the far-right Baptist bigots are so uneducated, so simple-minded, that they buy this stuff. So what if Newt Gingrich is on his third marriage, he's for family values! So what if Mitt Romney called himself more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy, he's for family values! So what if Rudy Giuliani's hobby is dressing up in female drag, he's for family values!
I've done a lot of research on these Christian boot camps. They're horrendous. The ones located just across the border, out of reach of American laws, are even worse. While I'm sympathetic to the idea of a book camp for kids who may need a good kick in the butt, these groups are horror stories. Kids doing death marches. Kids getting multiple tropical diseases at once and the camps doing nothing about it. Absolutely horrendous. Oh yeah, these same camps often treat gay youth to "cure" them. 30 mile runs and multiple tropical diseases to cure gay youth. It's inhuman. More here.
NOTE FROM PAM: Charles Eugene Flowers, the head of San Antonio-based camp (Love Demonstrated Ministries), refers to himself as "the commandant." BTW, the camp has been hailed in the past by the White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
One of the coalition partners, Love Demonstrated Ministries (LDMI), is a faith-based organization which focuses on youth offenders, gang members, and high risk youth. Over the past three years, 135 of 165 young offenders entering its Life Skills and Parenting Camp have graduated from LDMI, a success rate of 82 percent.
Tying a girl to a van with a rope then dragging her for falling behind the group during a morning run -- is that part of the "success"?
JFK never ran as a Catholic. JFK never intended to jam to his religion down America's throat. Romney, running as a religious right candidate, is doing quite the opposite. Romney isn't just running on his faith. He is openly proud of the fact that he plans to use his religion as a litmus test to determine his position on every issue. While JFK assured us that he wasn't going to be taking orders from the Pope, Romney assures us that he will be taking orders from Pat Robertson and the men at the Concerned Women for America.
Kennedy believed in the pluralism of America. Romney does not. Romney, like so many Republican candidates nowadays, wants you to live your life like a good member of HIS religion. And if you don't, he's going to pass laws making sure that you do.
That's why it's relevant that Romney is a Mormon. If we are expected to live under Mormon law, we deserve to know a bit more about that religion before casting our votes.
American professor Robert Bailey spoke at a WHO conference on AIDS about battling the AIDS epidemic with funding for circumcisions which are known to reduce the risk of transmission of the disease by roughly 60%. Instead of spending millions of dollars, a billion in the new Bush plan for Africa, money should be spent on known solutions such as medicine, condoms, doctors, nurses, science and real sex education instead of theory of abstinence which is costly and unproven. We have brilliant scientists and medical doctors around the world so use them instead of Southern Baptist religious leaders to address this problem.
Senator Vitter's solicitation of at least one prostitute was not merely, as he has stated, 'a serious sin,' it was a violation of criminal law. The Senate Ethics Committee should commence an investigation into Senator Vitter's conduct and hold him accountable.
The GOP favorite pet project that has failed miserably around the world should have been cut in Washington as well, but at least someone is introducing reality into budgets. Let the GOP experiment with themselves before they waste everyone else's money on these silly programs.
