Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
"Hobbesian cynic" is such the phrase used by people who are at one with the middle class. Fuck, I don't even know what that means, and my dad has written books about Hobbes.

You tell your selfish prick of a father to bring back his beloved cartoon!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
You tell your selfish prick of a father to bring back his beloved cartoon!

go read sebby's version, then take a lesson

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You forgot # 3 - Your terminal incoherence.

if I'm terminal it's one slow death. en garde. bitch.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
en garde. bitch.

I submit this as the next board title.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I submit this as the next board title.

Doing your best to put off that day?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
You tell your selfish prick of a father to bring back his beloved cartoon!

Calvin's father was a tax lawyer. I just thought you would want to know.

[Spanky]

Capitol Update - California September 6, 2007



In This Issue

Gender Neutral Bathrooms in Our Schools
Marriage By Any Other Name?
NOW Sues Fatherhood Programs
Remember Victims of 9/11 and Fly Your Flag!
Tune In-CRI's Joe Pursch on KFIA Radio


Gender Neutral Bathrooms in Our Schools


A man who identifies as a woman may not feel comfortable in the men's restroom. To accommodate this discomfort, the University of Vermont, and at least 17 other colleges nationwide, have added gender-neutral bathrooms to their facilities. The four new bathrooms at the University of Vermont's student center cost $2,500 a piece to build.

"I think they're a really important thing to have," said a 19-year old transgender student. "Just because there can be tense situations in gendered bathrooms, especially for trans-identified people, you need a space to use the rest room and feel safe and comfortable."

Transgender activists are glad for this first step but they also want the University of Vermont to go even farther and install gender-neutral bathrooms in the library and private showers in the gym.

This story should hit close to home for Californians. Our own legislature is currently considering SB 777, legislation that could mandate gender-neutral bathrooms in our public schools, including elementary schools.

SB 777 is broad and sweeping legislation that would force schools to adopt new curriculum and prohibit school programs and activities from reflecting adversely on homosexual and transgender individuals. Gender-specific bathrooms could be considered discriminatory if SB 777 becomes law.

CRI's SB 777 Debate on Fox News

Read SB 777

LAUSD Transgender Policies


Marriage By Any Other Name?


In a legal brief submitted last month to the California Supreme Court, which is currently weighing the issue of homosexual marriage, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has stated that the legislature could eliminate "marriage" in the future and call it something entirely different.

Schwarzenegger's legal brief states: "The Administration submits that the use of the words 'marry' and 'marriage' is not required by the California Constitution [to describe the institution of marriage]. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as 'marriage' could be changed."

Although Schwarzenegger vetoed homosexual marriage legislation two years ago, he has indicated that he would not oppose the courts affirmatively deciding this issue and has generally supported special rights for homosexuals.

Schwarzenegger's legal brief is evidence of postmodernism and the deconstruction of language. If you change the word "girl" to mean boy, that doesn't make a girl a boy. Likewise, if you call "marriage" by another name, that doesn't change what marriage essentially is.

"Neither the courts nor the legislature should be in the business of rewriting dictionaries," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "Marriage has a longstanding definition. In enacting our laws, the legislature should reference the dictionary and glean from it, not attempt to rewrite it to fit their agenda."


NOW Sues Fatherhood Programs

Rather than focusing more efforts on protecting women from the international sex trade, or (heaven forbid) protecting baby girls from being aborted, the National Organization for Women (NOW) has turned its attention to federally-funded fatherhood programs.

NOW has sued three Responsible Fatherhood programs because they allegedly discriminate against women by excluding them altogether.

"Sadly, this is where radical feminism leads. Instead of acknowledging the validity of a program for fathers, to encourage them to be better dads and more involved with their families-and admitting that this would have positive repercussions for all of society-extremist feminists at NOW would destroy a good thing," stated Karen England, executive director at Capitol Resource Institute.

The importance of Responsible Fatherhood programs is described on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website: "The President is determined to make committed, responsible fatherhood a national priority. The presence of two committed, involved parents contributes directly to better school performance, reduced substance abuse, less crime and delinquency, fewer emotional and other behavioral problems, less risk of abuse or neglect, and lower risk of teen suicide. The research is clear: fathers factor significantly in the lives of their children. There is simply no substitute for the love, involvement, and commitment of a responsible father."

[Spanky]

And people claim that these Democrat politicians want us to succeed in Iraq....

And why didn't they say this way back when Patreus was being connfirmed (that any report he submitted would not be believed)?

Dems already discount war report
By S.A. Miller
September 6, 2007


Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, talked with reporters yesterday in Washington. "We know what is going to be in it," he said of the Iraq war report next week. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus' report was potentially compromised by the White House's involvement in drafting it.

"If the same people who were so wrong about this war from the start are writing substantial portions of this report, that raises credibility questions," he said.

Republicans bristled at the pre-emptive strike against the report.

"Are these leaders asking the American people to believe that the testimony of a commanding four-star general in the U.S. Army should be discarded before it's even delivered?" said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

"If so, these statements completely ignore what's truly at stake in this war and suggest that neither the commander in chief nor our chief commander on the ground have any regard for the lives of the men and women fighting for this country," he said. "It's appallng, and I think the American people — rightfully — will continue to stick by the decisions of our commanders and troops on the ground when it comes to what is best for their safety and security."

Mr. Bush's surprise visit Monday to Iraq's Anbar province showcased success in the one-time al Qaeda stronghold where Sunni tribal leaders teamed with U.S. troops to drive out the terrorists and rapidly improve security.

Despite continued bloodshed in Iraq, the president's visit was one of several recent signs of U.S. military success in Iraq that blunted antiwar momentum leading up to the September progress report.

The congressionally mandated report from the administration, which will be delivered in two parts by Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker, is expected to show some U.S. military advances, but limited progress from the fledgling Iraqi government toward ending sectarian fighting.

Democrats said they put more faith in a report Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office that showed Iraq failed to meet 11 of 18 political and security benchmarks set by Congress.

They also favored an analysis due today
by Gen. James L. Jones, former U.S. commander in Europe, that is expected to say security gains have been "uneven" and Iraqi security forces are ill-prepared to stand alone, according to a CNN report.

"We will see what the Bush report will be at the end of next week," Mrs. Pelosi said. "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made. They might want to find one or two places where there has been progress but the plural of anecdote is not data."

She said Democrats were determined to uncover "the ground truth in Iraq."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
And people claim that these Democrat politicians want us to succeed in Iraq....

And why didn't they say this way back when Patreus was being connfirmed (that any report he submitted would not be believed)?

Dems already discount war report
By S.A. Miller
September 6, 2007


Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, talked with reporters yesterday in Washington. "We know what is going to be in it," he said of the Iraq war report next week. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

If you think Petraeus and his job should be above politics, you're barking up the wrong tree. Try this article:

• The risks of playing politics with the military
  By Bruce Ackerman
  
  President George W. Bush's campaign to stay the course in Iraq is taking a new and constitutionally dangerous turn. When Senator John Warner recently called for a troop withdrawal by Christmas, the White House did not mount its usual counterattack. It allowed a surprising champion to take its place. Major General Rick Lynch, a field commander in Iraq, summoned reporters to condemn Mr Warner's proposal as "a giant step backwards".
  
  It was Maj Gen Lynch who was making the giant step into forbidden territory. He had no business engaging in a public debate with a US senator. His remarks represent an assault on the principle of civilian control - the most blatant so far during the Iraq war.
  
  Nobody remarked on the breach. But this only makes it more troubling and should serve as prologue for the next large event in civilian-military relations: the president's effort to manipulate General David Petraeus's report to Congress.
  
  Once again, nobody is noticing the threat to civilian control. Mr Bush has pushed Gen Petraeus into the foreground to shore up his badly damaged credibility. But in doing so, he has made himself a hostage. He needs the general more than the general needs him. Despite the president's grandiose pretensions as commander-in-chief, the future of the Iraq war is up to Gen Petraeus.
  
  The general's impact on Congress will be equally profound. If he brings in a negative report, Republicans will abandon the sinking ship in droves; if he accentuates the positive, it is the Democrats who will be spinning.
  
  In fact, if not in name, it will be an army general who is calling the shots - not the duly elected representatives of the American people.
  
  Wars are tough on constitutions, but losing wars is particularly tough on the American separation of powers. Especially when Congress and the presidency are in different hands, the constitutional dynamics invite both sides to politicise the military. With the war going badly, it is tempting to push the generals on to centre stage and escape responsibility for the tragic outcomes that lie ahead. But as Iraq follows on from Vietnam, this dynamic may generate a politicised military that is embittered by its repeated defeats in the field.
  
  From this perspective, the US owes a great debt to Harry Truman. It would have been politically convenient for the president to defer to General Douglas Mac-Arthur's advice and invade China in the Korean war. But Truman fired MacArthur instead, opening the way for General Dwight Eisenhower to win the next election. While the Democratic party was a big loser, the principle of civilian control remained intact.
  
  Mr Bush is no Truman. He has used Gen Petraeus as a pawn in a game to defer congressional judgment from the spring to the autumn. Now he is transforming him into a mythic figure, scheduling his report to Congress for September 11. As the nation pauses to remember that terrible day in 2001, the president wants his general to appear on television as the steely-eyed hero of the hour, leading the country to ultimate victory in "the war on terror".
  
  This puts Gen Petraeus in a difficult constitutional position. Paradoxically, it is now up to a military man to defend the principle of civilian control. Gen Petraeus should make his priorities clear by immediately disciplining Gen Lynch for his thoughtless breach of constitutional principle. When his moment of truth comes, he should make every effort to avoid being a shill for either the Republicans or the Democrats - emphasising that the important questions are political, not military. He should restrict himself to an impartial statement of the facts and refuse to judge the success of the surge.
  
  Easier said than done. We all know that facts do not speak for themselves and that Gen Petraeus will be making countless value judgments even if he re- frains from explicitly assessing the success or failure of his mission. This is why the president should not have pum- ped up this moment in the first place.
  
  But he has, and it will not be any better if Gen Petraeus and the joint chiefs of staff blind themselves to the constitutional precedent that they are establishing. They should not allow themselves to be left holding the bag for the tough choices involved in extricating the country from its blunders in Iraq. They should stringently limit themselves to an impartial statement of the facts and insist that it is up to the president and Congress to come up with the least-bad exit strategy.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop [list]The risks of playing politics with the military
By Bruce Ackerman

President George W. Bush's campaign to stay the course in Iraq is taking a new and constitutionally dangerous turn. When Senator John Warner recently called for a troop withdrawal by Christmas, the White House did not mount its usual counterattack. It allowed a surprising champion to take its place. Major General Rick Lynch, a field commander in Iraq, summoned reporters to condemn Mr Warner's proposal as "a giant step backwards".

It was Maj Gen Lynch who was making the giant step into forbidden territory. He had no business engaging in a public debate with a US senator. His remarks represent an assault on the principle of civilian control - the most blatant so far during the Iraq war.

I had missed this, but Ackerman is aboslutely right.

It is completely inappropriate (and a considerable departure from the standard) to trot out an active-duty military officer to give a press conference on why a Senator, or why any particular proposed policy, is full of shit.

Certain officers testify before Congress as a routine part of their jobs (Joint Chiefs and/or CINCs) and other do in response to particular issues or inquiries. When called, they can and do give their opinion (and/or the Administration's position) in response to Congressional questioning. They are also supposed to give their opinions up the chain to the Administration.

But the military has no business being placed out in the political fray that way. It not only undermines the principal of civilian control, but the idea that the military is professionally non-partisan. It is, after all, their job to do their best to implement whatever batshit policies the civilians pass.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Chris Bowers notes that 59 percent of Democrats believe that John Edwards is proposing to withdraw all US forces from Iraq within nine months. 71 percent believe that Barack Obama is proposing to do this. And 76 (!) percent believe Hillary Clinton is proposing to do so. Needless to say, none of them are, in fact, proposing anything of the sort -- though I wish they would.

Yglesias

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• Chris Bowers notes that 59 percent of Democrats believe that John Edwards is proposing to withdraw all US forces from Iraq within nine months. 71 percent believe that Barack Obama is proposing to do this. And 76 (!) percent believe Hillary Clinton is proposing to do so. Needless to say, none of them are, in fact, proposing anything of the sort -- though I wish they would.

Yglesias

I could take this several ways. My first impression is, I'd like to able able to say I'm shocked, and that I'd expect better comprehension of the issues from voters.

But actually, I'd agree with those numbers. Fits into my "2/3 to 3/4 of humans are idiots" worldview.*

*To gain a great perspective on why we're particularly stupid in this country, check out the article in this month's GQ (Obama on the cover) with "Megaphone" in its title. It's a great piece by some professor or analyst about how the media's destroyed the concept of intelligent debate. This is not a standard Fox or CNN bashing piece. It's got some neat angles and I really enjoyed it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I could take this several ways. My first impression is, I'd like to able able to say I'm shocked, and that I'd expect better comprehension of the issues from voters.

You'd think that Edwards (say) would see an opening to differentiate himself from the other two on this issue by taking a position more in tune with the primary voters. If none of the candidates is going to run to the left of those three, then it's no wonder why voters don't know this.

Though maybe Kucinich and Gravel are, but no one noticed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You'd think that Edwards (say) would see an opening to differentiate himself from the other two on this issue by taking a position more in tune with the primary voters. If none of the candidates is going to run to the left of those three, then it's no wonder why voters don't know this.

Though maybe Kucinich and Gravel are, but no one noticed.

So you think decisions on war should be made by Senators, and Senators should frame their opinions based upon how they could best get votes. And Generals should shut the fuck up.

Wow.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So you think decisions on war should be made by Senators, and Senators should frame their opinions based upon how they could best get votes. And Generals should shut the fuck up.

Wow.

Maybe the reason we argue about stuff here is that your reading comprehension is for shit.